A supposedly sensational climate change pact was agreed upon in Bali on Saturday with the United States and the Bush administration finally capitulating to international demands to stave off the bogeyman known as global warming.
Yet, much as the media completely misinterpreted what came out of the G-8 summit in Germany six months ago, press outlets today are applauding an agreement that fell far short of what global warming alarmists were hoping to achieve, and much like what transpired in June, resulted in absolutely no specific international carbon dioxide emissions cuts.
Not surprisingly, this isn't how the news is being reported here as demonstrated at CNN.com in an article hysterically titled "U.S. Agrees to Bali Compromise" (emphasis added):
The United States made a dramatic reversal Saturday, first rejecting and then accepting a compromise to set the stage for intense negotiations in the next two years aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
The U.N. climate change conference in Bali was filled with emotion and cliff-hanging anticipation on Saturday, an extra day added because of a failure to reach agreement during the scheduled sessions.
The final result was a global warming pact that provides for negotiating rounds to conclude in 2009.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the pact "a good beginning." "This is just a beginning and not an ending," Ban said. "We'll have to engage in many complex, difficult and long negotiations."
The Associated Press was similarly jubilant (emphasis added):
World leaders overcame bitter divisions Saturday and agreed to reach a new deal on fighting global warming by 2009, turning a corner in mankind's race to stave off environmental disaster caused by rising temperatures.
The contentious, two-week U.N. climate conference on the resort island of Bali ended with the United States, facing angry criticism from other delegations, relenting in its opposition to a request from developing nations for more technological help fighting climate change.
Surprisingly, Time magazine's website reported much more accurately what transpired on the island of Bali Saturday (emphasis added, watch for oddly placed sentences ending without periods that appear to be their computer glitch):
The roadmap is essentially the beginning of a beginning. The negotiations to come have a specific end date - 2009 - and for the first time, dismantles what the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change executive secretary Yvo de Boer called "the Berlin Wall of climate change," the idea that only the rich nations need to take responsibility for fighting global warming. Both developed countries [sic]
The two sides still have different responsibilities, with developed nations ready to take on more quantifiable emissions cuts, and developing nations preparing to take on less specific national actions, but no country is left behind. That matters because the majority of future carbon emissions will come from the developing world, and no climate deal can work without the participation of China and India. "The developing nations of the South are on the same road as the North," says Peter Goldmark, director for the climate and air program for Environmental Defense. "They're using the same roadmap."
Bringing the developing nations on board made it possible for the U.S. to join.
Readers should understand that this was a huge victory for the U.S., and what was indeed missing from the Kyoto Protocol the Clinton administration, with support from then Vice President Al Gore and 95 senators, refused to ratify in 1997. Now, ten years later, developing nations are the ones that have capitulated and agreed to participate in emissions cuts.
Though most media will downplay this, it was indeed a win for the Bush administration and America, as it establishes that any agreement to emissions cuts in the future - assuming such occur - will include developing nations like China and India. This potentially assures that any climate change agreement the U.S. enters into in the future will not give such nations an unfair economic advantage.
Again, this was a HUGE win for the Bush administration that will likely be downplayed by the press.
Yet, Time had more information about what happened in Bali that most media will ignore (emphasis added):
The Bali roadmap contains no specific commitments or figures on the emissions reductions that developed countries will need to take, beyond language that "deep cuts" will be needed. Earlier in the week the EU fought hard to include a specific target of 25 to 40% cuts for developed nations by 2020, and a need to halve global emissions - two figures cited by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest assessment of global warming science. Neither made it into the final text, thanks largely to determined opposition from the U.S., although a footnote points to the IPCC report. For environmentalists who had hoped that the recent avalanche of data underscoring the rising crisis of climate change might prompt tougher action, Bali was a disappointment. "It was a rather weak deal," said Meena Rahman, chair of Friends of the Earth International. "It's compromised."
In fact, Canada walked away very disappointed with this compromise as reported by The Canadian Press (emphasis added):
Canada helped gut some of the substance from a world climate-change deal and then expressed regret Saturday when the final agreement was ultimately watered down even more than it had hoped.
Environment Minister John Baird hailed as a positive step a United Nations agreement to seek a new global climate-change treaty by 2012.
But he expressed regret that the agreement was almost completely stripped of any reference to numbers and targets which would have been the starting point for the discussion.
In the end, as press outlet after press outlet will report in the coming days that the Bush administration gave in to international demands at Bali concerning global warming, the truth is that much like at the G-8, the White House got exactly what it wanted from this conference, and the alarmists got virtually nothing.
In fact, once again, the Administration demonstrated its diplomatic aplomb concerning this matter, a skill media can't possibly acknowledge.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Comments Policy
Sounds like the perfect UN resolution!
December 15, 2007 - 14:22 ET by dervishPreparing to think about getting ready to make plans for beginning to open early discussions on negotiating the issue.
Bravo dervish...Bravo.
December 15, 2007 - 14:40 ET by DaBirdBravo dervish...Bravo. Excellent post.
LOL
December 15, 2007 - 16:12 ET by well99Bet you cant say that 5 times fast.Spot on though.
The next American president will lead on climate change
December 15, 2007 - 17:02 ET by ruckroverAs the Papua New Guinea rep said at the Bali talks - "The world wants the USA to lead on this issue, if the USA won't lead - then please get out of the way."
It was a victory for the other 200 countries - the Bush administration was shamed into compromising and signing more than it wished.
It won't be so hard in Denmark in 2009 with an American president who understands science.
Global Warming is real, accelerating and only 103 scientists could be mustered for the contrarian viewpoint in a letter to the UN secretary general at the Bali conference. 103 - out of several million scientists world wide.
I'm an Australian, and Howard's fate is Bush's near future. Basically we're seeing the destruction of our Great Barrier Reef (coral dies at CO2 levels of 450ppm - even without the bleaching caused by warming oceans - as acidification means coral cannot calcify) - that would be a Aus$7 billion economy gone, drought and water restrictions bite hard, heat waves kill trees already. The Australian people have made a big change, so will Americans.
rucky
December 15, 2007 - 17:09 ET by botgthere are a lot more than 103.
Are you trying to say anyone who didn't sign this one particular letter must be in agreement with the bogus UN view?
Simply put prove before you take my money.
GoHunter08
Sorry to hear about your
December 15, 2007 - 17:17 ET by KarmaSorry to hear about your reef. I know how you feel. We used to have some really cool dinosaures over here. They all got broke too. They just don't make things like they used to. Did you save the warranty papers?
"please get out of the way
December 15, 2007 - 18:00 ET by dervish-- but leave your wallet."
Finished that for ya.
Dumb Downunder
December 15, 2007 - 18:12 ET by ThisnThat"Howard's fate is Bush's near future". Hey ruck, stay out of American politics until you learn about them. eh?
Howard - lost an election
Bush - by law, can't run for re-election.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Who are we blocking?
December 15, 2007 - 20:36 ET by WingletDriverAs the Papua New Guinea rep said at the Bali talks - "The world wants
the USA to lead on this issue, if the USA won't lead - then please get
out of the way."
One question: How are we stopping Papau New Guinea (or anybody else) from doing something on their own?
One observation: Every country that has bound itself by Kyoto has miserably failed to even curtail CO2 emissions growth although the US has. Seems like the US is leading by deeds and the rest of the world is breaking their word.
Bush can't suffer Howard's fate; he can't run again
December 15, 2007 - 21:35 ET by nkviking75"I'm an Australian, and Howard's fate is Bush's near future."
Perhaps as an Australian you are unaware under our Constitution Bush cannot run for the Presidency again. The Dems aren't strong enough to remove Bush through impeachment, so in all likelihood Bush will peacefully surrender his office as scheduled at noon Eastern U.S. Time on Jan. 20, 2009. George W. Bush will probably never run for office again.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
<<It won't be so hard in
December 16, 2007 - 10:33 ET by Seabeach4348<<It won't be so hard in Denmark in 2009 with an American president who understands science.>>
When it comes to AGW, I'd be much happier if we had more scientists who truly understand science.
<<Global Warming is real, accelerating....>>
Historically there are three major warming events in the past 100,000 years, mate, along with three major ice advancements (ice ages). And your explanation for this is.....??
<<103 scientists could be mustered for the contrarian viewpoint... 103 - out of several million scientists world wide.>>
Yeah? So? That's 103 scientists who understand the science of climatology. There are a lot more than that out there who didn't sign the letter to the current knuckle-head running the UN.
In the 15th century everyone just knew that the earth was flat, except for a few who understood science and rejected superstition.
<<I'm an Australian, and Howard's fate is Bush's near future.>>
Yeah and you're a tad confused about how we elect our presidents here in the good 'ol States: Howard lost the election; GW Bush cannot run for a third consecutive term, so he will be out of office by default.
BTW, hasn't your new head of state (name escapes me for the moment) already done an about-face on this ridiculous AGW nonsense? I'd be rather upset if I were a green freak in Australia.
<<The Australian people have made a big change, so will Americans. >>
Not so fast, pal. If you're suggesting that just because Australians have bought into this nonsense (and openned their wallets to the perverts in the UN along with it) Americans will also make "...a big change..." you'd better think again. Americans are, by in large, a lot smarter than to trust the UN, IPCC, and the rest of the goons around the world who want our money!
A carefully
December 15, 2007 - 15:05 ET by acadia1755A carefully considered position on the inconclusiveness of the scientific
evidence.
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
http://www.friendsof...
useless actions
December 15, 2007 - 15:17 ET by SeptemberBut he expressed regret that the agreement was almost completely
stripped of any reference to numbers and targets which would have been
the starting point for the discussion.
Numbers which would be unattainable as evidenced by the recent information regarding carbon emissions in Europe--the rise--this despite the imposition of their precious targets while the U.S. reduces emissions without even trying.
Dr. Motl today calls these Bali vacationers social parasites and I'd agree with that description. And that's being polite.
I like it, September. Social
December 15, 2007 - 16:29 ET by KarmaI like it, September. Social parasites. A polite, yet very accurate description. I think I'll try it out on you-know-who, below. Thanks!
Is China still "developing"?
December 15, 2007 - 15:19 ET by sarcasmoI'd say they seem pretty "developed" by now. And any treaty that comes out of this should be subjected to the "is it longer than your family's Bible" test, IMO. That generally flunks the bad ones...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Solar Cycle 24
December 15, 2007 - 15:57 ET by scamoramaBy 2009, we'll be into Solar Cycle 24 (which is shaping up to be low intensity), and the temperature will have dropped enough to show the complete lack of any need for any of this posturing.
denialism gone wild is what
December 15, 2007 - 16:06 ET by professor truththis thread is all about. A group of ignorant deniers explaining their future scenarios regarding climate with ZERO scientific evidence. The rightwing has completed their journey into complete lunacy, where climate scientists are "hysterical" and scientific ignoramuses know what's ahead. Deniers, when you need a brain surgeon, go talk to a plumber. I'm sure he'll give you much better advice.
DENIER, DENIER, BRAIN ON
December 15, 2007 - 16:10 ET by Jack BauerDENIER, DENIER, BRAIN ON FIRE.
You're simply an ignorant logic denying lout. And that is undeniable.
JB, taking a break from your
December 15, 2007 - 16:15 ET by professor truthwaterboarding fantasies? Or were they realities? or Delusions? Just like your denialism! A grand delusion. Enjoy your bliss, ignorant one.
As usual, the BS "Perfesser" is the real denier
December 15, 2007 - 18:19 ET by RJRather than an honest, thoughtful response to Noel's column, the "Perfesser's" purpose is to derail the discussion regarding the U.S. victory in Bali. Since he can't deny the victory he resorts to petty cheapshot rhetoric.
I wish someone would
December 15, 2007 - 18:42 ET by Gary P JacksonI wish someone would waterboard you, "Professor"! Maybe you'd come to your senses. Global warming is nothing more than the "progressives" latest scheme to redistribute wealth, and exert dictatorial reign over the world's population. The nut job, moonbat vision of the world certainly ain't ours.
I troubles me greatly that you say you really are a teacher.
Gary, tell it to these guys:
December 15, 2007 - 21:25 ET by professor truthhttp://www.realclima...
Also, why would you be troubled by kids learning science?
Sorry, I don't believe
December 15, 2007 - 22:52 ET by Gary P JacksonSorry, I don't believe anything the climate "scientists" have come up with. not one single thing! And before you even drag out the old C word. Science isn't about building consensous it's about getting the best facts.
I tell you what my "little perfesser", when theses yahoos can give me a correct three day forcast for a couple of months straight, I might get excited!
These so called scientists are the same nimrods that were telling us the earth was gonna be frozen over. That didn't happen either. So forgive me if I just don't beleive nothing they trott out here on global warming. These global warmers have no credability
Gary, these "so called" scientists?
December 16, 2007 - 00:17 ET by professor truthhttp://www.realclima...
You better read their accomplishments before you say stuff like that.
What Accomplishments?
December 16, 2007 - 01:34 ET by PopularTechYou mean like producing propaganda science?
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Environmental Economist)
The Broken Stick (Financial Post, Canada)
The decay of the hockey stick (Climate Feedback)
The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (John L. Daly)
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics)
In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face-Off (The Wall Street Journal)
NAS report "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 200 Years" (National Academy of Sciences)
"With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.
[...] Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.
We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used."
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
popular tech, here's your "dummies
December 16, 2007 - 02:46 ET by professor truthGuide to the Hockey Stick Controversy"
http://www.realclima...
Please Professor Propaganda
December 16, 2007 - 04:36 ET by PopularTechYou keep linking to a propaganda blog run by the puppets of James Hansen (Gavin Schmidt) and the discredited Mann. So discredited his propaganda no longer appears in the IPCC 4th assessment report. I realize why you believe the hockey stick hoax because again it is based on a computer program written to create a hockey stick shape no matter what the data fed into it. You computer illiterates never cease to amaze me.
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Environmental Economist)
The Broken Stick (Financial Post, Canada)
The decay of the hockey stick (Climate Feedback)
The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (John L. Daly)
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics)
In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face-Off (The Wall Street Journal)
NAS report "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 200 Years" (National Academy of Sciences)
"With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.
[...] Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.
We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used."
Peer Review Evidence Destroying the Hockey Stick:
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
(Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058, 2007)
- C. Loehle
Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years"
(Science, Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, 29 June 2007)
- Gerd Bürger
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, 1 November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
(Nature 433, 613-617, 10 February 2005)
- Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly
always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1)"
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years
(Climate Research, Vol. 23: 89–110, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas
Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20715, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20714, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
I don't have a problem with
December 15, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Gary P JacksonI don't have a problem with kids learning science. I do, however have loads of problems with YOU being their teacher. Having you teach is a great miscarrage of education.
Gary, you haven't a clue as to the
December 16, 2007 - 00:31 ET by professor truthrequirements of being a good teacher .
Not you
December 16, 2007 - 01:35 ET by PopularTechI would not want a computer illiterate teaching my children.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
I would never have a denialist teach
December 16, 2007 - 02:31 ET by professor truthmy kids. But I guess it's a good thing to have science illiterates like intelligent design and AGW denier wackos teach science . It makes it much easier for those who had a rigorous science background to compete in the job market.
Like Yourself?
December 16, 2007 - 04:19 ET by PopularTechScientific illiterates like yourself who believe that science is proven due to your computer illiteracy? Fascinating.
Now prove "Man-Made" Global Warming via the Scientific Method without using Computer Models
Nice try with the "intelligent design" remark but you are so clueless you have no idea who you are even talking too.
You compete in the job market? LMAO! You work in a socialist system precisely because you are unable to get a job in the real world since no one hires computer illiterates these days.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Yes, he and we do. Social
December 16, 2007 - 01:41 ET by KarmaYes, he and we do. Social parasites will be denied.
}}---> Of course Professor
December 16, 2007 - 01:49 ET by Cool ArrowAs you have stated in other posts, barely 50% of your students pass your math classes. And since you consider yourself a good teacher, I think we can extrapolate what your union thinks the qualifications to be.
Again I ask: "Would 50% successful airline landings be considered acceptable??
I ♣ My Seal
Since when has telling
December 17, 2007 - 05:14 ET by NL207Since when has telling lies, spreading propaganda, and indoctrinating impressionable young minds with leftists drivel constituted being a good teacher?
Since both parties
December 17, 2007 - 06:51 ET by sarcasmoStarted calling socialist ("public") schools a good thing. Hey, you asked!!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Social parasites, such as
December 15, 2007 - 16:34 ET by KarmaSocial parasites, such as yourself, will be proudly denied at every turn you make.
prof
December 15, 2007 - 16:40 ET by Sick-n-Tired"with ZERO scientific evidence."
Jesus man, didn't you learn anything from me or poptech or the rest of us over the past few weeks??? We have shown you plenty of documented evidence that shows AGW to be a farce. You are amazing........
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
SnT, so with all your evidence, why haven't you
December 15, 2007 - 16:45 ET by professor truthconvinced any practicing climate scientists? Are these scientists incredibly ignorant to your "newly discovered" facts?? Or are they engaged in a giant scientific coverup, a CONSPIRACY?? Or are these PHD scientists with many peer reviewed published papers in the climate science field just too stupid to understand the clearly presented arguments of denialism?? Or maybe something else is going on?? So, what explanation do you have?
Hey brainiac, Did I say I
December 15, 2007 - 17:09 ET by Sick-n-TiredHey brainiac,
Did I say I was a climate scientist? A geologist with a masters degree with an influence of study in Holocene climates---but not a climate scientist. With that being said we have shown you what many climate scientists HAVE SAID AND THEIR FACTS and INTERPRETATIONS.
For instance, here is another for you; 100 scientists many of whom are climate scientists (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html) who call BS on AGW. How about you go convince them of your newly discovered facts. Furthermore, you know I find it intersting you talk all this s**t about realclimate.org; but how many times have you been to climateaudit etc. argueing your case??? Go debate THOSE scientists if you are so sure of AGW.
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
SnT
December 15, 2007 - 17:12 ET by botgso it is these respected climate scientists who have convinced us?
Do tell.......
GoHunter08
botg, sorry, not
December 15, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Sick-n-Tiredbotg,
sorry, not following you.
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
SnT
December 15, 2007 - 17:34 ET by botgthe profff asked you to convince 'real climate scientists'
i was pointing out that real climate scientists are the ones doing the convincing.
GoHunter08
gotcha, sorry--can be a
December 15, 2007 - 17:46 ET by Sick-n-Tiredgotcha, sorry--can be a little thick sometimes! :)
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
SnT, so you will understand
December 15, 2007 - 17:19 ET by professor truththe difference between settled and unsettled issues, recognizing that there are hundreds of in-between possibilities. We both know that ideas are given different levels of confidence , based on several factors. One factor is how well tested an idea is. The more tests which give support to the idea, the more confidence one has in that idea. Now, AGW has actually become stronger over time, particularly over the last 20 years. The AGW idea has been accepted by an increasing number of CLIMATE scientists during this time. Doctors, engineers, physicists, biologists and others may have a solid science background, but climate scientists are specialists in this AGW question , so on the whole, should be considered more credible as far as answering this question. If a 1000 chemists were arguing a 1000 geologists about the age of a rock, ultimately, I would trust the answer of the geology scientists more, since they have studied the subject more. That's not to say that chemists don't provide necessary or valid information, it's just that geologists approach the answer from more directions, so their answer would have a higher degree of credibility.
Your arguement is 100%
December 15, 2007 - 17:27 ET by Sick-n-TiredYour arguement is 100% bogus. There are climate scientists in the non-AGW camp that debate against those that are. There are not from two separate disciplines. You obviously, in this case, didn't read the list and each scientists credentials.
And you totally dodged my question as to why you won't go debate said climate scientists at climateaudit et al., if you are so sure your arguement and convictions.
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
SnT, I am aware that there are
December 15, 2007 - 17:34 ET by professor truthlegitimate climate scientists in the denial camp. Lindzen, Christy, Ball, Michaels, and many more. They are still the great minority compared to the legitimate climate scientists that are climate scientists. You may have studied regional, not global climate changes. You may have an incomplete picture(or less complete) than climate scientists who specialize in climate. My point is that the most credible debate(whether pro or anti AGW) lies within those climate scientists, which is not to say that all others don't have some say. The specialists of any field are given a higher credibility.
Did I ever say I was the
December 15, 2007 - 17:45 ET by Sick-n-TiredDid I ever say I was the climate scientist?? In my original post on this thread I was referring to the references I and many others here had posted for you to learn from; never did I say it was my emperical data.
Now, by your arguement, not mine; wouldn't I more apt to discuss these issues based on my background since it is more catered to climate than say a physics degree? Relatively, degrees in geology and climate study would hold higher credibility don't you think?
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
SnT, I agree completely with your last post,
December 15, 2007 - 17:52 ET by professor truthmainly because you've studied the issue more and are likely to have better insight. Like chess, each level of the game suggests more insight. Not that an amateur has NEVER defeated a grandmaster, but, on the whole, the words of a grandmaster are given more weight than an amateur. I see climate science in the same way, and you should also.
Fair enough, but why do you
December 15, 2007 - 18:01 ET by Sick-n-TiredFair enough, but why do you stop in the middle of the 'game'. I am trying to open your eyes to other levels---i.e. the other side of the arguement that you so adamantly ignore.
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
SnT, I was a skeptic in the 80's regarding AGW.
December 15, 2007 - 19:52 ET by professor truthThe evidence I've read and observed from looking at articles has convinced me that AGW is happening and is very worrisome. Everyone can have a different level of concern but the mechanism for warming has been pretty decisively established. The Technical summary of the IPCC IV report has data available.
The key portion of the 4th
December 15, 2007 - 21:10 ET by danboThe key portion of the 4th assessment of IPCC is that of WG1. Without it all esle is questionable.
"to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. "
... the critical chapter 9 “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
That list of 100 looks a lot more impressive.
Source
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
The Computer Illiterate
December 16, 2007 - 00:56 ET by PopularTechAll that IPCC "data" is based on irrelevant computer models. You are a proven computer illiterate who keeps posting alarmist propaganda based on emotion not science.
Now prove "Man-Made" Global Warming via the Scientific Method without using Computer Models
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
First of all, to be accused
December 16, 2007 - 16:35 ET by Seabeach4348First of all, to be accused on "being in denial" of AGW is a gross misnomer. The esteemed climate "experts" you use to support your beliefs (and that's all they are: simply beliefs) have not yet established that AGW is a fact. All they have is a bunch of massaged computer models and a consensus.
Moreover, their lack of forthcoming when it comes to any substantial debate on the subject by any challenging source suspected of being "a denier" or "in denial" is met with complete revulsion and outright hostility. Case in point: scientists and sources who have that opposing view to AGW were given the cold shoulder, treated like crap, refused entry, and largely disenfranchised by UN scum and IPCC goons who were obviously afraid of something at the recent enviro-socialist love-in at Bali. Of course, you won't hear this broadcast by the MSM either, but it's out there.
If the AGW issue is soooooo important that it could have dire consequences either way, then why not do our best to find out what is the real truth, what is fact, what is myth, and which buffoons are out just to get our hard earned $$$ and to distribute the wealth, Marxist style? Am I making sense, ' prof?
<< Everyone can have a different level of concern but the mechanism for warming has been pretty decisively established>>
Oh , it has? Could it be that bright ball in the sky that rises in the east everyday has something to do with it? The planet Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2, a greenhouse gas according to the IPCC or so they say. Mars should be a hot house then, correct? but it isn't; it's pretty damn cold there. Could the fact that Mars is almost twice as far from the sun as we are have anything to do with that? I wonder.
Supposedly Mars is warming up, but the lack of martian SUVs, coal-fired power plants, and other factors that would increase atmospheric CO2 poses a logical problem for the increased CO2=increased temperature sycophants.
Kool-aid anyone? I'll pass.
^ is a (*)(*) No brain
December 15, 2007 - 17:13 ET by ckc1227^ is a (*)(*) No brain surgeon required to see that.
Too bad global warming isn't real. They might actually have power in Oklahoma if it was.
ckc, report your findings to these guys:
December 15, 2007 - 17:21 ET by professor truthhttp://www.realclima...
I'm sure they'll see how ignorant and stupid they were after you present them your facts.
10 Alarmists to over 55,000 Skeptics
December 16, 2007 - 01:42 ET by PopularTechNO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
19,000 Scientists declare that "man-made" global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (Heartland Institute)
150 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign An Open Letter to the Signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (ISA)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
77 Skeptical Scientists (Business and Media Institute)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)
Skeptical Scientists:
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Alfred H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Geology, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bjarne Andresen, Ph. D. Theoretical Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Honours Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium
Christoph C. Borel, Ph.D. Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, USA
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Sciences, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, USA
David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Physics, MIT, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA
Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Merian-Schule, Germany
Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc. Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada
Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, USA
G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia
Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Physics, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Geology, New Zealand
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Hans Erren, B.Sc. Geology and Physics, M.Sc. Geophysics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India
J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, USA
John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK
John E. Gaynor, M.S. Meteorology, UCLA, USA
John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, University of Manchester, UK
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Joseph (Joe) P. Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, Arizona State University, USA
Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, Natal University, South Africa
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Chicago, USA
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Klaus Wyrtki, Ph.D. Oceanography, Physics, Mathematics, University of Kiel, Germany
Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering, Monash University, Australia
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, University of Kansas, USA
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rutgers, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Manik Talwani, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA
Michel Salomon, M.D. University of Paris, Director, International Centre for Scientific Ecology, France
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Norman Brown, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Ulster, UK
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Atmospheric Sensing Group, Tartu Astrophysical Observatory, Estonia
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist, Canada
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada
Peter Stilbs, Ph.D. (TeknD) Physical Chemistry, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
R.
W. Gauldie, Ph.D. Research Professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics
and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology,
University of Hawaii, USA
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, Nottingham University, UK
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert C. Whitten, Physicist, Retired Research Scientist, NASA, USA
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert L. Kovach, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University, USA
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Horticulture, University of Missouri, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University