Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

View Full Version : Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

Post Reply

Create New Thread

PhiloNysh

10-05-03, 11:37 AM

I have often heard of people worrying about Global warming. But others (specifically Geologists) have told me that it is of no concern, as the world has been hotter.

But is that the case? Has not people had any influence in changing the world's temperature, due to the increase of Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide?

Give your opinion here, and a reason.

A Canadian

10-05-03, 05:04 PM

green house gasses are natural (volcanos for instance), but not the main source of green house gases to date (polution burnin up our ozone layers)

but from what i heard green house gasses are going down thurout the world
im not concerned

and2000x

10-07-03, 07:34 PM

Humans only contribute about 1% of the green house problem. The rest is usually from natural cause. Eventually the earth is going to go Venus style. Greens should spend more time worrying about actual problems: in the last 10 years, 80% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed :( and deforestation is so bad I can't give an estimate.

guthrie

10-09-03, 03:21 AM

I thought part of the coral bleaching was due to the earth warming up. So whether its man caused or not, global warming is an environmental concern. The other problem I see is that if htings get warmer, like they have done before, they did so before there were all these humans and their habitats etc about, thus restricting the reange of animals and plants etc that would otherwise survive the warming by changing their range, ie moving further north or further up the hillside.

Actually, I dont see how the earth is supposed to go Venus style unless you mean when the sun starts running out of fuel, and swells in size. As long as theres life on the planet, therell be feedback mechanisms helping to take care of things.

Quasi

10-29-03, 02:45 PM

Deforestation? There are a lot more forests today than 80 years ago. Also, only 15% of rain forests have been lost in the past 500 years. Predictions based on current forest growth show there will be yet more forest cover in the world as we go along in time. As for GW, yep it is happening, but global cooling and climate change in general is bad in extremes. We will continue to benefit up to 2-3 more degrees celsius, then bad. A similar decrease, however would be much worse. No one knows exactly how much is caused by humans or by non-human intervention.

Faith the Thinker

11-10-03, 12:22 PM

Wait, what the hell are you saying, there are more forests today than 80 years ago? We are starting to strip away a ton of forests at places that had stayed relatively untouched for thousands of years.

About Globabl Warming, its a big problem guys.
Weather is becoming more extreme with many records being set these days. As well, have you guys heard about the various news story of all the ice melting on glaciers and in the north pole.

If enough of that melts then low lying land areas will be covered with water, fine for the fish, bad for the land based life there, and bad for us. It won't be fast enough to drown people so they will be able to walk away from the devastation but there's going to be a lot more people (7 billion and counting) in less space and if we have problems currently with as much land as we do have then we are looking at chaos in the future.

Coral bleaching occured because too much fertelizer is washed into the oceans from farm operations if i remember correctly.
Actually, I dont see how the earth is supposed to go Venus style unless you mean when the sun starts running out of fuel, and swells in size. As long as theres life on the planet, therell be feedback mechanisms helping to take care of things.

k, right now we live in a fairly stable biologically balanced earth. And no matter what life will go on, unless we blow the planet up from the center even if we were to use nukes life would go on, eventually. But for us global warming is a major danger because its going to cause a lot of people with nothing to riot and start going nuts. If we dont have enough food, water, then people all over the world will start to die and they'll fight to take it from people that do have it because they have nothing left to lose.

So the future looks interesting, get educated about global warming and do what you can to change the trend. Otherwise, get ready for a fun time ahead.

Edufer

11-12-03, 01:00 AM

1) Warming is happenig, of course (0.6º C since 1850)

2) That increase is well into the natural warming expected from a rebound from the Little Ice Age (1450-1860). Man has nothing to do with it.

3) The Medieval Warm period of 800 AD - 1300 AD was 2.0º C warmer than today. This period was known by climatologists as the "Little Climatic Optimum", becasue that seems to be the best temperature on Earth for living creatures (vegetal or animal). That alone should discredit the "catastrophic" view pushed by the IPCC and other "Apocalyptics".

4) CO2 concentratrions during the Cretaceus period were in the range of 2,600 to 6,000 ppm (now we are at 370 ppm) but according to proxy studies temperatures were just 1.5º C higher than present.

4) That gives the clue for scientists to say CO2 is a poor "greenhouse gas", contributing to the "greenhouse effect" with barely 3,5%.

5) The main "greenhouse gas" is water vapor, taking into account for about 95% of the "greenhouse effect".

6) The famous "runaway greenhouse" in Venus, is due not to CO2 concentration, but to the density of its atmosphere, having 90 times more pressure than Earth's atomsphere, and its being much closer to the Sun. Earth is just lucky to have been formed at its present distance from the Sun. A mere 5% difference - on either side - would have made us into another Venus or another Mars.

7) Earth`s climate is <v>driven by the Sun's energy output, nothing else. As the solar cycles varies, so does the climate. When sunspots are high (as now) energy output is high, and temperature on Earth increases.

8) When sunspots are low (as during the double Maunder and Spoerer Minima in the 1500s) temperature goes down abruptly (the Little Ice Age).

9) By the year 2030 there will be another double minimum: the double Gleissberg Minimum, that will bring Earth's temperature down to those exerienced in the 16th Century. We'll freeze!

10) The 20th Century was not the warmest in the last 1000 years as the IPCC wants us to believe. Their "global wamring" theory is just hot air. Please see the facts:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm

See the study here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

And why not?, go here and have fun: http://www.john-daly.com/

More facts on subsequent posts -- if you are still interested.

Craig Smith

12-03-03, 03:36 PM

I believe we are experiencing simultaneously a regular climactic irregularity (I couldn't resist that phrase) as well as a destabilized concept brought on by global warming as a result of unchecked industrial expansion. We may not for some time have any confirmed evidence that makes it 100% clear in a Biblical sense that global warming is a real problem, but at that point, it will be too late to do anything but put on our corporate survival suits.

Edufer

12-07-03, 05:50 PM

<CENTER>Hotter Sun = Warmer Earth</center>
Satellites measure the radiation of the sun directly, and newly published data shows the sun has been getting hotter in recent years. The impact of the sun on global climate is an issue that is scarcely addressed by the IPCC, who basically don't want to know about it as it would mean an acknowledgement that recent climatic trends are caused by the sun, not to greenhouse gases. The belief by the greenhouse industry that the sun has no significant effect on climate is just too absurd and is a measure of its collective incompetence.

Here is the chart published by our beloved NASA, of solar radiation reaching Earth as measured by their satellites.

<CENTER><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/sun-irradiation.jpg"></CENTER>

According to <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/nasa_radiation_031201.html">Space.com</a>, "the recent trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) ... was measured between successive solar minima that occur approximately every 11 years." As the chart shows, the solar minimum of the mid-1990s was hotter than the previous minimum of the mid-1980s.

Solar minima provide the opportunity for the Earth to "cool off" after the enhanced radiation of a solar maximum; however, the strong radiation of the 1990s minimum has kept earth's climate "on the boil" so to speak.

How much warmth are we talking about here? The average energy shown above of 1,366 watts/m2 results in a global average of 387 watts/m2 absorbed by the planet after deduction for reflected radiation. An increase of 0.05% equates to an increase of 0.77 watts/m2 in radiation absorbed by the earth (0.2% of 387 watts/m2). The Stefan-Boltzmann Law which relates radiant energy to temperature gives a temperature increase without feedbacks of 0.1°C.

That doesn't sound like much, but the same time period is covered by the satellite temperature record of the lower troposphere, measured by NOAA's satellites. See graph:

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/NASA.GIF" width=500 height=200></center>

This record shows a global warming over the same period of 0.076°C per decade. Since the record spans 25 years, this gives a total global warming over a full quarter-century, as measured by the satellites, of 0.076 x 2.5 = 0.19°C.

That means that more than half the warming measured by satellites over the last 25 years is explainable exclusively by the sun (assuming no feedbacks), leaving only 0.09°C unexplained. If some positive feedbacks are assumed (as claimed by the IPCC), then the entire warming over the last quarter century is explainable by the sun alone.

If no feedbacks are assumed, then the small residual warming might or might not be attributable to greenhouse gases, but its magnitude suggests that even after 100 years, greenhouse warming will amount to little more than a few tenths of a degree, not the whole degrees claimed by the IPCC and the incompetent science it leads.

With such trivial warmings on offer, there is absolutely no reason for countries to impoverish themselves with draconian energy rationing or desecrate whole landscapes and seascapes with ugly, inefficient windmills in a vain attempt to head off a big warming that simply won't happen.

We might also ask - what will happen to global climate when the sun inevitably goes into a cooler phase as it did 350 years ago during the Little Ice Age? Greenhouse gases will be but a feeble buffer to the resulting cooling.

This a scientific evidence that is irrefutable. It is pure good old physics. I know many people hate it, but "Journalism is saying something that somebody does not want it to be known. The rest is propaganda".

ElectricFetus

12-07-03, 05:53 PM

If humens wish to continue living on the planet then it is our concern no matter the cause.

David Mayes

12-30-03, 12:53 AM

[i]Originally posted by PhiloNysh [/]
[]I have often heard of people worrying about Global warming. But others (specifically Geologists) have told me that it is of no concern, as the world has been hotter.

Hi PhiloNysh{not having a go at you btw}

The geologists you spoke to must have been intoxicated.
Anyone who wants to properly understand this issue, must consider it in it's context, ie, today, with 6 billion approaching 9-10billion people and covering most of the livable parts of the earth.

The proper question one should be asking is: What are the dangers associated with this rate of warming with this many people.

But is that the case? Has not people had any influence in changing the world's temperature, due to the increase of Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide?

Sure, and GHG theory explains and predicts this, ie, if we alter an internal climate mechanism{the atmospheric composition}, we will delay the release of radiation, this delayed radiation adds to the global energy budget, and manifests itself as heat and weather{NO atmosphere=NO weather}.

Now they way science works is this, you rely on your UNDISPUTED theories{which GHG is}, you make your observations, and you make your predictions based on the Undisputed theories at your disposal.
This is what The IPCC have done (http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html) .

And they've presented the SCIENCE for your perusal (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm)

Sane and rational people don't waste much time with junk science btw, and until the IPCC say otherwise, we have to take their word or call ALL of science into question.

And of course AGW is one aspect of our current global insanity with regard to our degradation of the biosphere{our life support system}.
Next IPCC report is due in 2006.

Pronatalist

01-01-04, 08:44 PM

Even if the climate did become hotter, that doesn't mean it is in any worse shape. It might even be better for humans. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to bundle up in heavy winter coats and scarves?

What about the possible benefits I heard of a long time ago?

A longer growing season to grow more crops to feed more people.

Less fuel burned to heat our homes.

More of the globe at comfortably warm temperatures so growing human populations could spread closer to the poles of the planet and over a lot more land. Siberia could be warmer and more inviting for habitation. So could Canada.

Perhaps they are afraid that "global warming" might make the climate more friendly to humans, so we would have all the more room to grow in population? Notice how they attack harmless CO2, because it is involved in much energy production, so they can make people poorer, and more dependent on government? Plants need CO2 to grow. We even put it in our soda pop.

Besides, "global warming" and "ozone depletion" are pseudo-science hearsay hoaxes. Not a shred of conclusive evidence to support either.

David Mayes

01-01-04, 10:12 PM

Besides, "global warming" and "ozone depletion" are pseudo-science hearsay hoaxes. Not a shred of conclusive evidence to support either

Your post was one of the most ignorant I've ever read, in fact I can't believe any reasonable person could ever reach so many stupid conclusions, thus I'm assuming you're either a troll or on the fossil fool payroll.

The IPCC's 2500 scientists have done a mega-peer-review, I gave you link above, read it.
Also, the most prestigious science academy in the world, The United States National Academy of Sciences said in 2000, "Global Warming is a scientific principle no longer needing debate, but discussion relating to mitigating action".

The IPCC's work has also been endorsed by many of the worlds science academies.

Repo Man

01-01-04, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Pronatalist
Even if the climate did become hotter, that doesn't mean it is in any worse shape. It might even be better for humans. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to bundle up in heavy winter coats and scarves?

What about the possible benefits I heard of a long time ago?

A longer growing season to grow more crops to feed more people.

Less fuel burned to heat our homes.

And melted icecaps leading to higher sea levels, crowding out the millions of people now living there, and flooding some of the worlds most productive farmland.
More fuel burned to cool homes in the summer.

More southern and mid latitude diseases and parasites moving farther north.

More of the globe at comfortably warm temperatures so growing human populations could spread closer to the poles of the planet and over a lot more land. Siberia could be warmer and more inviting for habitation. So could Canada.

Perhaps they are afraid that "global warming" might make the climate more friendly to humans, so we would have all the more room to grow in population? Notice how they attack harmless CO2, because it is involved in much energy production, so they can make people poorer, and more dependent on government? Plants need CO2 to grow. We even put it in our soda pop.

Besides, "global warming" and "ozone depletion" are pseudo-science hearsay hoaxes. Not a shred of conclusive evidence to support either.

No one with any scientific credibility now doubts that the globe is getting gradually warmer. The debate is only over what is causing it.

Their could be benefits, but it appears that any benefits would be more than made up for by disastrous consequences.
Climate is so complex, there is no way to be sure at this point. Or probably at any time in the near future.

I suppose you think those Granolas at NASA are making it all up?

From 2000
Ozone Hole Gapes, Despite CFC Decline

After 13 years of government regulation, concentrations of those ozone-depleting molecules known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are finally declining in the lower atmosphere and leveling off in the stratosphere. Yet NASA satellites recently detected the largest ozone hole ever recorded--three times larger than the United States--looming over Antarctica. Factors other than CFCs are also contributing heavily to ozone destruction.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00008E72-4CB8-1C63-B882809EC588ED9F&catID=1

* Note; I am not really arguing with Pronatalist. I know it is pointless, he is in fact quite insane.
I'm rebutting his arguments for others who might think he has a shred of credibility.

Pronatalist, I suspect you are a creationist. If you think that there is inadequate proof for Evolution, then obviously the non dogmatic uncertainty of climatologists will fail to persuade you.

So why are you here?

Edufer

01-02-04, 01:17 AM

<center>What Satellite Records Reveal

<IMG height=3 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/spectrum.gif" width=80% border=0>

Introduction</center>
<dir>We have an excellent, well reviewed and verified record of temperature changes in the troposphere for the period since MSU Microwave Sounding Units satellites were launched back in 1979. This record allow us to make two things:

<dir>1. See were errors are located in surface temperature records.

2. Determine if temperature changes are caused by greenhouse gases. </dir>

First, data. Here are shown temperature changes, as recorded by both, MSU satellites and surface weather stations.  The graph shows temperature changes from the North Pole to the South Pole, divided in latitude bands 10º in width.

<center><IMG height=261 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/image1.jpg" width=499 border=0>Source: data MSU by < <A href="http://www.co2science.com/temperatures/msu.htm">http://www.co2science.com/temperatures/msu.htm</A> > Surface data by Jones et. al, < <A href="http://www.co2science.com/temperatures/jones.htm">http://www.co2science.com/temperatures/jones.htm</A> ></center>

First, we are going to see what this reveals us about temperature records.

Errors in the surface temperature records

MSU data have been rigorously examined in order to establishing its absolute accuracy. On the other hand, surface temperature records have an enormous amount of problems, and have never been audited for determinig the bad information. It suffers from a lack of global coverage, distortion by the "urban heat island effect", data erroneoulsy taken, and changes in the instrumentation.

1) LACK of COVERAGE

<CENTER><IMG height=270 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/Esche2.jpg" width=320 border=0>
Source: Surface data by Jones et. al,  < <A href="http://www.co2science.com/temperatures/jones.htm">http://www.co2science.com/temperatures/jones.htm</A> ></center>

1) The lack of coverage problem is shown by a big peak in the surface temperature records between 60ºS and 70ºS. This is clearly an artifact, because the peak is too high to be real, and because both satellites and ground stations show that there has been a cooling on both sides of the peak.

This is confirmed by a detailed examination to see where the peak is located. It is in the band between 60ºS and 75ºS.

The reason for this peak can be seen in any world map. Virtually, the whole band from 60ºS to 65ºS is open sea - where there are no weather stations. The few stations in firm ground in that band are in the Antarctic Peninsula, one of the few areas in the world that is warming (most of Antarctica is cooling).

This is a problem of lack of coverage -- the warming for a small portion (2% of Antarctica) is claimed as representative of a whole latitude band, in this case a band we know from satellite readings, it is cooling. While this is only a small example, the same problem extends to the surface temperature record. About 75% of the Earth is covered by oceans, and ground stations do not cover the oceans at all.

2) URBAN WARMING

Contamination of records by urban warming becomes visible if we ignore the erroneous peak between 60ºS and 70ºS. The peak absent, surface and satellite records are in general agreement from the North Pole down to 50ºN, and from 40ºS to the South Pole. In the areas between polar regions, however, surface temperature records are consistently warmer than satellite records.

Since the majority of cities on Earth are in these medium latitudes, these erroneously high temperatures are the highly probable result of urban warming. Although efforts have been made to correct the data in order to eliminate the urban warming adjusting temperature records based on population in cities, there is no evidence that these efforts had succeded. On the contrary, the fact is satellite data on medium latitudes show these efforts have failed.

The only way to eliminate these urban warming errors would be examine all and every one of ground stations to determine if conditions in the station area have changed. Even in a small town, the building of a power generating utility close to the weather station, or something as little as the growth of trees surrounding the station, will increase the local temperature. there is no way for correcting this based on population counts -- one muest go to all and any station and check the surroundings. It goes without saying, this effort has not been done.

3) BAD DATA

In certain parts of the world, data gathering is erratic, and sometimes contain deliberate errors. In the Russian Siberian areas, por instance, cities and villages used to get money from the Russian central government based on their temperatures - if the weather was colder, more money was given to them for compensating the increased fuel costs for fighting the cold. This gave the people an incentive for reporting false low temperatures.

With the fall of the Soviet empire in the late 80s, however, this practice ended. This change in policy can be seen clearly in the ground weather stations records of those regions:

Notice the radical change at the late 80s. This problem has not been corrected in surface temperature records, so the Russian ground records show as if there was a huge warming between the late 1980s and today. However, the new data, this time real, show a strong decreasing trend.<center><IMG height=223 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/image3.jpg" width=380 border=0> Source: Surface temperature data by Jones et. al, <A href="http://www.co2science.com/temperatures/jones.htm">http://www.co2science.com/temperatures/jones.htm</A></CENTER>

However, far from showing a warming trend, the surface record show that from 1930 until late 1980s there was no significant warming in this region, and that temperatures decreased slightly since 1990 to present days.

4) CHANGES in INSTRUMENTATION
Surface temperature records have also not been audited regarding changes in instrumentation. These changes include change of thermometers, and the instalation of automatic recording devices (they give a higher reading because the cabinet door is never opened), and changes in the station location. As an example, this is the Vardo, Norway, station record:<center>

<IMG height=256 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/Esche6.jpg" width=522 border=0></center>

Clearly, something happened in 1920 that resulted in a sudden rise in temperatures reported at Vardo. We don't know which was the change there, if it was a new thermometer or the station displacement to a new location, but the result is more than evident.

Without correction, the average surface temperature record shows erroneously almost a full degree centigrade increase in a century. After the correction, the increase is barely 0,12º C in 100 years.

Summing up, satellite records highlight the great amount of problems that ground station records have, revealing some errors directly, and pointing indireclty to others. Considering this, the surface temperature records cannot be considered reliable.
Warming and Greenhouse Gases

In addition to some errors revealed in surface temperature data, satellite data can also tell us something about the observed change in temperatures.

<center><IMG height=260 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/image4.jpg" width=497 border=0></center>

Here is the satellite data, along with the trend line for the data:

There are a pair of noteworthy items shown in this graph. Firstly, temperature increased more in the north, and less in the south. In fact, Antarctic regions, from 50ºS down to the South Pole, have cooled,not warmed.

This support the idea that the warming is not caused by CO2, because the greenhouse gases theory predicts a greater temperature increase in colder regions. This has not happened, and in a very clear way by all means, and this real result (cooling in the south, warming in the north) is not predicted by any computer model used by the IPCC.

For instance, the IPCC says that "It is expected that Polar environmental changes will be greater than for other places in Earth". (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.5).", and "The projected warming in Polar regions is greater than the projected warming for many other regions in the world". <A href="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/508.htm">http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/508.htm</A>

However, both surface station and satellite records agree that this "prophesized" South Pole warming has not taken place.

Second: tropics are areas of great worrying if the "global warming" were occurring, since those regions already are the warmest on the planet. Any additional warming there would be a danger for those regions. But, far from warming, tropical regions have cooled during the last 24 years. again, this has not been foreseen by any computer model used by the "greenhouse industry". Here is a graph of the areas in the world that have warmed and those who have cooled:

<center><IMG height=340 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/image5A.gif" width=470 border=0>Source: Graph by RSS Temperatures by Christy, <A href="http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/">http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/</A></center>

It must be noted that the RSS graph above uses color in a subtle and misleading way. The light and dark reds really mean little or NO warming. Colors in the graph create a perception of a generalized warming (by a subconscious association with fire and heat), and many people will not notice the color bar at the bottom of the graph, that says red really means "no change"!)

Note by Eduardo Ferreyra - president of FAEC, Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology: Using a graphic design program, such as Corel's "Photo Paint", I have used the menu function "Image > Adjuste > hue/saturation/density", to automatic and proportionally shift the color scale towards values that provide a better visual idea (more real) of temperature changes shown in the graph. The "subconscious" hot red has disappeared, being replaced by a dark blue shade, and the "real" warming is represented by by purple shades, that shows more clearly the regions that have really warmed. It should be noted, also, that black means cooling, and black, along with dark and medium blues (no change) are predominant. Compare with the color bar at the bottom.

<center><IMG height=340 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/image5B.gif" width=470 border=0>

¿Do you see any catastrophic warming here?</center>

Summary:


Although the MSU satellite is only a short 24 years record there is not a single indication that there might be occurring a 2warming by greenhouse". The pattern for the present warming (shown above) it is not predicted by IPCC's computerized simulations for warming by CO2 and other grenhouse gases increase.

The entire satellite data for the whole world shows a warming during the 1979-2002 period of just 0.005º C by year, or 0.5º C in a century. This is, by far, much less than "prophesized" by the IPCC's "global warming" hypothesis for the recorded period, that was characterized by massive CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

This demonstrates that there is no "global warming", as it demonstrates that there is no anomalous warming. Satellite records, the best available information we have, show the present warming trend - half a degree Celsius by century - is well within the range shown for the last few hundred years.

Addendum by FAEC:

Hohenpeissenberg Station

The Hohenpeissenberg weather station is located in the Bavarian Alps, south of Germany, and has kept temperature records - in the obsessive German tradition for accuracy - for an uninterrupted span of 222 years. According to its records, the chart below plots temperatures and the resulting trend of 0.6º C in 222 years, or 0.3º C by century. Hohenpeissenberg is located in a region that has remained virtually unaltered by industrial or urban development, so it is a surface station that does not suffer from "urban warming".

This is not just a "single station in the Alps", but one of thousand of stations around the world that can be used to show there is not a catastrophic trend. But the Hohenpeissenberg station is the one with the longest reliable data available, in is paradigmatic in the case of temperature trends. Trying to dismiss it, is acknowledging this data is too dangerous for the Apocalyptic predictions of the IPCC.

The graph also show the reason why the IPCC and their supporters have chosen 1879-1880 as their starting point for the trend in their graphs: it was the coldest year in many years, and a very convenient point for starting a trend that would show "significant" warming.

But seeing the picture in a wider time scale - 222 years - the trend is reduced to 0,3ºC by century, well within the natural variation induced by a more active Sun.

<center><IMG height=340 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/Hohen1781A.gif" width=550 border=0></center>

The lower temperatures in 1829 and 1816 (The Year Without a Summer - the Tambora volcano eruption of 1815, on the island of Sumbawa), were too far on the time scale, and would not render a steep warming trend as 1880 does. Clever (and dishonest people) out there.

The case has been presented with enough hard facts and sound reliable data available from the provided references and links.

<center><IMG height=3 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/spectrum.gif" width=80% border=0>

David Mayes

01-02-04, 01:37 AM

My understanding is that the CO2 science site is considered as junk science, and furthermore, you want US to believe that the IPCC{2500 experts}, The United States National Academy of Sciences and the various other Academies that have endorsed the IPCC's work are wrong and on the say so of a junk science website.

I believe September 2003 was the hottest on instrumental record, and I think{not certain}, that October was also a record.

Edufer

01-02-04, 01:59 AM

Do you also believe in Santa Claus, UFOs and Chemtrail sprayings, don't you? :D

David Mayes

01-02-04, 02:07 AM

Do you also believe in Santa Claus, UFOs and Chemtrail sprayings, don't you?

Nahhh, just prefer our elite scientists and the undisputed theories at our disposal, rather than junk science sites.

Repo Man

01-02-04, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Edufer
Do you also believe in Santa Claus, UFOs and Chemtrail sprayings, don't you? :D

Strawman fallacy (http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/strawman.asp)

David Mayes

01-02-04, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Repo Man
Strawman fallacy (http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/strawman.asp)

You got him Repo, may as well go the whole hoggCritical thinking, rational debate+ full list of logical fallacies (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31709)

Edufer

01-02-04, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by David Mayes
Nahhh, just prefer our elite scientists and the undisputed theories at our disposal, rather than junk science sites. Undisputed theories? Creating a body of technicians (not scientists) that get into a closed sanctuary, close the door and refuse to hear real life facts from real scientists - and claim there is a consensus? You really made me laugh!

Well, I would say the following paper by Monnin et al., (fully peer-reviewed by Science) says what you don't like to hear: CO2 is not an important factor in warming. Worse, its increases lag behind the warming. So, the conclusion is: Natural warming cause CO2 increase, and not the opposite. (Thanks to Monin et al.)

<center>Temperature-to-CO2 Proved
(19 April 2001)</center>
Some studies get the full media treatment because they support global warming claims. The others just get ignored.

A recent paper titled `Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination' by Monnin et al. appeared without fanfare in Science, vol.291, p.112, 5 Jan 2001, and addressed a long-standing point of contention between promoters and sceptics of global warming.

During the transition from the last Ice Age to our present Interglacial (or warm period), did rising CO2 cause temperatures to rise, or did rising temperatures cause CO2 to rise? Global warming promoters frequently claimed or implied the former as a means to `prove' that CO2 really can warm the planet.

Although it has been known for a long time that CO2 changes were correlated with temperature changes, the question as to which causes which has been a controversial issue. No more. We now know for sure.

<IMG height=474 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/lag-time.gif" width=436 border=1>

The authors examined samples from a recent ice core extracted from the Concordia Dome in Antarctica (75°06'S 123°24'E) in 1999, and which has provided a better dating resolution than previous Antarctic or Greenland cores. According to the authors,
<dir>"We found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the dD (temperature) increase by 800 ± 600 years, taking the uncertainties of the gas-ice age difference and the determination of the increases into account." Even allowing for error factors in the time resolution, the temperature-to-CO2 sequence was quite clear.</dir>The above graph (colour indicators added for clarity) shows the relationship between temperature, CO2 and methane during the Glacial-Interglacial transition, the temperature clearly leading CO2 (three matched transitions shown by blue arrows). The `YD' refers to the `Younger Dryas' cooling episode and `BA' refers to the `Bølling/Allerød' warming episode, both in the North Atlantic and mainly affecting methane. Since temperature clearly leads CO2, that means the rise in temperature caused the rise in CO2.

Notice also that at the start point of the Holocene period 10,600 years ago, CO2 had risen sharply during the immediate previous centuries, with no apparent effect on temperature which had already levelled out a thousand years earlier. [b]That suggests that CO2 has only a very weak effect on climate.

If you first learned about these new findings here, thank the media - they only run stories that promote warming.

David Mayes

01-02-04, 03:25 AM

IPCC formed in 1988, they've released 3 or 4 major assessments, these assessments where made after reviewing in excess of 20 000 research papers and IPCC has been backed by NAS+ other scientific academies and a variety of climatic instituitions in the world including the US itself.

Co2 science is considered a junk site, I don't rely on their interpretations ahead of the IPCC and NAS.
Australia's CSIRO has also endorsed the IPCC and the need for sustainable living.

Edufer

01-02-04, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by David Mayes
Co2 science is considered a junk site, I don't rely on their interpretations ahead of the IPCC and NAS.
Australia's CSIRO has also endorsed the IPCC and the need for sustainable living. You and the IPCC supporters consider it a junk site. No doubt. It is quite clear you consider junk anything contraficting your views. But Monnin et al., paper was peer-reviewd in Science magazine, a devoted journal of IPCC followers - and the IPCC could say nothing about it. And it was not published by CO2 science site!

Your religious belief in the IPCC mantra cannot be harmed by any scientific fact or peer-reviewd paper. Science and religion do not make good partners. Too bad for you.

David Mayes

01-02-04, 04:20 AM

You and the IPCC supporters consider it a junk site. No doubt. It is quite clear you consider junk anything contraficting your views. But Monnin et al., paper was peer-reviewd in Science magazine, a devoted journal of IPCC followers - and the IPCC could say nothing about it.

One paper can't overcome the 20 000+ that the IPCC have reviewed, the credibility of that mega-peer-review process via endorsement from the NAS and various other scientific academies.

Your religious belief in the IPCC mantra cannot be harmed by any scientific fact or peer-reviewd paper. Science and religion do not make good partners. Too bad for you

Time to face facts boy: the worlds elite have spoken and more and more evidence is being compiled, more and more AGW fingerprints are being found and the world continues to heat as per the heating trend as predicted by the altering of the internal climate mechanism, the atmospheric composition.

Science =explain and predict, GHG theory has done this for you and 1000's of experts agree including the the prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences.

Edufer

01-02-04, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by David Mayes
One paper can't overcome the 20 000+ that the IPCC have reviewed, the credibility of that mega-peer-review process via endorsement from the NAS and various other scientific academies.
The IPCC has reviewd +20,000 papers that have been saying what they want to hear. But has not reviewd +100,000 papers that say the opposite.

And ONE well done and accurate paper will throw to the garbage can +1 million biased and flawed papers.
Time to face facts boy: the worlds elite have spoken and more and more evidence is being compiled, more and more AGW fingerprints are being found and the world continues to heat as per the heating trend as predicted by the altering of the internal climate mechanism, the atmospheric composition. The world elite is divided in two. One says the IPCC hypothesis is correct. The other one says the IPCC is wrong. Both elites have spoken and have not reached a consensus - there is no such thing as consensus in science, there only opinions based on hypothesis, and you should know better. Hypothesis must be proved, and IPCC's hypothesis has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Heating trend predicted by flawed models? The IPCC based its 2001 Technical Report and Summary for Policymakers on the infamous paper by Mann et al., known today as the "Hockey Stick", to say:

1) World's climate for the last 1000 years was steady, with no significant uprise or decrease in temperatures, dismissing this way the existence of two tremendous climatic periods: the Medieval Warm Period (also known as the "Climatic Optimum) that started about 800 AD and finished about 1350 AD, and the following cold period known as "The Little Ice Age", roughly from 1350 AD to 1650 AD.

This paper has been recently reviewed and audited by professors Stepehen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and have shown Mann's paper to be flawed and totally WRONG. See the details of this sordid issue of corrupt peer-reivew in here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html "Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series", paper published in Energy and Environment (England) that can be reached at: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm.

Energy and Environment says in the opening page: "This paper has the power to radically change the debate over man-made global warming. Because of its potential importance we are posting it separately from the rest of the issue of Energy and Environment (volume 14 number 6) in which it appears, and giving open access to it, so that everyone who has an interest in these matters is able to read it and assess it for themselves."

So this paper has the potential to throw to the garbage can all IPCC's +20,000 mamooth peer-reviewed studies. How nice!

2) IPCC used this paper to claim the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years. According to thousands of peer-reviewd studies on proxies from all over the world, it has been proved that IPCC's claim is a blatant LIE.
Science =explain and predict, GHG theory has done this for you and 1000's of experts agree including the the prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences. [/B]It seems you all well versed on global warming politics, as you have only referred to press releses and claims by the IPCC. As for your previous posts, it seems to me that your trainging and knowledge on climatology amounts to nil.

But even so, your knowledge about the way the IPCC is formed and conducts its behaviour is quite vague. The IPCC is not a scientific organization: it is a political one, formed by delegates from governments all over the world. This makes it entirely political.

The IPCC gathers information from several thousands scientists all over the world, that made researches and a special group of scientists prepare the Final Draft for the IPCC to evaluate. Then, the political bureaucrats in the IPCC takes that DRAFT and makes the FINAL REPORT, erasing everything that opposes their hypothesis of a catastrophic warming, and the Old Litany. They change what the scientists say in their Draft and adds what it is convenient to their goals.

This same procedure was performed by the National Academy of Sciences, when referring to the infamous claim: ."a discernible human influence", and Dr. Richard Lindzen , a former president of the NAS, and one of the scientists that made the DRAFT report to the NAS, came out shouthing: "That is not what we said in our report!". As the IPCC, the NAS political officials had completely changed the DRAFT and said what suited their interests. Shameful!

See what Dr. Lindzen said about the IPCC Final Report of 2001, (he was one of the chief contributors to the DRAFT report to the IPCC) in this link: Richard Lindzen (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/RichardLindzen.html) It will shake your beliefs

Edufer

01-02-04, 11:46 AM

An opening remark by Prof. Lindzen in the link given above:

"I hope it will become clear that the designation, 'skeptic,' simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as 'skeptics' permits others to appear 'mainstream' while denying views held by the so-called 'skeptics' even when these views represent the predominant views of the field."

Edufer

01-02-04, 12:16 PM

The Greenhouse Delusion
A Critique of "Climate Change 2001"
by Vincent Gray
published August 2002 • ISBN 0 906522 14 5 • pp. 95 • £11.50

Dr Gray's stimulating monograph sets out to challenge the consensus over global warming. As the title suggests, his particular target is the 2001 reports of IPCC Working Groups I, II, and III. Dr Gray argues that while the IPCC has provided a wealth of scientific information on climate, it has not convincingly made its case that increases in carbon dioxide levels are occurring and that increase will have harmful effects. Among his several lines of attack are reflections on the quality and reliability of measurements; views on what weight should be given to different influences on the earth's temperature; the validity of computer modelling in this context.

It is that the 'IPCC consensus' can be so challenged that makes Gray's monograph important, and essential reading for all seriously interested in the issues surrounding climate change and their consequences. If he is right, or even only half-right, that the IPCC consensus relies on poor science and inadequate reasoning, then the policy decisions beginning to flow from that consensus are themselves flawed too. Has gray identified a 'Black Hole' into which millions of public money and future research is being poured?

Dr VINCENT GRAY is a research scientist with a wide experience in five countries (UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China), in laboratories studying petroleum, plastics, coal, timber, building, and forensic science. He has published widely and for the past 12 years he has specialized in climate science. He is an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Edufer

01-02-04, 01:27 PM

From Table of Fallacies (your link, buddy) ALL of the FALLACIES there applies to the IPCC hypothesis. Just see.

Tainted Simple
Description: This is the fallacy that occurs when an experiment is conducted in a manner that causes the phenomenon to be observed to be changed by the observation. This includes, asking "loaded" questions on a survey, giving other visual or auditory clues that indicate a preferred answer, or even trying to make observations of people who know they are being observed.

Experimenter Bias
Description: The argument draws a conclusion from data that has been influenced by the expectations and hopes of the person collecting the data. In most cases this influence is unconscious and unintentional, but there have also been cases of outright fraud. Bad data may be due to such mistakes as rounding up or rounding down to favor a certain result, or treating ambiguous results as favoring the preferred result.

Arcane Explanation
Description: The argument proposes an explanation that appeals to causal mechanisms that are not currently or generally accepted. Often the explanation appeals to the activity of entities or beings not generally thought to exist, such as aliens, angels, ghosts, or other spirits, or to mystical forces whose operation is not understood or recognized.

This one is what defines IPCC’s Global Warming Hypothesis:

Non Causa Pro Causa
Description: The argument offers an explanation by citing one event as the cause of another, but the required connection between the two events would need laws of nature that are not generally accepted. There may actually be a causal connection between the two events, but the hypothesis mis-locates it, either getting it backwards, or treating as cause-and-effect two events that are really independent results of a common cause.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Description: The argument offers an explanation by citing one event as the cause of another, but the required connection between the two events would need laws of nature that are not generally accepted. The argument turns on the temporal ordering of the events: A comes before B, so A causes B. In fact, the temporal ordering of the two events is likely to have been merely coincidental, or the result of some further causal factor.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
Description: From a statement of fact, the argument draws a counter-factual claim (i.e. a claim about what would have been true if the stated fact were not true). The argument falsely assumes that any state of affairs can have only one possible cause.

Gambler's Fallacy
Description: The argument attributes the occurrence of an event to causal factors (often of an arcane or vacuous nature) when in fact the event is best described as merely accidental. Based on these presumed causal factors, the reasoner may even attempt to make a prediction or projection about future events.

Over-reporting the Facts
Description: The argument proposes an explanation for a "fact" whose existence is doubtful. The arguer uncritically accepts as true the occurrence of events that are legendary or mythological, mere rumors or exaggerations, and, in any case, uncorroborated and unrepeatable.

Under-reporting the Facts
Description: The argument proposes an arcane explanation for a fact that appears surprising or mysterious only because not all of the relevant accompanying facts have been reported. Usually the additional facts suggest a perfectly ordinary explanation, or that the "surprising" event was due to fraud or trickery, or that it was the predictable result of ordinary statistical frequencies.

These ones relate to your arguments trying to refute my arguments:

Invincible Ignorante
Description: The argument defends a position by simply refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments used against it. In effect, the argument says, "If your arguments are sound, then my position is false. But my position isn't false, so your arguments can't be sound." This is a fallacy of circularity because it assumes what is in question, namely the truth of the position being defended.

Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
Description: The words and phrases used to express the premisses are synonymous with the words and phrases used to express the conclusion. That is, the conclusion merely restates the premisses, with minor changes.

Vicious Circle
Description: The conclusion of the argument is appealed to as one of the truths or principles upon which the argument itself rests.

Example: "Everything the IPCC says is great science. By great science I mean, of course, whatever is done by a great scientific organization; and the IPCC is a great scientific organization. It is a great scientific organization because everything it does is great science."

If you need more, I can bring here all the Fallacies page – with the explanation that applies to you or the IPCC’s hypothesis and kind of work. Don’t try me.

You might get an answer as the one you got in another thread:

(by: one_raven)

What do you expect to get in return?

You fire off ad hominems and expect respect in return?
1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You talk a lot of shit about something you seem to know very little about and don't back it up.
3. You come off as a cocky pompous punk.
4. Fuck off.

David Mayes

01-02-04, 09:25 PM

Your HERO LINDZEN is incompetent (http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3814&method=full)

Researchers: Lindzen's Work Is Flawed

Dissent in the Maelstrom

Maverick meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen keeps right on arguing that human-induced global warming isn't a problem

By DANIEL GROSSMAN
Scientific American, Nov. 2001 Issue

Tom M. L. Wigley, a prominent climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, says it is "demonstrably incorrect" that top researchers are keeping quiet. "The best people in the world," he observes, have contributed to the IPCC report.
Lindzen agrees with the IPCC and most other climate scientists that the world has warmed about 0.5 degree Celsius over the past 100 years or so. He agrees that human activities have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 30 percent. He parts company with the others when it comes to whether these facts are related. It's not that humans have no effect at all on climate. "They do," he admits, though with as much impact on the environment as when "a butterfly shuts its wings."

The IPCC report states that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years" is of human origin. It says that late 20th-century temperatures shot up above anything the earth had experienced in the previous 1,000 years. Michael E. Mann, a geologist at the University of Virginia and a lead author of the IPCC's past-climate chapter, calls the spike "a change that is inconsistent with natural variability." Lindzen dismisses this analysis by questioning the method for determining historical temperatures. For the first 600 years of the 1,000-year chronology, he claims, researchers used tree rings alone to gauge temperature and only those from four separate locations. He calls the method used to turn tree-ring width into temperature hopelessly flawed.

Mann was flabbergasted when I questioned him about Lindzen's critique, which he called "nonsense" and "hogwash." A close examination of the IPCC report itself shows, for instance, that trees weren't the sole source of data -- ice cores helped to reconstruct the temperatures of the first 600 years, too. And trees were sampled from 34 independent sites in a dozen distinct regions scattered around the globe, not four.

In March, Lindzen published what he calls "potentially the most important" paper he's written about negative feedback from water vapor. In it, he concludes that warming would decrease tropical cloud cover. Cloud cover is a complicated subject. Depending on factors that change by the minute, clouds can cool (by reflecting sunlight back into space) or warm (by trapping heat from the earth). Lindzen states that a reduction in tropical cloudiness would produce a marked cooling effect overall and thus serve as a stabilizing negative feedback.

But three research teams say Lindzen's paper is flawed. For example, his research was based on data collected from satellite images of tropical clouds. Bruce A. Wielicki of the NASA Langley Research Center believes that the images were not representative of the entire tropics. Using data from a different satellite, Wielicki and his group conclude, in a paper to appear in the Journal of Climate, that, on balance, warmer tropical clouds would have a slight heating, not a cooling, effect.

Looking back at the past decade of climate science, many researchers say computer models have improved, estimates of past climate are more accurate, and uncertainty is being reduced.
Lindzen is not nearly so sanguine. In his mind the case for global warming is as poor as it was when his crusade began, in 1988. Climate research is, he insists, "heavily polluted by political rhetoric, with evidence remaining extremely weak." To Lindzen, apparently, the earth will take care of itself.

Daniel Grossman is a freelance writer in Watertown, Mass.
Scientific American

Btw Edufer, The MWP was a regional event, GLOBAL warming is about the average Global temperature, this is important as it GHG theory explains and predicts that the GLOBAL ENERGY BUDGET will increase and this will result in more heat....as is observed.

Now if you aren't even aware of this extremely important distinction, I'm hardly surprised your anti with such zealotry.

I REPEAT, don't confuse regional events with GLOBAL averages, these averages reflecting the amount of radiation in the global energy budget.

Also, members of the IPCC have mentioned the 20 000 research papers that were mega-peer-reviewed....who other than YOU is backing up these mysterious 100 000+ papers that have been ignored??????????

Give it up.
1..You're rude and have relied on ad hominen's.
2..You rely on incompetent scientists ahead of 1000's, 1000's who have the backing of the NAS and other international scientific academies.
3...You have a limited understanding of the necessary details of climatology.
4..You accuse the IPCC of a political bias whilst being ignorant of the basic details of climatology, allowing you to make basic errors, such as thinking the MWP is of global significance.

Pronatalist

01-03-04, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Repo Man
And melted icecaps leading to higher sea levels, crowding out the millions of people now living there, and flooding some of the worlds most productive farmland.

Didn't they say that rises in sea level would be minor? A few inches or a few feet? When ice melts, it contracts, not expands. A glass filled to the brim with water with ice floating in it, won't spill as the ice melts. So where is the "millions of people being crowded out?" Besides, how many more BILLIONS of people might be able to live instead, supposedly leading to the "global warming" to begin with? Isn't the "greater good" to benefit the billions, rather than a few million rich people with beachfront property awaiting the next hurricane to fall into the ocean anyways?

Originally posted by Repo Man
More fuel burned to cool homes in the summer.

Not quite. There is much of the time, that I run no heat or air conditioning at all. Simply having shelter helps equalize the extremes between the heat of day, and the cold of night. And air conditioning is often to reduce the discomfort of the outside temperature being merely 10 or 15 degrees F above the human comfort temperature. People often run air conditioning when fans might do. While heat often is more necessary, because the outside temperature may be 40 or 50 degrees F below what is comfortable.

And air conditioning costs are variable, depending on the technology used. Ever hear of swamp coolers? They use much less electricity than air conditioners, as they cool by blowing air through water to cause cooling evaporation. They seem to be more popular in regions where humidity levels are lower, as swamp coolers do add some humidity to the air. Air conditioners are also more efficient if they burn gas rather than use electricity, or the condenser heat is discharged through buried pipes in the yard, where the temperature is lower, rather than by a fan into the hot air outside.

And what about the poor people of the world, who don't have heat and air conditioning? Do you think they will spend any more to stay cool? No, they would nap during the heat of the day, and do their work when it is cooler or at night, wouldn't they?

Originally posted by Repo Man
More southern and mid latitude diseases and parasites moving farther north.

While that could be a concern, don't most people cluster near the equator, and away from the poles of the planet? So that wouldn't affect most people, as they already deal with parasites. And modernization also reduces parasites. Do you really suggest that people move to Antartica, to escape parasites? I still say warmer is likely better.

Originally posted by Repo Man
No one with any scientific credibility now doubts that the globe is getting gradually warmer. The debate is only over what is causing it.

Um, wouldn't the rather "scientific" looking graphs and such, that other people are posting on this thread, disprove that statement? Talking about bad data, changes in recording instrumentation, urban heat island effects, lack of auditing of data, etc.

And "gradual" to me, suggests "time to adapt" or "minor." If you crowd a lot of people into a room, perhaps their body heat would cause a "gradual" warming in the room. But so what? That is hardly life threatening or detrimental to quality of life. Especially if one can open the windows or adjust the air conditioner thermostat. I wouldn't leave a "stuffy" room full of my friends and food.

What is causing it? Well if it occurred only during the 20th century, then of course humans are a likely suspect. After all, technology has changed a lot, and human population is much larger than it was at the beginning of the century, a century later. But it is great for the population to be so large, lest you and I didn't get to be born. So many people rather like living and having children. But a novel from a century ago, talked about how the weather was strange. People always think the weather is strange. That's why we live in houses rather than sleep on the ground. I suspect that climate may fluctuate and vary anyhow, even without human interference. And if humans cause it somehow, so what? Where is it written that climate must forever remain constant, or undisturbed by humans?

Originally posted by Repo Man
Their could be benefits, but it appears that any benefits would be more than made up for by disastrous consequences.

That sounds more like the view of a pessimist, than anything logical or "scientific."

Originally posted by Repo Man
Climate is so complex, there is no way to be sure at this point. Or probably at any time in the near future.

And how do we know that the "cure" is any better than the "disease?" I think it far more likely that infringing on people's freedom and trying to ban the burning of fossil fuels prematurely, before better technologies take over, would be "disastrous" for the economy. Something we should not want while human populations around the world continue to burgeon. The world needs to modernize to better accomodate them.

Originally posted by Repo Man
I suppose you think those Granolas at NASA are making it all up?

No, I was thinking it was more like the tree huggers leader the supposedly "environmental" movement are the ones making it up. There is a huge political agenda with "environmentalists" and a lot of "religious" and pantheist overtones that have little to do with "science." "Global warming" on some flawed computer model based on who-knows-how-many false assumptions, is hardly compelling evidence. Nor minor temperature variations that so easily disappear into the "noise" of daily and seasonal temperature changes. I can discern no significant trend at all, but rather a bunch of disagreement, over both the measurements, and how they should be interpreted. I argue both ways. No "global warming," and that "global warming" should there be any, likely isn't harmful anyways.

Originally posted by Repo Man
... Pronatalist, I suspect you are a creationist. If you think that there is inadequate proof for Evolution, then obviously the non dogmatic uncertainty of climatologists will fail to persuade you.

So why are you here?

Yes, I am a Creationist and Christian. But what's your point? That only evolutionists can think? Did you just call us all "stupid" or something? Did you know that much of what we call "science" or the "scientific method" came from Christians? Do you have any idea how many of the famous scientific discoveries of the world, came from people who believed in God?

David Mayes

01-03-04, 01:40 PM

Yes, I am a Creationist

Creationism isn't science and your Christian ideology is deeply flawed and needs updating, its update needs to be of an ecological kind, but not surprisingly, you're anti the tree huggers and consider baseless accusations of political bias as worthy of rational consideration on this occasion.

NEVER forget, Revelation=hallucination or lucid propaganda.

Repo Man

01-03-04, 02:05 PM

Pronatalist, those who deny evolution have no more credibility with me than those who insist that the Earth is flat.

As Bertrand Russell once said (and I think I quoted this to you once before) "If someone maintains that the Moon is made of green Cheese you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them." I don't expect you to take this to heart. You seem quite content contemplating a world where the entire globe is transformed into a human version of an ant colony, all for the greater glory of some invisible cloud being.

Once again for others: Many of those who feel that the warming climate is caused by humans (anthropogenic) have an agenda that damages their credibility. But in my opinion this is a distinct minority, especially when you are talking about the scientists in the various fields that actually generate the data that is cause for concern.

In our day to day lives, we cannot possibly confirm first hand the many claims that we hear put forth by researchers. Do you go on a crash course to confirm that high cholesterol diets actually are bad for you when leading medical researchers have decided that their evidence leads them to the conclusion that they are? No, you accept that they probably know what they are talking about, and act accordingly. If later evidence concludes that they (high cholesterol diets) in fact are not as bad for you as previously thought, what have you lost if you lowered your intake? What if later evidence in fact proved that it was worse than previously believed?

"The purpose of crying doom is to avert it"- Isaac Asimov

Acting in ignorance usually leads to unintended consequences, and with nature Vs. humans, they are usually negative (for humans - nature is utterly indifferent to our concerns) . To cite a small example from here in the Northwest.

The logging industry cranked up a rape of the forests in the late 19th century. Clear cutting thousands and thousands of acres of trees that were centuries old.
Leaving the soil bare caused erosion that completely disrupted the ability of the "forest" (can't really call bare ground a forest) to regenerate. Selective cuts, replanting, not cutting trees on steep hillsides would have helped in the rapid recovery.
These things are done now by some loggers voluntarily, but mostly because of government regulations.

The silt runoff and the buildup of slash in small streams contributed to the sharp decline of Salmon fisheries. Overfishing did the rest.

Fast forward to the 1980's. Virtually all of the old growth gone, and Salmon numbers just a shadow of what they once were, the Pacific Northwest went into a sharp decline, with two of the three legs that supported the economy gone.

With the knowledge that science now has of forests and fisheries, it is plain to see that the outcome was inevitible. The sad part is that even if the facts had been known many years ago, greed would probably still have won out over prudence, and the Goose that lay the Golden Eggs would probably have been slaughtered anyway.

Edufer, why would so many scientists try to mislead the public? Or do you feel they are being misled themselves?

It seems to me that their agenda is wide open. The fossil fuels industry are the ones who have to hide theirs. You can't get very far telling people, "doing anything about global warming will cut into our massive profits, therefore it doesn't exist, or if it does it isn't caused by humans."
I mean, they have theirs, why should they give a rats ass about the teeming millions who live just above sea level, and who regularly die by the thousands during monsoon season as it is, much less in an uncertain future with higher sea levels, and more violent weather?

Edufer

01-03-04, 06:39 PM

David: your immediate answer to my post about Richard Lindzen is a corpse in the guise of a post, because it was dead from the beginning. So it deserves an autopsy, in order to determine the causes of its death. Let us go by parts – as Jack the Ripper used to say.Your HERO LINDZEN is incompetent It is amazing how incompetence can take a person to be accepted as a member of the American National Academy of Sciences, be nominated as scientific advisor to US presidents, be a chief scientist writing important scientific chapters for the IPCC and draft reports for the NAS in the subject of climate change, and reach to high levels of respectability and credibility in the scientific community – of course, not among the body of global warmers. But this lack of credibility coming from the “warmers” is not based on his scientific work, but on his alleged ties and funding by the “oil industry”.

If funding is an evidence for proving or disproving an hypothesis, then what could we say about the supporters of the global warming hoax? One of most outspoken organization at COP-9 in Milan was the Pew Center on Climate Change which I must remind everyone is an industry-front group funded by the Pew family's fortune derived from owning the Sun Oil Company.

It's too bad that Enron is no longer the leading business member of the Pew Center because conjuring grand appearances out of thin (or perhaps I should say hot) air was Enron's specialty. So it seems the battle among Oil companies dominates the global warming scenario. Which oil company do you believe in? Exxon, Sun Oil Co., Atlantic Richfield, ConoCo, Shell, BP, ELF, Agip, ------- (fill empty spaces with your own names). All of them fund heavily BOTH sides of the issue.

Remember that the ozone hoax was heavily promoted and funded by many chemical companies as DuPont, Imperial Chemical Industries, Hoescht, and others that wanted to introduce their Freon replacements as Suva CFC-134A and many others, and nobody wanted to buy them because they were 20 times more expensive than the harmless and beneficial Freons, it had half the heat transport and releasing capacity, required expensive new equipment, special lubricants, and because Freon's patents had expired and it could be produced without paying royalties to DuPont – as it is being done in India and China, and many counties in Asia. They funded Rowland and Molina, and Crutzen and the rest of “scientists” that were in the ozone bandwagon, so the Mother of Hoaxes paved the way for the Global Warming Hoax.

So your allegations for dismissing 'skeptic' scientists because some of them (not all!) are funded by the industry, is quite a biased stance: "This one, yes, this one, no." "This one says what I want to hear so he's doing good science." "This one I dislike because he goes against my beliefs, so he's a paid liar." You don't care about the scientific validity of research; you care about the political implications of research.

And now comes a quote from the link you provided under the <a href="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3814&method=full">Your HERO LINDZEN is incompetent</a> Tom M. L. Wigley, a prominent climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, says it is "demonstrably incorrect" that top researchers are keeping quiet. "The best people in the world," he observes, have contributed to the IPCC report. Let us see how truthfull are graphs from the IPCC: This chart of global temperature as determined from surface thermometers was published in the latest "Summary for Policymakers" by the IPCC, with blue and purple labelling added later by 'skeptics' pointing to parts that have been proved wrong, and this flawed data is the one used by "scientists" publishing in Science magazine and the mainstream media.

<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/surface.gif">

It illustrates one of the key points of contention between the advocates of global warming and the 'skeptics'. The surface chart was mostly compiled by Tom Wigley and Phillip Jones, and it shows a +0.6°C warming from 1860 to 2000.

In a <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/wigley.html">recent interview</a> he gave to the PBS TV network in the U.S., Wigley said this about the above temperature history –

"If I go back now and look at that record of global warming, it's true that over the period from about 1910 to 1940, there was very substantial warming, so much so that it cannot have been due only to human activities._ But there are two other possibilities. It could be due to changes in the output of the sun._ And, in fact, we believe that this is the primary reason for that warming."

Wigley's admission is based on the fact that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was not significant up to around 1940. He_ referred to 'human activities' rather than CO2 specifically during this period, since that could include such human activities as land clearing and agriculture.

The IPCC claims a +0.6°C warming over the last 140 years, but they present that claim as if it could all be blamed on fossil fuels._ However, it is clear from Wigley's remarks and from CO2 data on public record that anything pre-1940 could in no way be blamed on fossil fuels._ This means that fully half of that +0.6°C warming was due to pre-1940 forcings, most probably the sun, as is now generally agreed by everyone.

But was there really a warming of +0.6°C?

The final 21 years of the above surface record shows a strong warming._ However, it overlaps with the satellite data (thick blue line), which shows no such warming, leading to the obvious question as to whether the pre-1940 warming was as big as claimed._ If the statistical processing of the surface record post-1979 could lead to an error of that magnitude in the surface record, the same processing procedures applied to pre-1979 data would in all probability over-estimate previous trends also._ By contrast, NASA's satellite record for the stratosphere:

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/NASA_strato_temp.jpg"></center>

and NASA's satellite record for the troposhere:

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/NASA_tropo_temp.jpg"></center>

has been validated against independent radio-sonde data and is accurate to one hundredth of a degree. The surface record pales in comparison.

Your great knowledge of climatology lets you see that the big spikes in the graphs (1983-84, 1992-93, and 1998) were due to the strong El Niños of those years, especially the biggest of the all, 1997-98 - something that is totally unrelated to CO2 increases or fossil fuel burinig, as the El Niño/ENSO and La Niña are absolutely governed by the solar sunspots cycles as brilliantly demonstrated by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, from the Schroetter Institute of Solar Research, in Germany:

<A href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/NinoLand.html">SOLAR FORCING OF EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA</A>

<A href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html">New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?</A>.

Once the El Niño was gone, temperatures went down again, something that your models does not predict at all. Models predict steady warming, and do not allow for decreasing temperatures.

<a href="http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm">The Next El Niño</a> – July, 2006 - Dr. Theodor Landscheidt has now extended his solar analysis to forecast the next occurrences of El Niño and La Niña. He is the only scientist in the whole world that predicted accurately the last three El Niños occurrences - with three years in advance, something that the best known "climate" model available cannot predict with more than three months in advance.

Of course, you will dismiss Dr. Landscheidt's research because he is a 'skeptic'.

For the time being try to digest this. I have not finished my autopsy. I am not finished with you - yet.

David Mayes

01-04-04, 12:27 AM

For the time being try to digest this. I have not finished my autopsy.

Digest what, distortions?
Have you figured out YET that the MWP was a regional event?

I am not finished with you - yet.

I hold the view that within 8-12yrs there will be no such thing as GW denial...as it KEEPS getting hotter GLOBALLY averaged, as explained and predicted by GHG theory, a theory that is UNDISPUTED baby....if you have a competing theory that explains and predicts better, let s hear it.

Stop wasting your time with all these farcical denials.

What you can never escape from is that in 1988 the IPCC formed, this body consists of 2500 scientists who have reviewed in excess of 20 000 research papers, this actually happened and was mentioned by Steve Sneider I believe, possibily the largest mega peer-review in modern history, all backed by the most prestigious scientific academies in the world including NAS.

Where is the proof that they ignored the 100 000's of papers, other than your absurd proclamation?
What other conspiracy theories are you in favour of?

More and more fingerprint papers are emerging...
There is a undisputed 20-25yr heating trend....
The worlds elite scientists have spoken....
GHG theory is undisputed...{note, that there's a difference between a theory being disputed scientifically and being disputed by a crank}.

Give it up for Godsakes.

Edufer

01-04-04, 01:06 AM

The IPCC report states that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years" is of human origin. It says that late 20th-century temperatures shot up above anything the earth had experienced in the previous 1,000 years. Michael E. Mann, a geologist at the University of Virginia and a lead author of the IPCC's past-climate chapter, calls the spike "a change that is inconsistent with natural variability." Michael E. Mann is simply a fool educated beyond his capabilities. He and colleagues produced the famous (by now infamous) study know as the “Hockey Stick”. This piece of junk science was taken by the IPCC and converted in the mantra of global warming, as it purported that the 20th century was the warmest in the millennium, and 1998 the warmest in history.

Of course, the “warmest in history” claim was based on the average of readings by surface stations, all of them suffering the “urban heat island effect”, shown to be about 4º C – 6º C higher than open country areas, depending on locations. But the claim about the warmest century in 1000 years was much worse. The Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) paper passed peer-review (and that should give everybody a hint of the incompetence or corruption of this thing of peer-review in climatology) basing their research and conclusion on “evidence” from proxy data obtained from tree rings.

Their conclusion was that there had not been significant cold or warm period since 1000 AD, there was no Little Ice Age, and much less a Medieval Warm Period. Climatologists had known for many decades that the period from ca. 800-1350 was much warmer, and because conditions found then on the world, they named it “The Climatic Optimum” – because those 2º C higher than present temperatures were considered the best for all kinds of lives.

Of course, Mann et al. assertion made climatologists wild, and the study has been proven wrong since the beginning, but was not until last August 2003, that the hoax was exposed. Stephen McIntyre, a mathematician from Ontario, and Ross McKitrick, from the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario, published study in <a href=http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm>Energy and Environment</a> on 28-OCT-2003, with the following abstract:
<dir>
<a href=http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html>Abstract:</a>
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 -- is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

THE PAPER IS AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT <a href="http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm">ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT.</a>
</dir>
The paper has been online since Octobre 28, 2003 for review by whoever wanted to “peer-review” it, but no one has dared to do such a review. Regarding this, the latest update of the <a href=http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html>Abstract “Corrections to MBH98”</a> website, McKitrick and McIntyre say this:

<dir>UPDATE: December 1 We are continuing to work on Part II of our response, which has required a detailed examination of Professor Mann's ftp site, hence the delay. We also traveled to Washington DC on November 18, to present a briefing on Capitol Hill, sponsored by the Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, on our work to date. A transcript will be published in a few days, we're told.

Some interested experts at a European climate lab had privately criticized us for what they regarded as an insufficiently wide circle of reviewers for the E&E paper. We offered to them that they could review Part II before its release, on the condition that if they found errors they could hold us to public account to rectify them, but if the document checks out they would have to issue a statement saying so. After considering it for a week they declined the offer, saying they don't have time to do the review, and would prefer to follow the debate's progress in journals.</dir>
Of course they declined to review the study. They rather don't get burned. Enough of Mann et al. the Hockey Stick has entered the Science Hall of Infamy.Daniel Grossman is a freelance writer in Watertown, Mass.
© Scientific AmericanThis is the owner of the website that have that slander against Dr. Richard Lindzen. He seems to have his work published in Scientific American, once a nice magazine of general interest, in a level between Science, Nature, The New England Journal of Medicine, Geophysical Letters, etc, - and Popular Mechanics or Railroad Modeler. I started to become suspicious about their scientific accuracy when they started to publish many articles on the climate change and ozone issues, that I could then see were quite faulty.

But they really put the cherry on their cake when started a witch hunt on Bjorn Lomborg, with a series of five articles (17 pages) criticizing his book “The Skeptic Environmentalist”, and then allowing him only one and a half page to refute the criticisms. Then threatened Lomborg with copyright infringement when he published the articles in his own website and answered the critics one by one. As you and everybody know, the accusations levied at Lomborg by these Scientific American warming scientists (among them Stephen Schneider) were taken by a medieval Inquisition court in Denmark (the DSCD, Danish Scientific Committee on Dishonesty) that condemned Lombrog of “scientific dishonesty”, basing its decision on the Scientific American articles!

It takes time, but the truth always raises its ugly head (for liars) and three days ago, the The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (which is responsible for the DSCD) has just repudiated the DSCD `findings' that Bjørn Lomborg's book_ was "objectively dishonest", "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice" etc. etc._ The Ministry gave a critical assessment of the Committee's January 6 ruling, finding that the DCSD judgment was not backed up by documentation, and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice._ According to the Ministry statement, the DCSD's treatment of the case was "unsatisfactory", "deserving of criticism" and "emotional" and pointed out a number of significant errors of judgement and procedure. The DSCD's verdict has therefore been repudiated and declared void.<dir>
December 17, 2003
Skeptical Environmentalist Vindicated
According to a <a href="http://www.imv.dk/Default.asp?ID=233">press release</a> just in, Bjorn Lomborg, author of the controversial The Skeptical Environmentalist, has been vindicated by the Danish Ministry of Science. Earlier this year, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, as part of a sustained <a href="http://www.techcentralstation.com/010803F.html">smear campaign</a> by committed ideological environmentalists, issued an infamous decision that Lomborg's book "objectively speaking" fell "within the concept of scientific dishonesty." Now the Danish Science Ministry has issued a ruling which repudiates the DCSD decision and remits the matter back to them.</dir>
And Daniel Grossman, the slanderer of Richard Lindzen, member of the Scientific American gang, is one of your sources of information.

Edufer

01-04-04, 01:33 AM

Btw Edufer, The MWP was a regional event… It had to come, sooner or later, but finally you made a fool of yourself. Not only McKitrick and McIntyre study have shown there was a Medieval Warm period, and a Little Ice Age, but this has been even acknowledged by James Hansen of NASA, one of your dears. If the MWP was a “regional” event, then it must have occurred in ALL regions of the world. Climatic science rely not only on proxies, and geological studies, etc, but take into account historical documentation, as chronicles and writings kept in libraries and museums. The data coming from those sources have provided an enormous amount of information about the weather and the climate during ancient times.

As the Little Ice Age, I have personally seen the original chronicle by the founders of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia (1591) – a city I have lived in for three consecutive years – kept at the Santa Cruz Historical Archives, saying this (free translation from Spanish, making it short): “Summers in the region are mild and agreeable, the land is fertile and good crops are obtained. Corn, cotton, potatoes, manioc and other plants provide for the welfare of the people. On the other hand, winters are harsh and so cold, that tree trunks sometimes get split in half by those terrible frosts.”

Take a map, and find Santa Cruz: in the Bolivian plains, at 400 meter altitude, 15º South, 64ºW, is today in the warmest part of Bolivia – right in the hot tropic. Have you ever heard of frosts in the tropic, at 400 m altitude? And those temperatures kept steady up to the 1700s, if we are to believe original chronicles. There are no other chronicles for the Southern Hemisphere, as it was occupied by people that didn't know writing, or didn't keep records as in Africa. But Japanese and Chinese did keep records of the onset of springs and winters, the time of blooming of cherry trees, the start of early snows and so on, dating back some three or four thousand years!

And those ancient accounts, chronicles, and documents provide enough and overwhelming evidence that those times of 800-1350 were much warmer than today, and 1350-1650 were terrible cold - much more than today. And of course, there is enough proxy data (not sloppily treated as Mann's et al., of course) that demonstrates beyond any doubt, that there was a Warm Period followed by a Cold Period. GLOBAL warming is about the average Global temperature, this is important as it GHG theory explains and predicts that the GLOBAL ENERGY BUDGET will increase and this will result in more heat....as is observed.What is the amount of “more heat” observed. The IPCC says it is 0,6º C since 1880, that is, 122 years. According to many “rural” weather stations in the world that is not the case. The data in the Hohenpeissenberg station in the German Bavarian Alps, with records dating back to 1781, the increase is 0,6º C – but in 222 years! That equates to 0,3º C by century.<center>

<IMG height=340 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/Hohen1781A.gif" width=550 border=0></center>

As you see, the 1880 date is the coldest date that would render a steep warming trend if you started from there. And that is what the IPCC has done. As I said before, there is a lot of dishonest people out there...

But let us take an urban weather station in your own country, Australia: Adelaide. and see what we get:

<center><IMG height=340 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/adelaide3.gif" width=550 border=0></center>

There is COOLING trend, in a URBAN station, in your OWN country. You can ask for the temperature records in Adelaide, take them to an Excell spreadsheet file, make your own graph, ask the program to draw a trend, either linear or logarithmic, and see for yourself.

As a highly experienced climatologist and mathematician, this is a piece of cake for you.

Even with the great warming in 1913, part of the global warming in that part of the century (human induced?) the cooling trend is severe. We have many more cooling trends since the 1830, and 1780s, so there is a very good reason to say, "IPCC, go back to your drawing board."

This is part of a study we are making at Cordoba University, analyzing and plotting trends from stations all over the world (those with records long enough to give significant trends). Adelaide happens to be the first in our list of weather stations (we ordered them alphabetically). It was just your bad luck. Any comments on this specific case? 3...You have a limited understanding of the necessary details of climatology.
4..You accuse the IPCC of a political bias whilst being ignorant of the basic details of climatology, allowing you to make basic errors, such as thinking the MWP is of global significance.Napoleon once said: “Never try to stop your enemy from making mistakes”. But I am not as pitiless as Napoleon, and I will give some little pieces of information, so you can set your brain working before setting your tongue in motion.

I am 66 (Jan. 3rd is my birthday, that's why I have been away from the board) and have been the president of the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology for ten years. In 1994 I wrote a book (in Spanish) named “Ecology: Myths and Frauds”, that you can get online (for free) at our website at <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INDICE.htmlEcología: Mitos y Fraudes</a>

The first chapter is “Global Warming”, chapter 2 is “The Ozone Hoax”, chapter 3 is “Lead in Fuels”, chapter 4 is “DDT: a Criminal Myth”; chapter 5 is “Asbestos and other Myths”; chapter 6 is: “Pesticides and Cancer”; chapter 7 is “Nuclear Energy”; chapter 8 is “Nuclear Waste”; chapter 9 is “The Amazon: Earth's Green Lung?”; chapter 10 is “Political Analysis”; chapter 11 is “WWW: World Wide Fraud?”; chapter 12 is “Gr$$npeace”; chapter 13 is “The Truth About Chernobyl”; chapter 14 is “Natural or Synthetic?”; chapter 15 is “Sustainable Development and Animal Rights”; chapter 16 is “Environmentalism: Analysis of Insanity”; chapter 17 is “Epilogue and Last News”, and has a Prologue by Dr. C.E. Lerena de la Serna, ethologist, Doctor Honoris Causa at the Max Plank Institute in Germany, with two Appendix by him, masterpieces of ethology, literature, and philosophy.

Our English version will make you see red. Have a terrific (horrendous?) experience in "<a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html">Ecology: Myths and Frauds</a>"

I have a Master in Anthropology –- a founding member in 1982 of the Anthropological Society of Cordoba, making the discovery (along with another member of our foundation, Prof. C. Miranda) that the Jivaro Indian from the Ecuadorian Amazon are original from Okinawa -- and many years of study and training in Linguistics, Electronics and Computer sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Meteorology, Climatology.

I have been involved in scientific research – in one way or another – since I have memory. My family founded a medical research institute in 1948, where I was raised, playing with microscopes, oscilloscopes and all kind of scientific instruments. In that institute ("Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas Mercedes y Martín Ferreyra” – look for it in Google if you want), worked Dr. Inés de Allende and Dr. Papanicolao, and they discovered the world famous method for detection of early cancer of the matrix – that has saved millions of women lives in the world. My elder brother, retired professor at Cordoba National University, made there research in neurophysiology for 30 years, (I helped him with scientific instrumentation, computing, photography, and editing of his scientific papers for the Journal of Neurophysiology) and was a guest medical researcher at Columbia University, New York, USA.

I know what science is, I know what scientific methodology is, I know what proper scientific behavior is (or should be), and I know what scientific misconduct, dishonesty and fraud is.

And for clearing out any suspicion you might have about who's funding our foundation work, I can prove beyond doubt that it is ME alone. I have never got a cent from anyone for doing my job of debunking environmental hoaxes. I have no relationship with any kind of industry whatsoever. My hobby is running an Adventure Travel lodge in the Bolivian Amazon. You will see pictures of it in our website. I was simply lucky to be born in a wealthy family, and receive a humanistic education that I have improved on, and am trying to pass it along to my sons and grandsons.

And the first rule I have taught them is:

“Never believe anyone, based only on his authority”.

Rule 2: “Demand factual evidence, analyze it, compare it with the evidence you have, contrast both against basic laws of science, and make your own judgments”.

That is the basis of science. The rest is propaganda and business.

Pronatalist

01-04-04, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by Repo Man
Pronatalist, those who deny evolution have no more credibility with me than those who insist that the Earth is flat.

Noah Webster (of dictionary fame) said that the things around us could not have created themselves.

Originally posted by Repo Man
As Bertrand Russell once said (and I think I quoted this to you once before) "If someone maintains that the Moon is made of green Cheese you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them." I don't expect you to take this to heart. You seem quite content contemplating a world where the entire globe is transformed into a human version of an ant colony, all for the greater glory of some invisible cloud being. ...

Well which people should we get rid of then? How many people should there be? Who should decide?

I would much rather live in some human version of "an ant colony," than to not live at all because there were fewer births, or for people to be told how many children they may have.

Should humans populate only for God's glory, who commanded us to multiply? Well why would God have commanded it? To prevent the planet from being empty? Well that's hardly the best reason. For human benefit. Population growth benefits at least all the people who could not exist otherwise. Too many people benefit from population growth, for humans to have any practical reason to limit it. So for human population to be great, benefits humans too. Not just "God's glory." And to welcome our neighbors to live and have their children, is the sort of goodwill condusive to people getting along and living in harmony. It is much more important that people behave like civilized people should, than that our numbers be less than some arbitrary population quota that wouldn't even benefit people to begin with. We won't ever be some "ant colony." But I would at least let somebody open their mouth and say something stupid, before judging them and declaring that some people shouldn't be born, due to some arbitrary intepretation of some population statistics. I would rather humans populate themselves into some global "ant colony," than that we diss our neighbors based on arbitrary anti-population quotas, and judge our neighbors, without even a fair or open-minded hearing into the worth of each and every individual. I think that parents are far more qualified to decide how many children they should have, than some far away, corrupt, and uncaring politician. And God is more qualified to decide than anybody. Population is what it is. It is up to God how numerous we wants to make us. It's not even man's place to decide.

Originally posted by Repo Man
"The purpose of crying doom is to avert it"- Isaac Asimov

Isaac Asimov doesn't impress me. Isaace Asimov is credited with some anti-population quote, and yet he is a hypocrite in thinking the world has plenty of room for him to keep living? That erodes his credibility with me. Just another rebel against God, lacking faith and vision. So what is the purpose of crying "Fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire? What is the purpose of crying "Wolf" when there is no wolf stalking the sheep? When somebody sounds the alarm, I expect that there should be some real cause for alarm, and not just somebody trying to get attention for some perverse political agenda, or trying to get attention. Just because one may be scared of the dark, or bored, or think themselves smarter than they are, is no excuse to sound false alarms. It is irresponsible to plunge forward into foolishness and make policy, based on unproven and speculative theories. If you know the children's fable about "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," then you should know that when the wolf came, nobody believed him, because he had previously sounded too many false alarms. Is this what the "environmental" extremists are setting us up for? When the real alarm comes, it will sound just like all the false alarm, after false alarm, and whining of the "environmentalists" of the past, and not be believed?

Didn't Chicken Little cry that the sky was falling? What good did it do? The sky wasn't falling, and if it was, how could Henny Penny, Chicken Little, or whoever else, do anything to stop it?

The people crying "Doom" aren't suggesting anything better, so what is the point of their scare tactics?

Originally posted by Repo Man
Acting in ignorance usually leads to unintended consequences, and with nature Vs. humans, they are usually negative (for humans - nature is utterly indifferent to our concerns) . ...

In other words, nature isn't "opposed" to human actions, nor could care less how populated people get, as long as they do whatever they need to do to accomodate increased numbers?

David Mayes

01-04-04, 02:49 AM

It is likely that the rate and duration of the warming of the 20th century is larger than any other time during the last 1,000 years. The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year. There has been a considerable advance in understanding of temperature change that occurred over the last millennium, especially from the synthesis of individual temperature reconstructions. This new detailed temperature record for the Northern Hemisphere is shown in Figure 5. The data show a relatively warm period associated with the 11th to 14th centuries and a relatively cool period associated with the 15th to 19th centuries in the Northern Hemisphere. However, evidence does not support these “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” periods, respectively, as being globally synchronous. As Figure 5 indicates, the rate and duration of warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century appears to have been unprecedented during the millennium, and it cannot simply be considered as a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” of the 15th to 19th centuries.

Despite your self-promotion, I'm going to be foolish enough to rely on the evidence and conclusions of the IPCC, WMO and NAS+numerous other Sci Academies.

Also, what has Adelaide got to do with GW?
LOL, I keep telling you that GW is the global average, as it's measuring heat in the global energy budget/balance, and therefore, EVERY regional/local event is meaningless if the global averages are on the up.

Australia can record a cooling trend, it makes no difference as long as the measure of globally averaged temps reflect an increase in global energy budget/balance, something you fail to understand, and this is critical to understanding the issue of GLOBAL warming.

So please stop giving me irrelevant data and charts that reflect regional/local changes, and please, use your yrs of scientific training to begin your study of the global energy balance.

We have a UNDISPUTED theory called GHG theory{btw, if you have a superior competing theory, lets see it}, this coupled with the basics of climatology and specifically the knowledge of how the global energy balance relates to global averages and that the internal climate mechanism known as the atmospheric composition has increased its ppmv of co2 and that we have empirical evidence in the form of an isotopic signature confirming fossil fuels, is the basic starting point for anyone undertaking critical review of this issue.

So your yrs of activity and self-promotion aside, YOU or anyone considering this issue must first understand the basics.
Your repeated local/regional charts proves your ignorance of the basics, and renders your opinion on GW's veracity as virtually worthless.

EDIT:

Mann was flabbergasted when I questioned him about Lindzen's critique, which he called "nonsense" and "hogwash." A close examination of the IPCC report itself shows, for instance, that trees weren't the sole source of data -- ice cores helped to reconstruct the temperatures of the first 600 years, too. And trees were sampled from 34 independent sites in a dozen distinct regions scattered around the globe, not four.

Btw your criticisms of Mann aren't just unfounded, their actual lies as I posted this previously.....or didn't you see it?

Dr VINCENT GRAY is a research scientist with a wide experience in five countries (UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China), in laboratories studying petroleum, plastics, coal,

This guy sounds like a Fossil Fool and Energy and Environment don't sound biased either...LOL.

PR watch message board (http://www.prwatch.org/forum/index.php?)

This forum exposes the techniques of manipulation used by big business and also that there is a $35 BILLION propaganda industry in existence, this is why it's important to rely on the elite scientists and the peer-review process so as financial influence can be minimized if not eliminated.

Edufer

01-04-04, 03:14 PM

Also, what has Adelaide got to do with GW?
LOL, I keep telling you that GW is the global average, as it's measuring heat in the global energy budget/balance, and therefore, EVERY regional/local event is meaningless if the global averages are on the up.You are hammering on the wrong nail. Move a little to the side. Adelaide (and thousands of other places in the world) contribute with their regional climatic conditions to global climatic conditions, and to your global energy budget/balance. When you see those thousands of locations (that add to the “global energy budget/balance”) contradict IPCC's contention, then you can safely assume that IPCC's figures are somehow “fishy”, and have a high probability of being an artifact from managed statistics (GIGO, remember? Garbage In, Garbage Out, computer science's Golden Axiom), picking selected data, dismissing the contradictory data (Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, among other), as shown by the now demonstrated flawed Mann's et al. “Hockey Stick” study.Australia can record a cooling trend, it makes no difference as long as the measure of globally averaged temps reflect an increase in global energy budget/balance, something you fail to understand, and this is critical to understanding the issue of GLOBAL warming.Perhaps I have better understanding of the issue than you have, as your understanding is based on the kind of manipulated data and statistics you have been mentioning here. In the late 50s I was lucky enough to read Paul Tabori's The Natural Science of Stupidity, — a superficial if entertaining collection of anecdotes culled from history, that made me highly skeptical about everything related with bureaucratic organizations. I guess you have read it, as it is a classic in the field of “human stupidity”. As one discussion on the issue of stupidity states:<dir>
“When considering "Stupidity", it is important to distinguish between the term and the phenomenon. The term may be used to designate a mentality which is considered to be informed, deliberate and maladaptive. However, because of the existing taboo, this is seldom done. Usually, the term is used like an extreme swear word—a put-down for those deemed intellectually inferior, although this tactic normally reveals more about the attitude of the user than the cognitive abilities of the designate(s).</dir>We know, by multiple personal experiences, that most people in bureaucratic institutions (as governmental organizations and offices) are absolute functional oligophrenics, tied up to regulations in the book, unable to use their brains. The IPCC is not a scientific organization, but a political one, as I have stated before, so its scientific credibility derives from the intellectual capabilities of their members, and their presumed honesty. In both accounts, the IPCC has zero credibility among serious and honest climate scientists.

The IPCC collects extremely good scientific works on climatology (and very sloppy and wrong ones, for that matter), takes the Technical Report by those different groups (they make an excellent work), but then the political officials modify the report's conclusions to suit IPCC's political agenda. And this cannot be denied.We have a UNDISPUTED theory called GHG theory {btw, if you have a superior competing theory, lets see it}, this coupled with the basics of climatology and specifically the knowledge of how the global energy balance relates to global averages and that the internal climate mechanism known as the atmospheric composition has increased its ppmv of co2 and that we have empirical evidence in the form of an isotopic signature confirming fossil fuels, is the basic starting point for anyone undertaking critical review of this issue.Undisputed within the IPCC's Temple of Doom, of course. But is DISPUTED and challenged by the vast majority of serious scientists. The GHG theory is far from being scientifically sound and accepted by the scientific community. If it were a worldwide consensus about it, why is there a tremendous battle going on between “skeptical scientists”&l