Snowing In Vegas Today, So Much for Global Warming

[Joe270]

It snowed in Vegas today. The first time in recorded weather history we've had snow flurries this late in the season.

So can we call Global Warming dead yet?

After last winter was so cold, I made the comment that GW was proven wrong, but was told that 'one cold winter doesn't mean GW is wrong'.

Actually last winter was the second cold winter, but now we've had three in a row. So how 'bout it, Global Warming 'experts', how are you gonna 'splain this third year?

And why don't any of your graphs from all the websites include the last couple winters? Oh, yeah, it takes time to update the models. Over two years, apparently, to try to find a way to manipulate the data to fit with the stupid GW 'model'. Thankfully the attempt to flat out lie about the data was caught early.

But we still have the threat of the arctic ice cap melting by 2008. Remember?

http://revver.com/video/1093314/arctic-sea-sea-ice-predicted-to-be-gone-by-summer-2008/


Oh wait, it's 2009. Ooops. 'Cept there's a problem there with Global Warming, because the icecap is getting thicker. Who knew? Like no one saw that one coming:

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3721/241/

Seems the GW folks didn't think that the new ice, not covered by an insulating blanket of snow, might get a hell of a lot colder. Oh, well. Another stupid boo-boo in the GW model, eh?

Now here's some debunking which will, no doubt, make GW people call foul because of the linky, but just take a gander at the obviously wrong GW stuff, because it's so flat out wrong that the source of the link makes absolutely no difference:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/media_credibility_not_ice_caps_1.html

Eco-warriors and media hype aside, the fact is, as we head into 2009, that the world's ice mass has been expanding not contracting. Which will surprise evening news junkies fed a diet of polar bears floating about on ice floes and snow shelves falling into the oceans. But if a whole series of reports on ice growth in the Arctic, the Antarctic and among glaciers are right, then it is truth in the mainstream media (MSM) that's in meltdown not the polar ice caps.

The problem for the MSM is that it long ago nailed its colors to the climate alarmist mast. No ice cap meltdown, no rising waters. No disappearing islands, no reason for alarm. No alarm, no story. Worst of all having called yet another global apocalypse wrong: No credibility. So the MSM has a significant stake in running highly selective warm-mongering headlines. Not to mention disparaging those scientists who have the temerity to disagree as 'holocaust deniers (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml)' and 'pseudo-scientists'.

There's nothing more the climate alarmist media loves than a 'melting Arctic' ice cap story. So why not stories from the far larger expanse of ice that is the 'melting' Antarctic? Well it might have something to do with the fact that the Antarctic ice grew to record levels (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent) in 2007 - and continues to grow.

On Antarctica:

Take the well-publicized collapse of a 160 square mile block of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica in March 2008. For the alarmist media this was conclusive proof of the dramatic global warming effects. The Los Angeles Times ran, 'Antarctica Collapse' referring to the "rapid melt of the Wilkins Shelf". The Sydney Morning Herald ran 'Ice Shelf Hangs By a Thread' (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ice-shelf-hangs-by-a-thread/2008/03/26/1206207206678.html) and the Salon online news site had the absurd headline 'Bye-bye Antarctica? (http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/03/26/antarctic_ice_shelf/index.html)' But Joseph D'Aleo, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International, was more prosaic. On his IceCap website, D'Aleo wrote (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MISLEADING_REPORTS_ABOUT_ANTARCTICA.pdf) that the collapse was the equivalent, given the enormity of Antarctica, of "an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof."

But wait for it:

In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60 percent ahead of last year when it set a new record."

Former Colorado State Climatologist and current senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Dr Roger Pielke Sr is severely critical (http://climatesci.org/2008/03/27/reality-check-on-antarctic-sea-ice/) of the "typical bias that many journalists have." Pielke notes, "The media has ignored the increase in Antarctica sea ice cover in recent years, with at present, a coverage that is one million square kilometres above average."

'Splain that.

Of course, the Global Warming Hoax goes all the way to President Obama, who wants to build an engine to cool the climate. Just Google 'Time is running out for the Obama Admin to curb global warming'.

That's a really knee-slapper there, because time is running out for them. The whole hoax of GW is apparent for all to see, 'cept for those too stupid to see the ice on their own faces.

How 'bout this guy, who the GW folks did their level best to discredit:

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808191747/energy-and-environment/scientist-warn-that-earth-will-enter-little-ice-age-due-to-decrease-in-solar-activity.html

Seems he has company, though:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070109/20070109_03.html

And yet even more, and even more recent company, some Canadian scientists who also figure the world is getting colder, not warmer. Sorry, I couldn't find the linky.

Despite all this evidence to the contrary, my local paper ran an article today that the state tree, the Pinion, was in danger of extinction because of GW.

[Over the line]

[dclary]

Preach it brother!!!

[Zoombie]

I read earlier that, actually, our effects on the environment could be positive.

Why?

Cause, well, our global warming is helping fight GLOBAL COOLING!

Now, this was just Times magazine, so I have no idea how factual the article was...and I was just skimming it...while having my teeth cleaned.

So...take that with about 50 pounds of salt.

[Joe270]

Read my post, Zoom, you nutcase, and stop stalking Deek.

[rugcat]

I have never seen the flood of bullshit behind a hoax like I have with GW. There is no way any sane person can continue to claim the hoax is true.
I promised myself I wouldn't engage you on this again, but for the five thousandth time, global warming refers to the overall warming of the planet as a whole, not Las Vegas specifically. What's more, the changing climatic patterns the warming creates tend to encourage more extremes in weather -- warmer and dryer summers in some places, colder winters in other paces, more violent storms in others.

You know this, or at least you know that's what the GW scientists say. You may disagree, but I would have thought that deliberately misrepresenting what global warming consists of in order to bolster your own case was beneath you.

And it so happens I'm quite sane, I'm not stupid, and I haven't been taken in by any hoax.

[Zoombie]

Also, I don't really care about global warming. It does not change my stance:

We should be oil-free.
We should be ecologically helpful rather than harmful.
We should...do...nice...things.


And stuff.

I don't need a doomsday scenario to be scared into believing this.

[Clair Dickson]

Hey, I know, calling someone names will certainly change people's opinions! I mean, it violates basic psychology which says that people get defensive when they are under attack, but hey, I bet it'll work this time.

I still maintain, better safe than sorry. We may or may not be experience climate change caused or exacerbated by man. I'd rather live eco-friendly and find out I'm wrong than destroy the habitat and find out I'm wrong.

[Zoombie]

That's what I said, Clair!

We don't need a doomsday scenario to want to be eco friendly.

[blacbird]

It snowed in Vegas today. The first time in recorded weather history we've had snow flurries this late in the season.

So can we call Global Warming dead yet?

Come back and talk to us when it's 147F in Vegas in August.

Oh, and just for info, Vegas isn't The Globe. I know this comes as a shock, but . . .

caw

[RandomNotes]

Joe, just out of curiosity, what you planning on doing when the oil runs out?

In truth of course, oil will never run out, it will become much to expensive before that happens and be the domain of governments and very rich corporations...

[Fullback]

Wow. You spent a lot of time reading one side presented by laymen with political agendas, then spitting it back up here. Climate change is the symptom of warming, and the unusual weather you use as your premise is in complete disagreement with everything else you spit up at us. If you don't understand that fundamental concept then you might consider resisting the urge to post your opinions on the topic. I offer that as constructive advise, because you look like a complete buffoon to anyone other than liberal arts majors and Bubbas. :poke:

If you want to put your dukes up and fight about it, here is a challenge for you: find a peer-reviewed scientific paper that says climate change from global warming is not occurring. If you do find one among the thousands written on the topic by scientists, please let us know. ;)

[blacbird]

liberal arts majors and Bubbas.

Eh???????? Kinda strange bedfellas, dontcha think?

caw

[Fullback]

Global bedfellow warming... almost as strange as snow in Vegas. hehe

[dmytryp]

Can I make a brief synopsys of the upcoming thread to save everyone the trouble of repeating themselves?

Anti-AGW 1: It's been a really cold winter here.
Pro-GW 1: That's anecdotal evidence and doesn't mean anything.
Anti-AGW 2: True, but the temps hadn't increased in almost ten years.
Pro-GW 2: That's still anecdotal. We have to look at the overall trend. This can't be proof of GW being non man-made.
Anti-AGW 2: Yes, but it can't certainly be proof of it being man-made either, since CO2 levels still rise. And it is wee bit hypocritical of you to sya that we have to look at the overall trends and not look at the last ten years.
Pro-GW 2: Why?
Anti-AGW 2: Because even proponents of AGW agree that the warming prior to the 50th was natural. Meaning, you have only about 60 years of appropriate data, of which there was a cooling in the 60th and the 70th, and the last ten years.
Pro-GW 3: But the models fir the temperatures.
Anti-AGW 3: Only because the margin of errors allowed are so big that they can explain any change in temp. between 0.2 to 1.5 deg over the last 50 years as antropogenic.
Pro-GW 3: The ice-core data says that CO2 drives the Temperature, too.
Anti-AGW 4: Actually, no. The CO2 levels trail Temperature over geological scales, which means, CO2 can't be the main driver, only supplementary.
Pro-GW 4: But why are you haters against the environment? We need to clean our act anyway. And ween us off oil.
Anti-AGW 5: We are not against the environment, but pollution and CO2 are not the same and can be dealt with differently.
Anti-AGW 6: We can ween ourselves from oil without wrecking the economy and going totally renewable. The two are not the same. You have fuel-cells, you have developements of coal-to-liquid etc. If AGW is not the big danger some say it is, these are viable alternatives. So, this is important to understand the causes.
Anti-AGW 7: AGW is all a big hoax.
Pro-GW 5: No, it isn't
Anti-AGW 6: No, it isn't. It is just an unresolved scientific debate.
Miguelito rolls out his long post with physical proof of energy entrapement by green house gasses.
I roll out with the links to Shaviv's and Svensmark's work, saying the current models overstate the climate sensitivity and don't account for some of the natural phenomena (by the way, he had another paper published recently with the analysis how heat content in the oceans shows that total response to solar variations is bigger than the models predict, which suggest amplification mechanisms not accounted for by the models).

Etc. etc. for several pages

[Unique]

No, you can not call global warming dead. 'Global Warming' is a catch phrase developed for simpletons to help them the grasp the greater concept of global climate change.

By all means put the term to rest, scientists don't use that term when speaking to each other.

[Zoombie]

Joe, just out of curiosity, what you planning on doing when the oil runs out?

That's a peak oil condition and its going to be rendered an almost completely moot problem within a decade or two.

Why?

Well, we need oil for two things: Plastics and fuel.

We're getting better and more efficient electrical engines every month. We have also recently come up with a way to re-radiate spent nuclear fuel, so as to use it again in reactors.

Which means nuclear energy is safe, affordable and now renewable!

Nuclear energy powers our cities and our electric cars, and we are working on ways to synthesize oils from various sources (vegetable oils are looking promising).

So we'll have clean and efficient electric cars, safe and dependable nuclear reactors, and a steady, sustainable supply of plastic.


And then we can worry about those real problems!

Like Jesus.

He's almost too trustworthy...whats his angle!

[RandomNotes]

There's a couple of problems here.

Electric cars are still some way off due largely to the short sighted Bush Administration and the American Auto industry failing to develop cars that people actually want to buy. The latter is paying the price for this. Everyone else is paying the price for the former!

Peak oil is going to be a problem because we don't really know when it is going to happen, and if it happens sooner than we dare imagine, then none of the technology you mention will be in place or exist in significant numbers to help.

Nuclear energy is safer than it was, but still not safe. Spent nuclear fuel cannot be re-radiated forever, sooner or later it has to be stored somewhere for a few thousand years. That's more than a small worry.

If all the goverments in the world said, okay, lets stop using oil, then it would happen in our lifetime, sadly I don't think that will happen, so the biggest threat to mankind at the moment is probably Peak Oil Production!

Assuming the Feedback from Climate Change doesn't melt too much ice in Greenland first!

What's really sad is that goverments knew about climate change for like forever... At least as early as the 70's. I wonder what they really know about Peak Oil Production!

[Millicent M'Lady]

I promised myself I wouldn't engage you on this again, but for the five thousandth time, global warming refers to the overall warming of the planet as a whole, not Las Vegas specifically. What's more, the changing climatic patterns the warming creates tend to encourage more extremes in weather -- warmer and dryer summers in some places, colder winters in other paces, more violent storms in others.

You know this, or at least you know that's what the GW scientists say. You may disagree, but I would have thought that deliberately misrepresenting what global warming consists of in order to bolster your own case was beneath you.

And it so happens I'm quite sane, I'm not stupid, and I haven't been taken in by any hoax.

Seconded. Global warming affects the weather by making it more erratic. The term "global warming" is misleading as it makes people think that all weather is going to get warmer. It's not. The warming of the earth will affect natural climates by causing some of the crazy weather seen in the last few years. I'm not American so I don't know but would people in Vegas be expecting snow in April? It is Spring there isn't it?

[SHBueche]

I promised myself I wouldn't engage you on this again, but for the five thousandth time, global warming refers to the overall warming of the planet as a whole, not Las Vegas specifically. What's more, the changing climatic patterns the warming creates tend to encourage more extremes in weather -- warmer and dryer summers in some places, colder winters in other paces, more violent storms in others.

You know this, or at least you know that's what the GW scientists say. You may disagree, but I would have thought that deliberately misrepresenting what global warming consists of in order to bolster your own case was beneath you.

And it so happens I'm quite sane, I'm not stupid, and I haven't been taken in by any hoax.

Thank you, yes, erratic weather patterns is a piece of the 'global climate change' puzzle. Notice, I didn't use the term global warming?

[SHBueche]

When I finished writing my post, I broke into a sweat ... however, I will not blame GW on this fact, it is more an internal mechanism (read: hot flash) at play. But, I am in Texas, and I will start blaming the weather very soon.

[Don]

Those of us old enough to remember farther back than last week remember the warning of the coming ice age a few decades ago. We were all supposed to be living in igloos and eating whale blubber by now. Sirry if I'm skeptical of the latest meterological fad.

I'm all for a clean environment. Scare tactics, whether it's mercury in my tuna, igloos in the desert, or New York and DC under water, not so much... although New York and DC under water seems like a pretty good idea when you really think about it. :D

[James81]

Global warming is the new Evolution.

Remember when everybody thought evolution was a huge pile of garbage? And then people actually STUDIED evolution and realized what it's really all about and most of us embrace the idea, with only a handful of religious nutjobs who still deny it's truth.

Better yet....remember when ole what's-his-name proposed that the earth was round? I think the poor bastard got martyred for that shit. Or when they proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe? Again, proven wrong.

Global warming is the new "hot" idea where most of us are still spouting our opinions in ignorance without actually taking the time to read the material produced by the scientists who are actually observing this stuff.

But you'd have to be completely dense to, at the very least, not realize that the affects of our technology in the 20th century are doing environmental damage. Come on, now. We go from a horse and buggy world, to pumping out noxious fumes from our cars, factories, etc. and you think that that's not having an affect on the environement?

[dmytryp]

Global warming is the new Evolution.

Remember when everybody thought evolution was a huge pile of garbage? And then people actually STUDIED evolution and realized what it's really all about and most of us embrace the idea, with only a handful of religious nutjobs who still deny it's truth.

Better yet....remember when ole what's-his-name proposed that the earth was round? I think the poor bastard got martyred for that shit. Or when they proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe? Again, proven wrong.

Global warming is the new "hot" idea where most of us are still spouting our opinions in ignorance without actually taking the time to read the material produced by the scientists who are actually observing this stuff.


No, it isn't. Not even in the same ballpark. And, no, we aren't. Maybe you do, but there are plenty of people who don't. Those people have legitimate gripes with the AGW that have no connection to religion or other alterior motives.

[James81]

No, it isn't. Not even in the same ballpark. And, no, we aren't. Maybe you do, but there are plenty of people who don't. Those people have legitimate gripes with the AGW that have no connection to religion or other alterior motives.

Here's the thing....even if they are wrong, what's the frikin issue? Reduce greenhouse emissions? Is that really such a terrible thing to try and do?

Why all the fuss? Why all the anger over things that, whether or not GW is actually "true" or not, are still helping our environment as a whole?

I just don't get that. Why are people fighting? To be right?

[dmytryp]

Here's the thing....even if they are wrong, what's the frikin issue? Reduce greenhouse emissions? Is that really such a terrible thing to try and do?

Why all the fuss? Why all the anger over things that, whether or not GW is actually "true" or not, are still helping our environment as a whole?

I just don't get that. Why are people fighting? To be right?
The "frikin issue", as you put it, is to have a scientific debate without it deteriorating into a pr war. Without one side being proclaimed "heretics", harassed and their scientific careers threatened.
The "frikin issue" is first find out the causes and then to decide on the appropriate measures. And as a result not to quash a horde of potential solutions to the problems, and not to turn to quick fixes that look like good ideas, but may prove disastrous in the long run.

[RandomNotes]

The cause is lots of CO2 in the atmosphere, but every single research paper that flies in the face of Climate change is backed by those that would seek to lose the most money with the implementation of renewable energies, so who is going to look at a solid fact like that?

Oil companies would rather it went this way: they keep selling oil, oil prices go up, they make stacks of money, oil runs out, they use those stacks of money to make renewable energy supplies, such as Hydrogen, for which they can then charge what they like as there will be not alternative.

But at the moment, they are making stacks of money out of the existing fuel supply. If they want to make money out of a new system, that system will need to be rolled out and will cost mega bucks. They will make mega bucks out of it, but they would rather wait until things get desperate and the Government has no choice but to subsidise the rolling out of a new fuel system, such as hydrogen or electric cars.

In the meantime, the play for time, using half truths and assumptions and banana and apple comparisons in way that I am sure would have made Orwell smile a little.

[James81]

The "frikin issue", as you put it, is to have a scientific debate without it deteriorating into a pr war. Without one side being proclaimed "heretics", harassed and their scientific careers threatened.
The "frikin issue" is first find out the causes and then to decide on the appropriate measures. And as a result not to quash a horde of potential solutions to the problems, and not to turn to quick fixes that look like good ideas, but may prove disastrous in the long run.

So, by reducing the things that WE have started (things like pollution from factories and cars) is something we need to think about long and hard because by stopping something that we've only just started 100 years ago it could have a devatating effect?

I don't follow that logic. If the earth was plush for life for thousands of years before we invented cars and had a breakout in industry, then how is our reducing or cleaning up those emissions going to affect us negatively? When all evidence points to the fact that those things are actually part of the problem? You don't need a scientist to realize when you've got a factory pumping out noxious gases all day everyday that that is having a negative effect on the environment. I thought that was just common sense.

But even IF it's NOT having an effect on the environment, it most CERTAINLY has an affect on PEOPLE. Isn't it kind of weird how cancer has suddenly gotten so much worse in the 20th century?

It always sort of dumbfounded me that people get hellbent out of shape over second-hand cigarette smoke, but literally say nothing about the emissions from their cars, which they breathe in every moment they are outside of every day they go outside.

[dmytryp]

The cause is lots of CO2 in the atmosphere, but every single research paper that flies in the face of Climate change is backed by those that would seek to lose the most money with the implementation of renewable energies, so who is going to look at a solid fact like that?
Yes, really, why look at the facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv
etc. etc.



In the meantime, the play for time, using half truths and assumptions and banana and apple comparisons in way that I am sure would have made Orwell smile a little.
Yes, though, not in the way you think

[dmytryp]

So, by reducing the things that WE have started (things like pollution from factories and cars) is something we need to think about long and hard because by stopping something that we've only just started 100 years ago it could have a devatating effect?

I don't follow that logic. If the earth was plush for life for thousands of years before we invented cars and had a breakout in industry, then how is our reducing or cleaning up those emissions going to affect us negatively? When all evidence points to the fact that those things are actually part of the problem? You don't need a scientist to realize when you've got a factory pumping out noxious gases all day everyday that that is having a negative effect on the environment. I thought that was just common sense.

But even IF it's NOT having an effect on the environment, it most CERTAINLY has an affect on PEOPLE. Isn't it kind of weird how cancer has suddenly gotten so much worse in the 20th century?

It always sort of dumbfounded me that people get hellbent out of shape over second-hand cigarette smoke, but literally say nothing about the emissions from their cars, which they breathe in every moment they are outside of every day they go outside.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
You conflate Greenhouse emissions with pollution. But they aren't the same. Hell, even pollution isn't the same within itself. Different problems require different approaches.
Most sceptics you'd ask have no problem with conservation, cleaning pollution, improving efficiency of cars etc. etc. These weren't the things I talked about. I was talking about fundamentally changing energy production to, say, solar, without properly asessing future implications for the economy or theenvironment. I was talking about potentially assigning funds to solve problems that don't actually need solving or for solutions that'd have a marginal effect, instead of using those funds to combat other problems. You know, stuff like that.

[James81]

This is exactly what I was talking about.
You conflate Greenhouse emissions with pollution. But they aren't the same. Hell, even pollution isn't the same within itself. Different problems require different approaches.
Most sceptics you'd ask have no problem with conservation, cleaning pollution, improving efficiency of cars etc. etc. These weren't the things I talked about. I was talking about fundamentally changing energy production to, say, solar, without properly asessing future implications for the economy or theenvironment. I was talking about potentially assigning funds to solve problems that don't actually need solving or for solutions that'd have a marginal effect, instead of using those funds to combat other problems. You know, stuff like that.

So, it's a money issue with you. Gotcha.

[dmytryp]

So, it's a money issue with you. Gotcha.
No, it isn't. At least not mainly. For me this is a matter of purity of scientific debate.

P.S. I was in the AGW silent support camp a couple of years ago, by the way.

[mscelina]

Good grief, Joe--are we going to be subjected to this same old rant every time a flake of snow falls in Vegas? It's snowed twice in Vegas this year and this is the second thread you've started as a result.

So when Vegas hits 110 this summer, do the rest of us get to start pro-global-warming threads? Or, if Ohio just hits 95, would that equate snow in Vegas? You need to let me know what the boundaries are here so that I feel justified stirring up a pile of poop any time my weather hits an extreme.

*rolls eyes*

[Romantic Heretic]

Weather is a chaos system.

The more energy you put into a chaos system the more chaotic it becomes. That means more extremes.

So far the best scientific evidence shows that more energy is in the system due to the pollution that humans have dumped into the atmosphere and the water. That perspective could change but so far the preponderance of evidence indicates that the climate is changing and most of it is due to human carelessness.

Using science to back a political agenda is an ancient human custom. Pity that science says nothing about politics.

[RandomNotes]

Yes, really, why look at the facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark


Disproved here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

Check your facts!

[MacAllister]

I'll note that we have plenty of new folks in here, so I'm going to remind the P&CE Irregulars: Lets all work to keep this thread civil, please. Or I shall have to take those draconian measures that always have everyone screaming about free speech and censorship, and none of us like that.

[SHBueche]

I'll be the first to admit that snow on the 15th of April, in Vegas is extreme.

[James81]

I'll note that we have plenty of new folks in here, so I'm going to remind the P&CE Irregulars: Lets all work to keep this thread civil, please. Or I shall have to take those draconian measures that always have everyone screaming about free speech and censorship, and none of us like that.

Absolutewrite more liek Cuba amirite?

(that's a joke)

(or is it?)

I'll be the first to admit that snow on the 15th of April, in Vegas is extreme.

God knew it was income tax day.

[StephanieFox]

I was really cold last night, even tho' the heat was on, so that proves that global warming isn't real. 'Cause if I'm cold, then the entire globe must be cold. And remember, I took science classes in high school, so I know.

(Also, I'm the center of the universe, not Las Vegas.)

[rugcat]

Let me remind people of two things.

#1. The OP is not presenting an argument that GW is not scientifically proven. He is arguing, and has stated on several occasions, that the entire concept is a deliberate hoax, a fiction, and has been cynically promoted by liberals who have invented the idea solely as a means of controlling policy and/or making a fortune from it.

#2. The farther to the right politically one is, the more likely to argue against GW science. Just an observation -- why that should be is open to many interpretations.

[mscelina]

Wow. You owe me an apology, Rugcat. You should have been calling me a liberal for years. ;)

[dmytryp]

Disproved here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

Check your facts!
Actually, no
http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale
You really need to read the other side, too.
It is also noteworthy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD

P.S. Here (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012989.shtml) is the latest paper by Shaviv. I don't have time to look for a full text, so, here is only an abstract.
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.

Bolding mine

[dmytryp]

#2. The farther to the right politically one is, the more likely to argue against GW science. Just an observation -- why that should be is open to many interpretations.
This may be true for US, I wouldn't know. For me, at least, being AGW sceptic is not a matter of political phylosophy. Much similar to Shaviv, I believed the consensus version untill relatively recently. It has more to do with the fact of me being a natural sceptic in science. I think, a good scientist should be a sceptic.

[James81]

I think, a good scientist should be a sceptic.

A good scientist needs to be open-minded. Someone who can set up their experiments in a manner that will yield the most facts, regardless of outcome. Someone who will approach their studies and experiments with no previous bias (or disregarding any bias they may have).

Proving or disproving something isn't the mark of a good scientist. The mark of a good scientist is someone who will VERIFY whether something is true or not.

[dmytryp]

A good scientist needs to be open-minded. Someone who can set up their experiments in a manner that will yield the most facts, regardless of outcome. Someone who will approach their studies and experiments with no previous bias (or disregarding any bias they may have).

Proving or disproving something isn't the mark of a good scientist. The mark of a good scientist is someone who will VERIFY whether something is true or not.
A mark of a good scientist is to constantly doubt. To doubt your own data, your assumptions, your theories (here is where open mind comes in), to doubt the depth of your own knowledge in order to drive for better, deeper understanding.

[James81]

A mark of a good scientist is to constantly doubt. To doubt your own data, your assumptions, your theories (here is where open mind comes in), to doubt the depth of your own knowledge in order to drive for better, deeper understanding.

I don't think "doubt" has anything to do with it.

You perform an experiment, verify the results, and then you either re-run the experiment to verify the previous results and draw a conclusion, or you change the parameters and run it from a different angle.

I don't think that's a measure of "doubt" so much as being "thorough."

You don't have to DOUBT your experiments to be thorough.

[dmytryp]

I don't think "doubt" has anything to do with it.

You perform an experiment, verify the results, and then you either re-run the experiment to verify the previous results and draw a conclusion, or you change the parameters and run it from a different angle.

I don't think that's a measure of "doubt" so much as being "thorough."

You don't have to DOUBT your experiments to be thorough.
Of course you do. Lack of doubt leads to certainty of being right. Certainty about being right leads to skewed experiments when results are raped to validate a theory instead of theory trying to explain results.
G-d, I sound like Yoda.
Bottom line -- I just lost half year of experiments because I made a pretty reasonable assumption that turned out to be untrue

[Diana Hignutt]

#2. The farther to the right politically one is, the more likely to argue against GW science. Just an observation -- why that should be is open to many interpretations.

Few would consider me a right-winger, but I don't trust anyone on this issue anymore.

But, I am all for dumping less crap into the atmosphere for g.p.'s.

[James81]

Certainty about being right

is not anything at all what I was saying.

[Diana Hignutt]

is not anything at all what I was saying.

Of course it does, James. The lack of certainty is doubt.

[James81]

Of course it does, James. The lack of certainty is doubt.

Being thorough isn't a "lack of certainty."

[dmytryp]

Being thorough isn't a "lack of certainty."
You are missing a couple of stages from my post on this

[Joe270]

I was really cold last night, even tho' the heat was on, so that proves that global warming isn't real. 'Cause if I'm cold, then the entire globe must be cold. And remember, I took science classes in high school, so I know.

(Also, I'm the center of the universe, not Las Vegas.)

Regrettably, entire posts I wrote were deleted, so the answers I provided to this impression that I take local isolated weather incidents alone, no, that's not the case.

I'll try to dredge up all the links I provided before.

Darn it, I can't find the one which had over 350 cold records broken around the entire world. I'll keep trying.

Suffice it to say that I'm not talking about a locally cold winter. It's the entire world, not just Vegas.

#1. The OP is not presenting an argument that GW is not scientifically proven. He is arguing, and has stated on several occasions, that the entire concept is a deliberate hoax, a fiction, and has been cynically promoted by liberals who have invented the idea solely as a means of controlling policy and/or making a fortune from it.

Exactly. Also in one of my deleted posts was an explanation of the reason for this thread, the increase of our electrical rates in Nevada.

The power company here is pressing hard to significantly raise rates.

Why? Natural gas has plummeted 75% and oil has tumbled to sustained lows, but they need more money?

They won't say why, you have to look into their numbers to see the reason is spending on 'renewable' energy.

Their $100 million dollar Nellis Solar project is a hole to dump money in. They expect to 'save' a million a year. I've discussed these numbers before.

This is like buying a $100,000 car and claiming you're 'saving' $30 a month in bus fare.

It is ludicrous.

With new 58 megawatt facility currently under construction in Boulder City, the solar proponents obviously learned from the flak over Nellis and they won't even make the cost of the facility public.

Nothing like a little secrecy. If this is such a great deal, why keep it secret?

(Oh, and in an aside, all those 'jobs created by solar energy' people, including Obama, tout? This 58 megawatt facility will be the largest in the nation, and it will mean three permanent jobs. Three. Wow, that'll put a dent in our 10%+ unemployment rate.)

Now these were just the two local examples. This kind of stuff is happening on a national level, too. Cap and trade is about to happen, and if you think your power bills are high now, they're about to skyrocket.

Yes, I did state that GW is a hoax, and it is. I'm not the only one who sees it for what it is.

Conveniently changing the name of the movement to 'Climate Change' doesn't hide the facts at the core of this movement. They have stated that AGW exists and it is warming up the planet, hence 'global warming'. AGW is the core of their beliefs.

But now when they call it 'Climate Change', they can discount obvious physical proof that their AGW is wrong and say, 'hey, it's climate change, isn't it?' In my mind, this is comical. How can they seriously argue both ways?

The fact that the planet has been getting colder over the last three winters completely blows their computer 'models' away.

Note that none of their colorful charts and graphs use any data from the last few winters. If they used that data, they would have nothing to point at and say, 'see, warmer.'


#2. The farther to the right politically one is, the more likely to argue against GW science. Just an observation -- why that should be is open to many interpretations.


On this observation, I would suggest that most democrats and liberals tend to lean to the green side, so to speak. That fact could be clouding their judgment on the issue.

The fact is, more and more scientists are speaking out and risking their jobs to do so:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

I couldn't find the link again to the Princeton Review article on the professor there who is making a stand against GW. Hopefully someone else with better googling skills can find it. He made some great points, and stated clearly that the pseudo-science of GW is discrediting science in general.

Point 2: Perhaps it is the conservatives who are griping because we clearly see 'cap and trade' as a tax.

This 'cap and trade' policy is at the core of Obama's 'no tax increases' claim, he's gonna raise trillions of dollars, but he's gonna skirt the tax bit.

Still, 'cap and trade' is a tax, no matter what hip new name they call it.

When I have more time, I'll try to reconstruct the earlier posts with less profanity, find the great links, and clarify some of the misconceptions (such as only using Vegas weather).

[mscelina]

Hey, Joe! Is it snowing there?

*snicker*

Just kidding. It would help a lot if you didn't title these threads with the "It's snowing in Vegas so global warming must be bull" type headings, you know.

*gives Joe another little love tap*

You know--just to make it easier for simpletons like me.

[Joe270]

The snow accentuates the issue.

At the core of it, in the deleted posts, was how my electric rates are about to climb significantly because of 'renewables'. Why isn't the government paying for this?

Because they aren't going to 'raise taxes'.

Hmmm. Funny how this 'bait and switch' is working, isn't it?

[dmytryp]

Look, Joe. A hoax implies that the people (scientists) who are pushing AGW know it is a lie, but still push it for other reasons. While I think they are mistaken, and that the science doesn't support the cathegorical statements they make, I don't think this qualifies as a hoax.

[Joe270]

I don't think this qualifies as a hoax.

Certainly that's a debatable point. I could, if I had the time and desire, put together enough info from the internet to support my view that it is a hoax.

Now this is no fantastic source, but it does hit the high points behind my description of GW as a hoax:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081002175231AAGDQIJ

The environmental movement behind AGW came during the failing global cooling scare in 1975, it was decided at a conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead (known for her fraudulent work on Polynesians) that co2 would be the new environmental scare story and that scientific work would be carried out to justify the concept.

The hypothesis wasnt taken very seriously for many years with only the odd small group of modellers toying with crude climate models until it was further elevated in the 1980's when it was decided that the theory of co2 causing disaster could be used to justify more costly nuclear power putting the powerfull coal unions in the UK out of business. Margret Thatcher said to the scientists money was on the table if they could provide evidence for the hypothesis. This eventually led to the formation of the IPCC and global media interest.

I recall all the hubbub that two GW 'scientists' made when they couldn't get their work published in any science journal. I think it was around 1992. So they went to the press and got that pressure on the journals to publish their work. I'll try to find some better info on this, but I have little hope of finding it if I remember so little of it. My wife might recall some details which will help with a web search.

Sorry, I gotta go get my kids from school.

[icerose]

This is what I want since you can't predict the unpredictable (weather).

I want a total focus on energy.

Polution levels, renewability, safety, and cost to be the biggest points.

I want a system that's developed keeping all those points in mind and fairly balanced. I don't want us to look at miracle systems or systems that will cost a fortune compared to what we're currently doing, but doable steps that take us to a better cleaner future without all the added BS and prediction charts. Just a no-nonsense plan that only takes what we can control and impliments it.

Is that even possible?

[benbradley]

(earlier quote deleted because I decided not to respond to it)

...We're getting better and more efficient electrical engines every month.
Well, maybe so, but the efficiency of electrical motors has never been a significant problem compared to other things.

Here's one source:
http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/how_it_works.php
But more important than the motor's size or weight is its efficency. Without proper efficiency, a motor will convert electrical energy into heat instead of rotational energy. So we designed our motor to have efficiencies of 85 to 95 percent; this way the precious stored energy of the battery pack ends up propelling you down the road instead of just heating up the trunk.
I looked up modern types of rechargable batteries and found charge-discharge efficiencies of 60 to 95 percent, which is better than I expected (some Wilipedia entries have efficiencies of %99.95 or %99.99 which I absolutely do not believe). The main problem with electric cars is the driving range on a charge. You can double the range by doubling the number of batteries, but current electrics already have batteries as a substantial amount of their weight. Increased power density for a source of electricity in electric cars would be a boon (a small piston engine, or for higher efficiency, a gasoline turbine engine, connected to an alternator and with a five gallon gas tank would be great!).

For a comparison, the efficiency of a traditional incandescent light bulb (as invented by Edison and still available today, at least in MOST countries so far!) is about five percent, whereas the new compact fluorescents are in the 20 to 25 percent range. That's an increase of four or five times(!), but there's still a lot of room for improvement. The question is if and when new designs for lighting can be made that are substantially more efficient AND economically feasible.

We have also recently come up with a way to re-radiate spent nuclear fuel, so as to use it again in reactors.
Hasn't that always been true for breeder reactors, or are you thinking of something else?

Which means nuclear energy is safe, affordable and now renewable!

Nuclear energy powers our cities and our electric cars,

It's worth noting that the country with the cleanest air in Europe is also the country that gets the highest percentage of its electrical power from nuclear generators, and this country sells excess electricity to other countries.

and we are working on ways to synthesize oils from various sources (vegetable oils are looking promising).

So we'll have clean and efficient electric cars, safe and dependable nuclear reactors, and a steady, sustainable supply of plastic.
Nuclear proliferation is a worry (breeder reactors generate MORE nuclear fuel), but fuel seems to be well-controller in the first-world contries that use nuclear power, and third-world countries often have other access to nuclear materials anyway.

On the other hand, a Nuclear Winter would reverse Global Warming for a few years...


The "good scientist" discussion is interesting and I'd like to respond, but that's beyond the scope of this post, and perhaps this thread.

[Joe270]

Here's and overview of the 1975 Conference which started the Global Warming fiasco:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

It's interesting reading. I doubt all the accusations are dead-on, but folks should be really curious as to why a known hoaxer was in charge of this conference.

The article nails some of the leading names in GW 'science', using their own words to show how they intend to deceive the public.

This overview of the IPCC, which is the leading source quoted by GW supporters:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/whytheipccshouldbedisbanded.html

This is clearly a group formed with an objective in mind. That goes against true scientific method.

This site shows some of the temperature data collection stations and how they are set up to have higher temperature readouts. I thought the ones with light bulbs in them particularly funny:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

So, just a quick review of these few sites supports my use of the term 'hoax'.

[MattW]

The science will always be distilled for general consumption, and assumptions and nuance lost. Popular support generate political action, political action generates scientific funding, and scientific funding creates more grist for the panic mill.

Personally, I think we should all be good global caretakers so our lungs don't vaporize with every breath. And we should be able to leverage technology so we aren't beholden to criminals and terrorists for our economy to thrive. We also should not take drastic measures to reshape our world based imperfect understanding - should we create a devastatingly expensive program to scrub CO2, when it turns out increased CO2 is only a symptom of warming effects, not the cause? Should we create a technology infrastructure to cool the planet, only to realize we are in the midst of a local peak of a generally cold epoch?

As with so much else, arrogance leads us to believe we know best, and can shape this world, when truly we have barely scratched the surface of climatology on a geological scale and have no conception of the unintended consequences.

[robeiae]

"Global climate change" is no hoax. Why? Becasue the climate DOES change. Always has, always will...until there ceases to be a climate.

The potential "hoax" is the idea that we have the knowledge and ability to predict the changes and influence them in a measurable and fully predictable manner.

News flash: the human population in the world continues to grow, and every year, more and more things will be built and used to accommodate that growth.

[rugcat]

It's interesting reading. I doubt all the accusations are dead-on, but folks should be really curious as to why a known hoaxer was in charge of this conference.In 1925, at the dawn of anthropological research, Margaret Mead visited Samoa and interviewed adolescents there. From the answers she got, she developed theories about culture and society. Some eighty years later, there have been questions raised about her methodology and the validity of her results.

From Wikipedia: (Bolding mine)"

"In 1983, five years after Mead had died, anthropologist Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged Mead's major findings about sexuality in Samoan society, claiming evidence that her informants had misled her. After years of discussion, many anthropologists concluded that the truth would probably never be known, although most published accounts of the debate have also raised serious questions about Freeman's critique."

The characterization of Ms. Mead as a "known hoaxer" is unsupported and a deliberate attempt to ascribe suspect motives to her. It's also garbage.

Ms Hecht, the author (and Lyndon La Rouche associate) of the article uses this tactic often. Note her description of scientists she disagrees with: (Again, my bold)"climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak biologist George Woodwell, and the current AAAS president John Holdren—all three of them disciples of Malthusian fanatic Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population .Bomb.

She has also attacked Rachel Carson, (Silent Spring, 1962)) the first environmentalist to see the dangers of pesticide use (maybe the first environmentalist period) Ms. Carson's indictment of the dangers of DDT may have well been exaggerated, (although it is dangerous) but 50 years ago there wasn't much peer reviewed science in the field. Being a pioneer usually means you don't get everything 100% right.

I also urge everyone to read the article. It provides an illuminating view.

ETA: I also urge everyone to read Ms. Carson's Under The Sea Wind, a non political, non polemic piece of nature writing that blends accuracy with poetic vision -- maybe my favorite book as a kid.

[Joe270]

Language aside, there is little doubt of the intentions in that 1975 conference as evidenced by the quotes of those in attendance.

'Scientists' who are willing to manipulate data to make a greater impression on the public are not the best 'founding fathers' of this GW business.

So this particular writer has an agenda, so do those she's writing about. That Ms. Hecht is exposing those with an agenda which has spread across the world, I think she's more forgivable than those who knowingly created and perpetrated a hoax.

That the information we get is manipulated (see above post and link with temp stations) it is no surprise in a winter like 2009, which has set so many record cold readings, is called an 'average' year.

Of course, they have been caught manipulating the data before, flat out lying to 'prove' their 'science':

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/1b07b7e52bb50f07

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to
make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of
mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the
acceptance of man-made climate change theories.


On Monday, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al
Gore's
chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the
hottest October on record.


"This was startling," reports the London Telegraph [1]. "Across the world
there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last
month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New
Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its
"worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever
temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October
in 114 years."

"Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's
methodology has been called in question," reports the Telegraph. "In 2007 he
was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for
US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century
was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s."

So Ms. Hecht might use some harsh descriptions, but at least she's not faking data.

[Joe270]

To answer your question, Fullback, here's a summary mentioning two peer-reviewed papers:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=13a_1216309096

Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a “consensus” exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2’s ef More..fect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.

No global warming has been observed for the past 10 years as temperatures have gradually declined and studies indicate that there will be no further warming for the next 10 years.

There are more, I saw a long list, but I'm not gonna check out every one of them.

Two notes on this 'show me a peer-reviewed paper' ploy:

1) Most scientists don't waste their time proving myths false. It's just not a productive use of their time. You don't see scientists trying to debunk the tooth fairy, either.

2) Getting an article published which goes contrary to GW is dangerous to their jobs. It's a political hot potato that is too hot to handle.

[Joe270]

Good grief, Joe--are we going to be subjected to this same old rant every time a flake of snow falls in Vegas? It's snowed twice in Vegas this year and this is the second thread you've started as a result.

So when Vegas hits 110 this summer, do the rest of us get to start pro-global-warming threads? Or, if Ohio just hits 95, would that equate snow in Vegas? You need to let me know what the boundaries are here so that I feel justified stirring up a pile of poop any time my weather hits an extreme.

MSC, when you have three above average summers in the entire hemisphere in a row, have at it.

We have had three below average cold winters all across the Northern Hemisphere, and this one was a doozy.

Now after one cold winter, the GW people said, 'it's climate change, you'll have a cold winter every once in a while'.

How do they explain three in a row?

The GW people touted their computer models, but also stressed observation.

Well, this is certainly an observable trend. Three cold winters in a row. Global temperatures are going down, not up.

Even though CO2 in the atmosphere is still rising, temps are falling. That sorta wrecks the GW model all on it's own, but over a three year period, that makes it clear their model is bunk.

It's not about one snowfall, or one cold winter. It's about how their predictions have been completely wrong for three years now.

Will all the polar bears have to freeze to death before people start saying, 'huh, maybe they are wrong about this'?

[Zoombie]

Hasn't that always been true for breeder reactors, or are you thinking of something else?

Which means nuclear energy is safe, affordable and now renewable!

Its something different, something new.

My friend read it from somewhere (Very specific source, I know), and I've been bugging him to give me his link, BUT...he's busy partying it up during spring break, so we'll have to wait on that.

Really, nuclear proliferation...its a worry, yes, but I don't think we should let it stand the way of progress.

But that's just me...

As for the range issue...I can see that being a problem. However...it would work fine for urban travel, if recharging stations were made readily available.

Now, out of urban areas...use oil burners!

Till we get something better.

[MacAllister]

Heh. Funny. I meant to delete those posts because they called me an ignorant fuckwit for believing in Global Climate Change, and I took it personally.

[blacbird]

It's about how their predictions have been completely wrong for three years now.

Well, no they haven't. Not globally. But, hey, enjoy your local cooling trend.

Will all the polar bears have to freeze to death before people start saying, 'huh, maybe they are wrong about this'?

The polar bears, native to the state I live in, are having big trouble existing because the sea ice they depend upon for habitat is fast disappearing. Arctic and Antarctic areas have warmed far more rapidly than other parts of the planet over the past couple of decades. A week ago we had a major part of an Antarctic ice shelf simply break off and float away, freeing up the blocked glacial ice behind it to flow more rapidly into the sea.

I'm sorry a few snowflakes have got in the way of the convenience of smoking and gambling for you.

caw

[Joe270]

Heh. Funny. I meant to delete those posts because they called me an ignorant fuckwit for believing in Global Climate Change, and I took it personally.

You mean the polar bear bit, I assume. I thought it was a nice touch.

I was over the top last night, I'll admit that.

I was angry because I've lost the house with the ghost. The listing agent couldn't deal with the situation and ditched the listing. Some other agent will pick it up now.

I actually looked forward to going there, although I didn't want to spend time there. I don't know how to describe it, curiosity I suppose. I just wanted to discover something more. Well, no chance of that now.

So I was mad and I brought that to the page. I was outta line, and you were right to delete some of them. Heck, I deleted one myself.

[Joe270]

Well, no they haven't. Not globally. But, hey, enjoy your local cooling trend.


Read the OP links. It's not a local cooling trend, it's the entire northern hemisphere.

Of course the southern hemisphere isn't having a record cold winter because it's summer down there.

The polar bears, native to the state I live in, are having big trouble existing because the sea ice they depend upon for habitat is fast disappearing. Arctic and Antarctic areas have warmed far more rapidly than other parts of the planet over the past couple of decades. A week ago we had a major part of an Antarctic ice shelf simply break off and float away, freeing up the blocked glacial ice behind it to flow more rapidly into the sea.

Again, answered in the OP links, see the section on Antarctica for info on the 'major part of the ice shelf'. Not so major when you look at the whole picture.

The Arctic ice has apparently suffered more because of an unusual wind pattern rather than warming, because we're seeing cooling rather than warming anyway. In the OP is a link which explains how the sea ice is growing faster than expected. That should comfort you on the plight of the polar bears. Ya'll will be back to shooting them for sport in no time.

No problem with the snow flurries and the smoking and gambling, we still do that indoors here in Vegas. Both are legal here, too.

[blacbird]

Joe, you really need to start getting your scientific information from sites featuring actual scientific information, rather than "The American Thinker". Here's a start:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081027200309.htm

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/04/youth-of-arctic-sea-ice-revises-predictions-of-ice-free-pole.ars

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30074699/

caw

[Joe270]

Anything using IPCC numbers is suspect at best.

Refer to the links on the IPCC getting caught cheating the numbers, and take a gander at a couple of the photos showing the temp monitoring stations.

If that doesn't give you pause on their 'data', nothing short of freezing polar bears will.

More and more scientists are growing bold enough to start refuting this 'science'. This debate is far from over, despite claims to the contrary from the GW folks. One day people might look back and realize 'The American Thinker' was right all along.

[Unique]

Global Climate Shift

or Global Climate Change

if you prefer. Africa used to be green.

As a scientist I refuse to participate in these types of threads anymore. This is about the third. No matter what data you have, no matter what data the other side presents, nothing seems to hit home to some people.

I say - look out your damn window. I saw mockingbirds exhibiting mating behavior in January. A friend watched Canada geese flying North over his place in February and Meadowlarks returning as well. And he lives in South Dakota!

I'm reading a new book now by a systems biologist (my field!). She reiterates her observations from around the world. No reputable scientist will tell you mankind has 'caused' the climate change; our behavior exacerbates it.

Evolution is change over time. You want your changes to be slow and gradual so species can adapt accordingly. Sudden changes can be catastrophic - even for highly adaptable species like humans.

My part of North Carolina used to be the beach. We dig fossil megladon teeth in a local riverbed. I'm 120 miles from the coast. I know things change over time. I can see it with my own eyes.

A microclimate can explain why one region gets snow and another nearby location does not. I regularly grow species of plants outside their range because I know how to do it. But these species are able to grow here on their own without intervention - when anyone can do it - I know something has changed.

[dmytryp]

The characterization of Ms. Mead as a "known hoaxer" is unsupported and a deliberate attempt to ascribe suspect motives to her. It's also garbage.

Ms Hecht, the author (and Lyndon La Rouche associate) of the article uses this tactic often. Note her description of scientists she disagrees with: (Again, my bold)"climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak biologist George Woodwell, and the current AAAS president John Holdren—all three of them disciples of Malthusian fanatic Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population .Bomb.

She has also attacked Rachel Carson, (Silent Spring, 1962)) the first environmentalist to see the dangers of pesticide use (maybe the first environmentalist period) Ms. Carson's indictment of the dangers of DDT may have well been exaggerated, (although it is dangerous) but 50 years ago there wasn't much peer reviewed science in the field. Being a pioneer usually means you don't get everything 100% right.

I also urge everyone to read the article. It provides an illuminating view.


I'd tread carefully here, if I were you. The proponents of AGW have very poor track record of accusing people of being "heretics", "criminals against environment" etc. Even calling for criminal prosecution of those who think AGW is incorrect.

Language aside, there is little doubt of the intentions in that 1975 conference as evidenced by the quotes of those in attendance.

'Scientists' who are willing to manipulate data to make a greater impression on the public are not the best 'founding fathers' of this GW business.

So this particular writer has an agenda, so do those she's writing about. That Ms. Hecht is exposing those with an agenda which has spread across the world, I think she's more forgivable than those who knowingly created and perpetrated a hoax.

That the information we get is manipulated (see above post and link with temp stations) it is no surprise in a winter like 2009, which has set so many record cold readings, is called an 'average' year.

Of course, they have been caught manipulating the data before, flat out lying to 'prove' their 'science':

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/1b07b7e52bb50f07





So Ms. Hecht might use some harsh descriptions, but at least she's not faking data.
Again, Joe, this doen't make it a hoax. It makes them poor scientists maybe. People who let their convictions guide them instead of facts, maybe. This would be nothing new. Scientists are succeptible to the same vices as the rest of the people.

[Joe270]

I say - look out your damn window. I saw mockingbirds exhibiting mating behavior in January

So I look out my damn window and see snow in April, when folks are usually in their swimming pools by mid-March, and that means nothing.

Yet when you look out your window and see horny mockingbirds, it's the end of the earth.

Okay.

I feel for your birds flying north in January. No doubt they all froze to death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1118244/Americans-suffer-record-cold-temperatures-plunge-40C.html

Americans were today shivering as bitter arctic winds caused temperatures to plunge to record-breaking levels in many parts of the vast country.

[James81]

^I've been wearing shorts the past couple of days. I reject the idea that it's snowing somewhere else, because I do not see snow.

[Joe270]

Watch more TV, see more snow.

(Sorry, I've been hanging out too long in the 'Ask A Stupid Question' thread.)

[blacbird]

Some links to real data, including from a major "skeptics" site. I'll refrain from other comment. You can look, and draw your own conclusions:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce_Fig01.asp

http://bipolar.colorado.edu/sotc/sea_ice.html

caw

[ColoradoGuy]

From today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041701453.html?hpid=topnews). The EPA has begun the formal process of declaring greenhouse gases a threat to health and therefore requiring, by law, some sort of regulation

[dmytryp]

From today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041701453.html?hpid=topnews). The EPA has begun the formal process of declaring greenhouse gases a threat to health and therefore requiring, by law, some sort of regulation
I've read parts of the article, and to tell you the truth, this was one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read. Most of those gasses (they forgot water vapor, by the way) are already regulated since they are toxic. This leaves CO2 and water vapor. It'll take some acrobatics to clim they are a health hazard in the amounts we are talking about.
This is really not necessary. Our gov wanted to promote greener cars, they went and instituted either additional tax or a rebate system based on the amounts of pollution the car produces (giving heavy subsidies for hybrids and electrics). Will this really push for the desired effect? Probably to a small degree, since the differences are not very big. But the stuff in that article... *shakes head*

[dclary]

From today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041701453.html?hpid=topnews). The EPA has begun the formal process of declaring greenhouse gases a threat to health and therefore requiring, by law, some sort of regulation


There go my trips to Taco Bell. :(

[Joe270]

The EPA has begun the formal process of declaring greenhouse gases a threat to health and therefore requiring, by law, some sort of regulation

Un-freakin'-believable.

They are gonna regulate the air we breathe now.

[robeiae]

We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company (http://rodgers.smartvideochannel.com/media/playvideo.aspx?cid=DF3E3EDFF9F04B63A4701304D042B1F 4&f=flash7&v=mostviewed) government.

[Joe270]

The question is, how soon before they tax the air we breathe?

[Magdalen]

The question is, how soon before they tax the air we breathe?


If you smoke, the answer is: NOW.

[robeiae]

If I could make a wish I think I'd pass
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound
Nothing to eat no books to read...

[Magdalen]

Sometimes. . .

All I need is the air that I breathe and to love you!! ARgghhhh! Robo-vowel, I'm placing you on a diet of water and BREAD.

ETA: make that a diet of Hollies and Ivy

[robeiae]

All I need is the air that I breathe and to love you!!Thank you.

ETA: And it's not stinkin BREAD! It's The Hollies. Well, okay. Phil Everly, first.

[Joe270]

Obama:

"All I need is the air that we breathe just to tax you!!"

[Bird of Prey]

I will miss the snows of Kilimanjaro. . . .

http://www.earthkam.ucsd.edu/public/images/investigations/kilimanjaro/graphics/image04.jpg

[Magdalen]

I miss the rains down in Africa

[Don]

Get a room, you two. :D

[Joe270]

Where's the photo from 2009? Save the lament until you post that, okay?

[Joe270]

I miss the rains down in Africa

You should be banned for posting that. Oh, wait, I posted it, too. Rats, foiled again.

[ColoradoGuy]

Thank you.

ETA: And it's not stinkin BREAD! It's The Hollies. Well, okay. Phil Everly, first.
Were you alive then?

[robeiae]

I will miss the snows of Kilimanjaro. . . .

Yeah, deforestation can do that.

[robeiae]

Were you alive then?
1974? Why yes, I was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7S8-Iewi0&feature=related

[Magdalen]

Thank you.

ETA: And it's not stinkin BREAD! It's The Hollies. Well, okay. Phil Everly, first.

Check my edit, baby, beat ya!

[Bird of Prey]

http://www.uwalumni.com/image.aspx/media/images/Travel/trav_tanzania.jpg-xWhere's the photo from 2009? Save the lament until you post that, okay?

[Bird of Prey]

Yeah, deforestation can do that.

That theory is highly controversial.

[robeiae]

That theory is highly controversial.
Oh, is it?

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1225401620070612

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/16905/Junk_Science_Kilimanjaros_Snow_Cap.html

[ColoradoGuy]

1974? Why yes, I was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7S8-Iewi0&feature=related
I meant Graham Nash era Hollies. Early 60s.

[robeiae]

I meant Graham Nash era Hollies. Early 60s.
No, I wasn't. Do you like Mozart? ;)

[Magdalen]

Careful, C-Guy! You could end up dating Robaeiea(& sometimes y)

[ColoradoGuy]

Oh, is it?

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1225401620070612

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/16905/Junk_Science_Kilimanjaros_Snow_Cap.html
I agree with you on this one, sort of, but Heartland Institute? They call Nature, along with Science the two most prestigious scientific journals in the entire world, a "left-leaning journal."

[Bird of Prey]

Oh, is it?

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1225401620070612

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/16905/Junk_Science_Kilimanjaros_Snow_Cap.html


Yes, Rob, it is. We could link war if you'd like. Or you could just acknowledge that it's controversial. There are probably many factors that have contributed to Kilimanjaro's ice melt, of which climate change may be a factor. Deforestation, as you said, another.

But that said, even what causes climate change is controversial. According to some, what we're experiencing is simply a natural cycle. I don't think so, but I say, ask him:

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/iceman/iceman.jpeg

[robeiae]

I agree with you on this one, sort of, but Heartland Institute? They call Nature, along with Science the two most prestigious scientific journals in the entire world, a "left-leaning journal."
Sorry, CG. I just used it because it provides a list of sources.

[robeiae]

Yes, Rob, it is. We could link war if you'd like. Or you could just acknowledge that it's controversial.No, I won't acknowledge any such thing. I'm happy to have a "link war." You'll lose. Badly.

[benbradley]

I will miss the snows of Kilimanjaro. . . .

Why not just move to Vegas?

[Magdalen]

No, I won't acknowledge any such thing. I'm happy to have a "link war." You'll lose. Badly.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

I'm ready. Let the show begin.

[James81]

Yes, Rob, it is. We could link war if you'd like. Or you could just acknowledge that it's controversial. There are probably many factors that have contributed to Kilimanjaro's ice melt, of which climate change may be a factor. Deforestation, as you said, another.

But that said, even what causes climate change is controversial. According to some, what we're experiencing is simply a natural cycle. I don't think so, but I say, ask him:

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/iceman/iceman.jpeg

Is that C3PO?

[Bird of Prey]

No, I won't acknowledge any such thing. I'm happy to have a "link war." You'll lose. Badly.

Typical response. This is probably the most objective link I can find, unlike yours:

http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Kilimanjaro/Kilimanjaro

It's pretty much a summation of various factors concerning the dwindling snow on Kilimanjaro. As you'll note, climate change is not discounted as a factor, but rather included. But then, all of that could change with recent studies, like this (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/mt-kilimanjaros-snow-cap-may-not-disappear-by-2020-or-2030_10084058.html) one, which is still not committing to idea that the cap will even melt, albeit acknowledges climate change as an influence, although to what degree - no pun intended - is still unknown.

[Bird of Prey]

Why not just move to Vegas?

I'll miss water.

[Bird of Prey]

Is that C3PO?

Lol!! After a close call with a solar flare?

[robeiae]

Typical response. This is probably the most objective link I can find, unlike yours:

http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Kilimanjaro/Kilimanjaro
Bwahahaha...As I noted to CG, I just used the second because it gave a lit of sources.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/kaser_etal_2004ijc.pdf
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/moelg_hardy_2004jgr.pdf
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/hardy_2003bams.pdf

More:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4213

Look, you've picked the wrong battle. The situation on Kilimanjaro isn't evidence for or against AGW, at all. It's largely unrelated. The theory that deforestation has contributed to the loss of snow/ice is not "highly controversial" (that's what you claimed, let's remember). It's a legitimate theory. What is "highly controversial" is the idea that the loss of snow/ice is attributable--directly--to AGW. And THAT is what you were implying. Why is it "highly controversial"? Because it has pretty much been discredited. Your linked-to article's basis for allowing the possibility that global warming MAY be a factor is based on an article from 2002, alone. That ship has sailed.

And you can't find better links, because there aren't any.

[Bird of Prey]

Bwahahaha...As I noted to CG, I just used the second because it gave a lit of sources.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/kaser_etal_2004ijc.pdf
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/moelg_hardy_2004jgr.pdf
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/hardy_2003bams.pdf

More:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4213

Look, you've picked the wrong battle. The situation on Kilimanjaro isn't evidence for or against AGW, at all. It's largely unrelated. The theory that deforestation has contributed to the loss of snow/ice is not "highly controversial" (that's what you claimed, let's remember). It's a legitimate theory. What is "highly controversial" is the idea that the loss of snow/ice is attributable--directly--to AGW. And THAT is what you were implying. Why is it "highly controversial"? Because it has pretty much been discredited. Your linked-to article's basis for allowing the possibility that global warming MAY be a factor is based on an article from 2002, alone. That ship has sailed.

And you can't find better links, because there aren't any.

I'm afraid you're wrong:

Based on what is now known, it would be highly premature to conclude that the retreat and imminent disappearance of the Kilimanjaro glaciers has nothing to do with warming of the air, and even more premature to conclude that it has nothing to do with indirect effects of human-induced tropical climate change. On the contrary, a study of the glaciers' long history argues powerfully that the recent retreat is happening in an environment significantly different from that which the mountain experienced during past equally dry periods. To better understand what Kilimanjaro and other tropical glaciers are telling us about climate change, one ultimately ought to drive a set of tropical glacier models with GCM simulations conducted with and without anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol). There are substantial challenges to doing so: uncertainties in modeling the energy balance terms, general difficulties in modeling regional climate change, and insufficient resolution of mountains and their mesoscale circulation patterns. The time is ripe to make the first attempts at this, and hopefully such efforts will bear fruit within the coming decade. The attempt to reconcile simulated warming patterns with the tropical glacier record will shed a lot of light on the influence of a range of climate feedback factors — including convection, clouds and water vapor — and the ability of models to faithfully represent them. Because of the strong effect of fresh snowfall on the ability of a glacier to absorb sunlight, it is likely that changes in precipitation amount or pattern will prove to be part of the story. . . .
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157

How's that for a link? Will that do?

[robeiae]

I'm afraid you're wrong:

Based on what is now known, it would be highly premature to conclude that the retreat and imminent disappearance of the Kilimanjaro glaciers has nothing to do with warming of the air, and even more premature to conclude that it has nothing to do with indirect effects of human-induced tropical climate change. On the contrary, a study of the glaciers' long history argues powerfully that the recent retreat is happening in an environment significantly different from that which the mountain experienced during past equally dry periods. To better understand what Kilimanjaro and other tropical glaciers are telling us about climate change, one ultimately ought to drive a set of tropical glacier models with GCM simulations conducted with and without anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol). There are substantial challenges to doing so: uncertainties in modeling the energy balance terms, general difficulties in modeling regional climate change, and insufficient resolution of mountains and their mesoscale circulation patterns. The time is ripe to make the first attempts at this, and hopefully such efforts will bear fruit within the coming decade. The attempt to reconcile simulated warming patterns with the tropical glacier record will shed a lot of light on the influence of a range of climate feedback factors — including convection, clouds and water vapor — and the ability of models to faithfully represent them. Because of the strong effect of fresh snowfall on the ability of a glacier to absorb sunlight, it is likely that changes in precipitation amount or pattern will prove to be part of the story. . . .
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157

How's that for a link? Will that do?
Sure. But you're way down in the total. And I just took that shot because of your own "unlike yours" bit.

Still, nothing to show what is "highly controversial" about deforestation. And this bit doesn't make a "global warming as the cause" case, at all. It points to the difficulty of doing so, albeit while maintaining that AGW could be a factor.

So, I'm not wrong. And you're losing the "war."

[Bird of Prey]

Sure. But you're way down in the total. And I just took that shot because of your own "unlike yours" bit.

Still, nothing to show what is "highly controversial" about deforestation. And this bit doesn't make a "global warming as the cause" case, at all. It points to the difficulty of doing so, albeit while maintaining that AGW could be a factor.

So, I'm not wrong. And you're losing the "war."

Way down? In what, total?? Sorry, quality counts, not quantity. I'm linking from the proverbial horse's mouth, Rob. And to boot, it's recent. I tried to draw recent links because I thought it would make it more relevant. And yes, it is highly controversial and contentious, because of Al Gore's documentary. The ultra-right there-is-no-global-warming set jumped on the Kilmanjaro deforestation theory with glee. So I'm afraid "you are wrong" if your are trying to make a definitive argument. And I'm afraid I'm not losing anything - as in you are not winning - however important that may be to you.

[blacbird]

Look, you've picked the wrong battle. The situation on Kilimanjaro isn't evidence for or against AGW, at all. It's largely unrelated. The theory that deforestation has contributed to the loss of snow/ice is not "highly controversial" (that's what you claimed, let's remember). It's a legitimate theory. What is "highly controversial" is the idea that the loss of snow/ice is attributable--directly--to AGW.

Wait a minute. How is deforestation not a part of "AGW"? Who exactly deforested the forests?

You take out whole forest ecologies, as has been done in Haiti, Madagascar and lots of other places, and is being pursued apace in the Amazon and Indonesia, in particular, you reduce the capacity of the planet's ecology to absorb and recirculate CO2. In addition to which you actually add to the CO2 emissions via the acceleratedoxidation of removed plant material, either by burning or by decay.This isn't "AGW"?

caw

[Joe270]

I think it's freakin' hilarious that the GW people say, 'oh, you can't point to one or two cold winters, or one thing as evidence GW doesn't exist.'

Yet they point to anything 'off kilter', associated with GW or not, and cry, 'look, that's global warming!'

Very hypocritical and myopic, but most really hypocritical.

Just in this thread, I've had all sorts of rude comments about 'one local snowfall', when, from the beginning I have posted about three cold years.

But it's fine and dandy to lament and bemoan Mt. Kilimanjaro, and those same people who bitched about my three cold winters are completely silent.

Hmmm. There's a word for that.

[blacbird]

Joe, you realllllllllllly need to look hard at the temperature graphs (many such linked in my earlier post). Three years do not a trend make. Now, if this continues for seven or eight years, you have some traction. But the sawtooths of the graphs over the past several decades have a number of three-four year downturns. The trend seems to operate on a decade-level, or thereabouts. 2005 was a peak warm year, and we seem to have backed off that a bit from 2006-2008. Extrapolating from that time frame only is bogus.

caw

[Joe270]

Three years do not a trend make.

What a load of crap. How 'bout you have some of your GW pals use any of the data from those years? Because it tanks your 'data' right into the toilet.

Your temperature graphs are fakes and frauds. The temperature stations have light bulbs in them to skew the data, and are place in the stupidest places possible. Parking lots? What's wrong with a field?

Funny how folks still support this 'data' and psuedo-science when the IPCC has clearly been caught manipulating and flat-out lying about data. How 'bout 50 papers disputing the facts you so heartily support:

http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

No, I don't pay any attention to your graphs, because they are lies.

Just like Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth', and the whole GW religion. A hoax, that's all it is.

[Joe270]

How is deforestation not a part of "AGW"?

Oh, hell, what liberal knee-jerk subject are you gonna lump in with GW next, 'Save the Whales'? Baby seal hunts? Birkenstocks?

I can see the headline now: From the New York Times

'Wearing Tie-Died T-Shirts and Birkenstocks Proven to Cool the Planet'.

[blacbird]

Your temperature graphs are fakes and frauds. The temperature stations have light bulbs in them to skew the data, and are place in the stupidest places possible. Parking lots? What's wrong with a field?

I think we've reached the nadir of discussion here. If you're going to accuse everyone you disagree with of being a fraud and a liar and a charlatan, because . . . well . . . you disagree with them, we have nothing further to discuss.

Regards "deforestation", I simply reiterate the question, and ask someone more rational, like robeieio, for a response.

As much as I regret it, you now join the exclusive company of only one other person on my Ignore list.

caw

[dmytryp]

I think we've reached the nadir of discussion here. If you're going to accuse everyone you disagree with of being a fraud and a liar and a charlatan, because . . . well . . . you disagree with them, we have nothing further to discuss.

Regards "deforestation", I simply reiterate the question, and ask someone more rational, like robeieio, for a response.

As much as I regret it, you now join the exclusive company of only one other person on my Ignore list.

caw
Well, AGW generally refers to Global Warming caused by greenhouse gasses emitted by humans, but your point is a good one, though you'd have to make the direct case for deforestation actually causing warming (average rise of a temperature over the years) and not causing the retreat of the glaciers through other effects.

EDIT: By the way, you'd also need to show that the effect on Kilimanjaro is the global result (since "g" in the is for "global", like many in this thread pointed out) of either local or global deforestation, as opposed to a local phenomena

[robeiae]

Way down? In what, total?? Sorry, quality counts, not quantity. I'm linking from the proverbial horse's mouth, Rob. And to boot, it's recent. I tried to draw recent links because I thought it would make it more relevant. And yes, it is highly controversial and contentious, because of Al Gore's documentary. The ultra-right there-is-no-global-warming set jumped on the Kilmanjaro deforestation theory with glee. So I'm afraid "you are wrong" if your are trying to make a definitive argument. And I'm afraid I'm not losing anything - as in you are not winning - however important that may be to you.
BoP, you said--re deforestation--that it was "highly controversial." I replied with a link to an actual published paper on the theory and with links to articles and stories arguing that "global warming" was not the culprit behind the snow/ice loss on Kilimanjaro.

Your response to that? Let's look:


Yes, Rob, it is. We could link war if you'd like. Or you could just acknowledge that it's controversial. There are probably many factors that have contributed to Kilimanjaro's ice melt, of which climate change may be a factor. Deforestation, as you said, another.
Now, I took you up on the "link war" as kind of a joke, to see how far you'd actually go to, here. But read what you wrote, again.

You want me to "acknowledge" something that is controversial, which then IMMEDIATELY ACCEPT AS A POSSIBLE FACTOR. Think.

Regardless, you have nothing to support your claim--the one that started this--on deforestation. Yet, here you are, claiming--again--that it's highly controversial and "contentious," as well. Back it up. I don't think you can.

[Bird of Prey]

BoP, you said--re deforestation--that it was "highly controversial." I replied with a link to an actual published paper on the theory and with links to articles and stories arguing that "global warming" was not the culprit behind the snow/ice loss on Kilimanjaro.

Your response to that? Let's look:

Now, I took you up on the "link war" as kind of a joke, to see how far you'd actually go to, here. But read what you wrote, again.

You want me to "acknowledge" something that is controversial, which then IMMEDIATELY ACCEPT AS A POSSIBLE FACTOR. Think.

Regardless, you have nothing to support your claim--the one that started this--on deforestation. Yet, here you are, claiming--again--that it's highly controversial and "contentious," as well. Back it up. I don't think you can.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0608/p14s02-sten.html


Well, I think I've had enough of this conversation. You can claim whatever you want, Rob, that doesn't make it so.

[robeiae]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0608/p14s02-sten.html


Well, I think I've had enough of this conversation. You can claim whatever you want, Rob, that doesn't make it so.Nothing in that piece supports what you bolded. What was the point?

[williemeikle]

There's no snow on the ground in Newfoundland at the moment. At this time of the year its usually a couple of feet deep.

<sarcasm>
So much for global warming, huh?
</sarcasm>

[blacbird]

By the way, you'd also need to show that the effect on Kilimanjaro is the global result (since "g" in the is for "global", like many in this thread pointed out) of either local or global deforestation, as opposed to a local phenomena

I'll just point out that mountain glaciers are diminishing almost everywhere on the planet. I suppose those could all be local effects, but somehow . . .

caw

[dmytryp]

I'll just point out that mountain glaciers are diminishing almost everywhere on the planet. I suppose those could all be local effects, but somehow . . .

caw
Nice tap dance.
The original point of contention between BoP and Rob was Kilimanjaro's glacier receding. The arguement was that the major cause was deforestation not AGW. You said that deforestation is part part of AGW. I said that while this is a valid point, you'd have to make the case for Kilimanjaro's glacier receding as a result of global phenomena and not a local one (caused by local deforestation).
By the way, each case should be examined on its own, no? Who said all the glaciars are receding for the same reasons? Many, I agree, are receding due to warmer temperatures. Some might due to local phenomena. The two are not mutually exclusive. As an aside, I don't know enough about Kilimanjaro's situation to make a claim either way. I was just pointing out the weak points in your logical chain.

[benbradley]

I think it's freakin' hilarious that the GW people say, 'oh, you can't point to one or two cold winters, or one thing as evidence GW doesn't exist.'

Yet they point to anything 'off kilter', associated with GW or not, and cry, 'look, that's global warming!'

Very hypocritical and myopic, but most really hypocritical.
It's for such reasons that they now call "it" Global Climate Change.
There's no snow on the ground in Newfoundland at the moment. At this time of the year its usually a couple of feet deep.

<sarcasm>
So much for global warming, huh?
</sarcasm>
Again, it's now call it Global Climate Change so that ANYTHING that looks unusual with the climate and weather can be blamed on dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere.

[Joe270]

Again, it's now call it Global Climate Change so that ANYTHING that looks unusual with the climate and weather can be blamed on dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere.

Yes, I know they call in 'Climate Change' now, so they can try to use contracdictory data to support their claims, however, at the root of 'Climate Change' remains their chief claim, AGW.

However, while CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are falling. That means the assumption that CO2 causes warming is wrong.

Otherwise, temps would continue to rise.

Pretty simple, really.

[blacbird]

By the way, each case should be examined on its own, no? Who said all the glaciars are receding for the same reasons? Many, I agree, are receding due to warmer temperatures. Some might due to local phenomena. The two are not mutually exclusive. As an aside, I don't know enough about Kilimanjaro's situation to make a claim either way. I was just pointing out the weak points in your logical chain.

Occam's Razor may not always lead to the correct answer, but it's nearly always a good place to start. Constant searching for exceptions or the unusual usually isn't.

My major point was the one you say you agree with: that deforestation is undeniably human-caused. I don't consider it some sort of category of stuff discrete from industrial emissions. They are, in fact, two faces of the same coin.

Now, if you want to argue that deforestation doesn't matter in the same way that industrial emissions don't matter, proceed.

caw

[dmytryp]

Occam's Razor may not always lead to the correct answer, but it's nearly always a good place to start. Constant searching for exceptions or the unusual usually isn't.

My major point was the one you say you agree with: that deforestation is undeniably human-caused. I don't consider it some sort of category of stuff discrete from industrial emissions. They are, in fact, two faces of the same coin.

Now, if you want to argue that deforestation doesn't matter in the same way that industrial emissions don't matter, proceed.

caw
*sigh*
Are you trying to deliberately misrepresent my point?
I am not arguing whether deforestation in general contributes to GW. I am not arguing that this component or that component is more important. I am actually not arguing at all.
All I said that in this specific case, of Kilimanjaro, as Rob indicated, local deforestation, not GW in general are the cause of the receding glacier (or at least that what I understood from his conversation with BoP, without delving into the links). You said that deforestation is part of AGW and thus AGW could be considered the cause of Kilimanjaro's glacier's disappearence. I answered that in general I would agree, but in order to make that local leap you'd have to make a point that the glacier is receding through warming and not say other phenomena caused by deforestation, and that this specific case wasn't a result of local deforestation and maybe local warming, as opposed to the general global warming. That was just an observation of the logical chain. I don't know enough to say either way.

P.S. My point about judging each case separately has nothing to do with occam's razor. Every sinlge glacier has a separate set of parameters. They may be all receding due to the same phenomena of global warming, or they may not be doing so for the same reasons. Without knowing the specifics of each case, how can you even apply occam's razor?

[blacbird]

*sigh*
I am actually not arguing at all.

Well, ya fooled me. But I don't mind a decent argument, as long as it's rational and has something behind it other than "I don't like it, so it's a goddamn evil conspiracy." Which you don't do, so that's okay.

caw

[robeiae]

Occam owned a lawnmower, too. John Deere X720SE.

[benbradley]

Now there's a "what else you can do to stop Global Warming now" banner ad at the top of this thread that goes to:
http://letsactnow.org/
That "what else you can do" is thing is stopping eating meat. The site actually makes some good and correct points (vegetarian diet is much healthier in many ways), but I'm wondering a) if some radical organization such as PETA is behind it, and/or b) how soon some rancher's association is going to sue them for attacking their business, much as they did with Oprah and Howard "Mad Cowboy" Lyman a decade ago.

I do question this: "it’s also a main cause of the current world food crisis, as nearly half of the world’s grain is used to feed livestock instead of humans." Much of what I've heard about hunger has less to do with how much food is available and more to do with tyrant leaders who won't let it be delivered to their people, and refugees unable to do what they used to do for food because their land is under war, run by tyrants.

But I think socially it's ridiculous. Most first-world middle class and up people will give up their SUV's before they stop or cut down eating meat.

[blacbird]

Occam owned a lawnmower, too. John Deere X720SE.

No he didn't, but he probably had goats.

caw

[benbradley]

http://www.surfacestations.org/

[Joe270]

I posted another link which shows some of the more notorious stations.

Question:

How does one run electricity and put in a lightbulb into a temperature station and not know that will cause a warmer reading?

Answer:

They do know, that's why they go to all that trouble.

That was my whole point with their 'data' and their 'scientific method', it's all suspect. There is zero doubt that they are seeking the highest possible temp readings.

So folks who point to their graphs should understand that the data behind those graphs is faked.

[Magdalen]

Joe, I respect your right to think that Global Warming is bunk, Climate Change is a natural occurrence and much of current scientific data is corrupt. I recently read an article indicating we could be approaching another mini-ice age, similiar to the one suspected to have occurred in the early 19th century. So I will continue to collect info on the topic and keep my eyes open. But don't you think we need to start taking better care of our planet? People all over the world pollute the air, land and water with no regard to the consequences. How much longer do you think we can get away with this kind of neglegence before the balance of nature suffers irreparable harm? Should we just hedge our bets (very American, that hedging) and let the next generation worry about it?

[dmytryp]

Well, ya fooled me. But I don't mind a decent argument, as long as it's rational and has something behind it other than "I don't like it, so it's a goddamn evil conspiracy." Which you don't do, so that's okay.

caw
A. It is polite to make some kind of sign when you are snipping someone's posts to indicate they didn't come in the exact way you present them

B. My points vis-a-vis Kilimanjaro were generally unrelated to GW debate, but to simple logic issues. It is really simple -- you either support BoP's position that GW was the cause of the receding glacier, and then local deforestation wasn't the main factor (unless you can make the case for it being enough of a contributor to the rise of global temperatures) or you are with Rob who says that local deforestation was the main cause and then the global rise of temperatures had little to do with it. That was all that I wanted to point out.

P.S. Anybody have an analysis of the impact of deforestation on temperatures? On one hand, reducing tree cover you increase CO2 concentrations, which should the temp up (by how much is my main point of contention with AGW theories). On the other hand, deforestation also changes reflectivity of the surface, which in turn has a more direct affect on the temp. It'd be really interesting for me to read such an analysis.

[dmytryp]

Joe, I respect your right to think that Global Warming is bunk, Climate Change is a natural occurrence and much of current scientific data is corrupt. I recently read an article indicating we could be approaching another mini-ice age, similiar to the one suspected to have occurred in the early 19th century. So I will continue to collect info on the topic and keep my eyes open. But don't you think we need to start taking better care of our planet? People all over the world pollute the air, land and water with no regard to the consequences. How much longer do you think we can get away with this kind of neglegence before the balance of nature suffers irreparable harm? Should we just hedge our bets (very American, that hedging) and let the next generation worry about it?
posts 14, 25, 29

[blacbird]

Just for grins, Los Angeles is expected to get unseasonably warm temperatures over the next few days. My guess is that will spread rather quickly to Las Vegas, which isn't all that far away. So much for global cooling.

caw

[dmytryp]

Just for grins, Los Angeles is expected to get unseasonably warm temperatures over the next few days. My guess is that will spread rather quickly to Las Vegas, which isn't all that far away. So much for global cooling.

caw
Yes, and Colorado had just had a major snow storm.
A lot has been said in this thread with regards to GW supposedly causing larger disparity in the weather. But does anybody have an actual study about it, or is it a completely theoretical hand-waving? This is a serious question, here. I seem to remember an unsuccessful attempt to ascribe eitherhurricanes or el-ninyo to GW.
The reason why I ask, is because from my understanding of GCM (Global Circulation Models) that are used by climatologists to predict climate trends, they don't deal well with short term trends and effects (they have real trouble with simulatinf clouds' effect, for example). They point to constant warming as CO2 levels rise. So, where does the claim about the warming causing extreme weathers come from?

[Joe270]

But don't you think we need to start taking better care of our planet? People all over the world pollute the air, land and water with no regard to the consequences. How much longer do you think we can get away with this kind of neglegence before the balance of nature suffers irreparable harm?

Certainly, Magda. I'm all for cleaning up the air, water, etc. I want to leave the place better than I got it, it's an old boy scout thing. There is no reason why we can't have clean air and water.

I just don't like the criminal 'carbon credit' crap and all the knee-jerk stuff that's gonna cost us billions, if not trillions to 'fix' something which we have absolutely no control over anyway.

Or they might make it much worse, as is pretty evident in some of their 'dry runs'.

[Zoombie]

Carbon credits really ARE a scam.

They piss me off something hard...

[dmytryp]

Some links to real data, including from a major "skeptics" site. I'll refrain from other comment. You can look, and draw your own conclusions:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce_Fig01.asp

http://bipolar.colorado.edu/sotc/sea_ice.html

caw
Additional reading (very interesting)
On the temp trends since 2001
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/13/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part-2/

On ocean heat content
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/recent-ocean-heat-and-mlo-co2-trends/
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Craig_Loehle.ppt

EDIT: On comparison between models and actual measurements
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/climate-models-vs-climate-reality-diverging-or-just-a-dip/#more-7085
about arctic ice
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/why-third-year-arctic-ice-will-increase-next-year/#more-7079

[Don]

I think it says something that supporters of the conventional global warming climate change theory are staying away from this thread (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138848) in droves. :D

What it says, I'll leave to your imagination.

[rugcat]

I think it says something that supporters of the conventional global warming climate change theory are staying away from this thread (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138848) in droves. :D

What it says, I'll leave to your imagination.I couldn't agree with you more. We might differ on why that is, however,

[Don]

Obviously, it's because NASA is not a valid source for global warming climate change research and their findings can be ignored. :D

[Joe270]

YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE.

Well, we certainly agree on that point.

[dmytryp]

Obviously, it's because NASA is not a valid source for global warming climate change research and their findings can be ignored. :D
Actually, as I pointed out in that thread, those finding can be accomodated within the framework of the existing models.

Disclaimer: I say this without reading the full study and having all the numbers available

[Captshady]

I promised myself I wouldn't engage you on this again, but for the five thousandth time, global warming refers to the overall warming of the planet as a whole, not Las Vegas specifically. What's more, the changing climatic patterns the warming creates tend to encourage more extremes in weather -- warmer and dryer summers in some places, colder winters in other paces, more violent storms in others.

Sooo, ice melting = global climate change brought on by humans doing their thing

ice growing in the same exact spot = global climate change brought on my humans doing their thing.

PERFECTLY LOGICAL

[Bird of Prey]

I just don't see any point in trying to simplify something as complex as climate change into a "gee, why isn't the temperature up today?" bit.

Climate change means odd weather behavior; "global warming" could also initially induce a mini-ice age. I think people need to understand the dynamics: polar melt-off which cools the ocean, etc. before definitive conclusions are reached. It's not that elementary.

[ColoradoGuy]

Blacbird has a few days to clean his feathers before joining us again.

[ColoradoGuy]

I couldn't agree with you more. We might differ on why that is, however,
I think, in general, having a board full of people who are not climate scientists arguing the details, the actual data, of particular climate theories is not helpful, especially when it gets as heated up by politics as this topic does.

For example, I could link a bunch of articles about, say, the role of cellular remodeling in the pathogenesis of myocardial myocyte damage following infarction. They might be interesting to you or not, but ultimately you'd be stuck with what experts say about it. And a few experts would disagree with the mainstream opinion, only without the politics. But most would be hard put to choose among the experts.

And on that note, I'm locking this one.