You know, it's one thing when some government employee sends you an e-mail message claiming that global warming will cause greater snowfall on the planet.
However, it's really something else altogether when a major American newspaper would actually publish an article with the headline:
Global Warming Not Always to Blame for Extreme Winters
No, this wasn't the National Enquirer, or The Star. This was the Christian Science Monitor, which is now on a growing list of press outlets clearly uncomfortable with the winter of 2008 (emphasis added throughout):
Whatever global-warming models may suggest about the futures of Earth's climate, one thing is certain: Global warming never promised to eliminate winter, especially for those living outside the tropics.
After listing examples of some of the crazy winter weather this year, the Monitor tried to assert some calm:
The extremes weren't all frigid. In Stockholm, Sweden's weather service posted an average temperature of 36 degrees F. this winter, which for weather-data purposes runs from December through February. That makes it the warmest winter since 1756. In January, Australia saw its temperatures rise 2.2 degrees F. above the 1961-2000 average, a record anomaly.
In the continental United States, things were a bit more sedate, despite the tornadoes that struck the Southeast in January and the snow that piled high in ski country. This winter ranked as the 54th coolest on record, though still 0.2 degrees F. above normal, according to preliminary figures released Thursday by the National Climate Data Center in Asheville, N.C. And it ranked as the 18th wettest winter, dropping an average of 2.7 inches of moisture on the country – just over half an inch above normal.
Unfortunately, the Monitor was playing it a bit loose with the facts here. This is what NCDC reported on Thursday (emphasis added):
The average temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century mean.
Maybe more important, if the Monitor felt it necessary to share this preliminary data for winter 2008, why didn't it provide how this compared to some recent years?
For instance, "The winter temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 0.6°F (0.3°C) above the 20th century average of 33.0°F" in 2007.
This figure was "1.2°F (0.7°C) above the 1895-2005 mean" in winter 2006. And an astounding "2.8F (1.6C) above the 1895-2004 mean" in winter 2005.
Anybody see a trend -- like, our past three winters have dramatically cooled from almost three degrees above the 20th century mean to virtually right back to that mean? Isn't that newsworthy?
Apparently not. Nor did the Monitor choose to share some of the extraordinary snowfall numbers this season:
The map to the left depicts the snowpack levels in many Rocky Mountain basins on March 1, 2008, illustrating above-average snow cover in much of the Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevada in the western U.S. Some areas in Oregon, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and southern Colorado had levels above 180% of normal at the beginning of March. At the end of February, new snowfall records for the season-to-date were set in both Telluride and Aspen, Colorado. Conversely, parts of Wyoming, Montana, Nevada and north-central Washington had levels below normal, as did much of eastern Alaska and southern New Mexico. Above-average snowfall this season is bringing relief to many areas of the Western U.S. that have been plagued by drought in recent years.
I guess reporting this would be too much like news as well.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Something tells me that
March 6, 2008 - 20:12 ET by wiwfSomething tells me that blaming global warming is become the new term getting phased in. Blaming Bush was getting old. Next thing you know, 6 degrees of blaming global warming will say not being green will cause cancer!
I love how these morons cherry pick when Global Warming is the problem and when it isn't. That doesn't prove anything other than the NONEXISTENCE of global warming.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
A complete list of things caused by global warming
March 6, 2008 - 22:24 ET by PopularTechA complete list of things caused by global warming (Number Watch)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
i made i bet with myself to
March 6, 2008 - 23:56 ET by red_dragon311i made i bet with myself to see how fast somone would put that up, and if nobody did i was going to ......pop you win
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
Great link pop (and almost
March 7, 2008 - 01:27 ET by wiwfGreat link pop (and almost reddragon ;))! Classic.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
"Global" Temperature ... Global Wild Goose Chase.
March 6, 2008 - 20:30 ET by thoridflyDon't you know what a colossal waste of time, money, and resources it is to even try to find a "global" temperature?
Have tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars ever been spent on trying to establish a more meaningless and non-existent number than the "global" temperature?
That is a number created BY global warmists FOR global warmists to prove their global laming theory.
Thumb-Riders
March 6, 2008 - 20:41 ET by thoridflyI've never seen a more distinguished gathering of intellectual idiots than these global warming PhDipsh_ts that sit around with their thumbs up their _sses all day long trying to prove a pointless lie with creative math.
Recession VS. Global Warming
March 6, 2008 - 20:45 ET by aeroveloHere is what I dont understand...
The MSM cant stop wringing their hands about the impending recession, yet you would think this year's weather would at least garner a few reports about how completely bad life on this planet would be if in fact we are entering a cooling period for the globe.
If you think polar bears on little ice bergs are a crying shame...imagine entire crop failures due to colder and colder weather. Imagine entire cities under constant heavy snow storms from December to March.
Its amazing, they would rather prattle on endlessly about the impact of the relatively small percentage of people out there who were too generously given home loans, than discussing the potential impact of crop failures, and loss of economic prosperity on a global scale if things decide to cool off.
If things heat up, you at least can grow crops, but youd better get on your knees and pray that were not entering into a little ice age, because that will really put a damper on human activities for the next hundred years or so.
---
Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!
The brains over at Real
March 7, 2008 - 07:35 ET by danboThe brains over at Real Climate seem to have figured out that something happened in the years 535/6 and 40. But it looks like they still don't have a clue what happened. A sudden serious climate cooling. Where the noon day sun was liked to the light of a full moon. Where tree rings show no growth. It may have triggered the plague.
If we get a serious cold spell, they'll wish AGW were real. They'd pay us to run our cars 24/7.
"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
This is like that game at Chukie Cheese's
March 6, 2008 - 21:46 ET by JayTeeYou Take a Hammer and hit the Heads when they pop up out of the Holes in front of you.
You Beat down one Global Warmer, and another pops up holding a Peace prize, trying to keep you from hitting anyone else with a GW agenda.
It's a never ending game.
Whack-a-Mole!! LOL
March 6, 2008 - 21:50 ET by motherbeltWhack-a-Mole!! LOL
Whack-a-mole
March 6, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Free StinkerIt's not "Whack-a-mole",
it's verbally-smack-an-alarmist
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
JT... Words spoken so
March 6, 2008 - 23:21 ET by bigtimerJT...
Words spoken so true...
...I am LMAO!
"Global Warming Not Always
March 6, 2008 - 22:18 ET by Jerry"Global Warming Not Always to Blame for Extreme Winters"
Other suggested headlines for these Einsteins:
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
" Christians Not Always to
March 7, 2008 - 07:26 ET by danbo" Christians Not Always to Blame for Islamic Terrorism"
They'll never print that. Nor "The US Not Always to Blame for Islamic Terrorism". And they really want to replace Islamic Terrorist with Islamic Freedom Fighters. It's a whole new dictionary.
"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
Weather change
March 6, 2008 - 22:54 ET by ScrapironIt changed for the Aussie's down under to. They are in the mist of the coolest summer in years. So cool the outdoor food joints are closing up due to lack of customers willing to freeze their buns off while waiting for a bun.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
CS knows how to pick cherries.
March 7, 2008 - 09:53 ET by Dave in TexasThe Australia quote jumped out at me too, because of this article I saw a few days ago. Sydney's Coolest Summer in 50 Years Leaves Empty Cafes, Gloom.
"No day topped 31 degrees celsius (88 degrees fahrenheit) for
the first time since 1956. Average daily sunshine totaled 6.7 hours,
an hour less than normal and the lowest since 1991-92. The average
maximum temperature was 25.2, the coolest since 1996-97."
Hmm. I wonder why the Christian Science Monitor didn't mention that in their article?
paging Dr. Giles
March 6, 2008 - 22:59 ET by contrarypaging Dr. Giles Winterhorne....
Dr. Winterhorne....
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
He's 3 pages back. Maybe 4
March 7, 2008 - 07:20 ET by danboHe's 3 pages back. Maybe 4 by now. Still claiming that the IPCC is god. A couple times a day I go there and say it isn't. But I'm about to lose the place.
Apparently he doesn't realize people move along.
If you want to go tell him we moved???????
"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
i think i predicted this at least a hundred times
March 6, 2008 - 23:13 ET by lunaticcringeradioi said that the glob warms were going to try and take credit in some way for the cold temps too.
lunaticcringeradio
I can say from personal
March 7, 2008 - 08:54 ET by USA4freedomI can say from personal experience that my Brother-in-law who was a crazy screaming nut case when it came to global warming is starting to see the light. He e-mailed my wife/his sister the other day and told her that he is starting to have his doubts. Now I cant say if the movement is starting to loose steam (pun intended) but some how I think it is.
I think that fact that God seems to be messing with the global warming people. Biggest snow in North, snow in middle east, 27 degrees in Viet Nam, AlGore makes his speech in NYC and it is the coldest day in history for that date, etc, etc.
Then the idiots say something like: the reason its snowing is because the planet is warming..??..
I have pages of this info, kept for my next argument with him.
His wife, English, super liberal , and in the movie industry.
I had a two hour chat with her one day about gun control. In the end she told me, she still thinks gun control is better but sees why I have the opinion that I do and, that she will try to do some reading on it. I think one of the biggest problems that liberals have is: no one in their group challenges their opinions. Every one around them (group think) (like the MSM) thinks the same way. Once you do (if they are honest with them selves) cant help but be convinced, or at the minimum start to question their own opinions.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ae6GlcvBtldY&refer=home
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7940256&nav=4QcS
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=6157497&maindocimg=6154941&service=6
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-02-china-snow_N.htm
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105114.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1146182220080111
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/07/iran.snow.ap/index.html
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7560925&nav=menu183_17_14
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2983816.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
Try to Get Him to Watch these Global Warming Videos
March 7, 2008 - 09:23 ET by PopularTechEveryone I have been able to get to watch these videos has come away much less hysterical and much more skeptical. The ones I have been unable to convince refuse to watch them out of fear of being convinced (I kid you not). All the hysterical ones have only seen Gore's film the rest think the debate is about pollution not CO2.
Censored Global Warming Videos (Videos)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Thanks, popularTech
March 7, 2008 - 09:33 ET by Mica the MagnificentI felt sorry for those frightened kids in Stossel's video.
Ahh, give me the good ol' days when, as a kid, the only thing that frightened me was a bald headed commie named Nikita who claimed he would 'bury me.'
Pop Techo Goldilocks and the Greenhouse Video
March 7, 2008 - 10:10 ET by JayTeeYahoo and company have a few Kids being solicited to watch this Video... I especially like the picture of the Blue Earth with Dry Sandy Mars on Both sides of earth in the Video...sorta a Visual End of the World effect, as if we're turing into Mars.
Goldilocks and the Greenhouse
Some people get their Science from Yahoo......or Yeehaww
thanks guys, I will add it
March 7, 2008 - 11:13 ET by USA4freedomthanks guys, I will add it to my saved pile!!
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
missed one
March 7, 2008 - 12:59 ET by Giles Winterbournehttp://www.cbc.ca/fi...
That is bizarre. I
March 7, 2008 - 13:45 ET by danboThat is bizarre. I wouldn't waste that much time with the whole thing. How about using http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html ?
"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
Go ahead, if it floats your
March 7, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Giles WinterbourneGo ahead, if it floats your boat.
But a substantive discussion would be to point out purported inaccuracies in the CBC report rather than try to imply that your source is equal to CBC research.
And it's worth mentioning that the focus and title of the CBC report is _The Denial Machine_, not tobacco. They're just pointing out the tie-ins and similarities of the AGW denier meme to the previous tactics of the tobacco deniers.
Tell me fire can't affect
March 7, 2008 - 16:01 ET by danboTell me fire can't affect steel either?
"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
they were similar in another way, too.
March 7, 2008 - 16:07 ET by sarcasmoBoth take government subsidies, leading to crappy "science."
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Giles is my source equal to CBC Research?
March 7, 2008 - 18:47 ET by PopularTechCBC: Documentary: Doomsday called off (Google Video) (44min)
Ooops, it is from the CBC too - my bad.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Different
March 7, 2008 - 20:44 ET by Giles WinterbourneDifferent producers/authors.
The Denial Machine lets the skeptics speak and respond to questions. However Doomsday Called Off program doesn't ask questions, shows only a march of the well known skeptics running through their talking points. Instead of 15 minutes of scenery, why not a call and response from both sides?
DM was taking the skeptic/deniers to task for their incomplete arguments, cherrypicking, inaccurate studies, funding ties, etc. They had their opportunity to clarify.
GWDCO, on the other hand only provided a sounding board for those known skeptics. And ignored the facts that much of their arguments have already been debunked or called seriously into question. http://www.cicero.ui...
Would you really say Morner's beach tree and skull is conclusive proof that the sea level hasn't changed or only dropped?
Willie Soon-Sallie Baliunas' publishing history? David Legates'? Skeptics ties to organizations?
Or that Christy/Spencer data hasn't been reviewed?
i.e. " The comparisons,
focused on the tropics where atmospheric temperatures are closely tied
to SSTs, strongly suggest that two spurious downward jumps occur in the
MSU-2R record coinciding with changes in satellites, and that the real
trend in MSU temperatures is likely to be positive, albeit small." Spurious trends in satellite MSU temperatures from merging different satellite records http://www.nature.co...
Remember also that the MSM for a long time fell into the trap of thinking they needed to present both sides of a controversy equally, without reviewing quality of information; that's why we had government and corporate sponsored or produced 'news' pieces. Having been taken to task, most outlets are reviewing their role in investigative journalism and look more critically at their sources. GWDCO is older, not updated. DM has been.
Also, the Denial Machine production was about the politics-specifically the funding; the Doomsday production was a POV documentary wearing a fleece of science to cover up the producer's agenda.
You got me there Giles
March 7, 2008 - 22:25 ET by PopularTechIt is obvious "The Denial Machine" is an honest non-biased documentary featuring the known skeptical climatologist Bonner Cohen. Why would I question such a clearly non-biased piece called "The Denial Machine"?
Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden - obviously has no publishing history.
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA - obviously has no publishing history.
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA - obviously has no publishing history. - obvoiusly has no publishing history.
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA - obviously has no publishing history.
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA - obviously has no publishing history.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You are right Giles I missed quite a few Videos...
March 7, 2008 - 19:02 ET by PopularTech*The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video) (1hr 14min)
*20/20: The Debate is Not Over (Video) (8min)
*Bullshit! - Environmental Hysteria (Video) (29min)
*CBC: Documentary: Doomsday Called Off (Video) (44min)
*Climate Catastrophe Cancelled (Video) (25min)
*CNN: Exposed: Climate of Fear (Video) (42min)
Bob Carter: Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? (Video) (37min) (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, Ph.D. Paleontology)
Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global warming is not a priority (Video) (17min) (Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science)
Dennis Avery Discusses Global Warming (Video) (31min) (Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics)
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming (Video) (11min) (Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University)
Global Warming Debate - 'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis' (Video) (1hr 16min)
States of Fear: Science or Politics? (Video) (1hr 56min)
Al Gore:
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming (Video) (9min)
Al Gore: BBC's 30th Most Annoying Person of 2007 (Video) (3min)
Al Gore and the siege of Yorktown (Video) (2min)
Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story (Video) (1min)
Al Gore and Global Warming - Is He a Hypocrite? (Video) (10min)
Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore Snowjob (Video) (5min)
An Inconvenient Truth:
CNN Meteorologist Applauds Criticism of 'Inconvenient Truth' (Video) (1min)
Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore - Hurricane Catarina (Video) (2min)
Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore - Moulins (Video) (2min)
Marlo Lewis Critiques Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (Video) (1hr 2min)
Scare Tactics in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (Video) (8min)
The truth about Al Gore and Kyoto (Video) (2min)
Energy:
Bullshit! - Nukes, Hybrids & Lesbians (Video) (28min)
Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Close-up )
Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Wide-angle)
Give me a break - Oil Prices (Video) (5min)
Living Next Door to a Wind Farm, Australia (Video) (10min)
Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great (Video) (5min)
MythBusters: Free Energy = Busted (Video) (41min)
"Peak vs Deep Oil"[/b] (Video) (8min) (CNBC)
The Problems With Ethanol (Video) (5min)
Wind Farms - Not In My Back Yard (Video) (5min)
Wind Turbine on Fire, California (Video) (1min)
Wind Turbine on Fire (Video) (min)
Global Warming:
Glen Beck interviews James Spann (Video) (6min)
Glen Beck interviews Weather Channel Founder: John Coleman (Video) (5min)
Global Warming - "Energy" (Video) (1min)
Global Warming - "Glaciers" (Video) (1min)
Global Warming - An Unsettled Science (Video) (8min)
Global Warming - Every Breath You Take (Video) (4min)
Global Warming - Opportunities (Video) (4min)
Global Warming - Sun (Video) (5min)
Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction? (Video) (48min)
Larry King: Bill Nye vs. Richard Lindzen (Video) (8min)
Little Ice Age: Big Chill (Video) (1hr, 40min)
Man-Made Global Warming is Bunk (Video) (10min)
Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion (Video) (4min)
Milankovitch Cycles (Video) (3min)
Space weather and climate change (Video) (4min)
What is Normal? Climate Video (Video) (55min)
Polar Bears:
Polar Bear Kills Seal Pup (Video) (2min)
Polar Bear Attacks Seal (Video) (1min)
Recycling:
Bullshit! - Recycling (Video) (29min)
Species Extinction:
Bullshit! - Endangered Species (Video) (29min)
Older:
The Greening of Planet Earth (1992, 1998) (Videos) (60min)
Green House Conspiracy (1990) (Video) (52min)
Humor:
*Back in Black: Earth Day - YouTube (Video) (4min)
*George Carlin - The Planet is Fine (Adults Only) (Video) (8min)
A Tribute to Gore (Video) (7min)
Al Gore's Penguin Army (Video) (2min)
An Inconvenient Youth (Video) (1min)
Drew Carey on Global Warming (Video) (2min)
Global Warming Frosty the Snowman (Video) (3min)
Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition (Video) (3min)
South Park - ManBearPig ft. Al Gore (Season 10 Episode 6) (Video) (22min)
Sorry about that.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Stossel one of course
March 7, 2008 - 19:36 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe Stossel one of course points to the current admin's position of uninhibited energy growth and use. There was early and solid discussion of the downsides of switching corn to a energy source.
Glad you kept busy on ytube.
Yes I have had the Ethanol Discussion Before
March 7, 2008 - 20:13 ET by PopularTechYes I am well aware the current admin's position on mandating Ethanol is idiotic - just like his billions in useless aid to Africa. I have posted extensively on this before.
Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy (Science Daily)
Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
The Problems With Ethanol (Video) (5min)
- Ethanol reduces fuel economy by 30% compared to gasoline
- Ethanol cannot be transported in existing pipelines
- Ethanol fires are harder to put out
Ethanol Energy Content (U.S Department of Energy)
Ethanol (E85) = 80,000 BTUs, Gasoline = 125,000 BTUs (per gallon)
Ethanol - E85 BTU Adjusted Price (AAA)
Ethanol - Ethanol E85 fuel loses cost-benefit test to diesel (USA Today)
Ethanol - Ethanol Fuels Fire Concerns (ABC News)
Ethanol - Ethanol Is Not the Answer (The New York Sun)
Ethanol - Ethanol Makes Gasoline Costlier, Dirtier (Cato Institute)
Ethanol - Ethanol: Myths and Realities (BusinessWeek)
Ethanol - Ethanol Vehicles Pose Significant Risk To Health, New Study Finds (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Fuel Ethanol Cannot Alleviate U.S. Dependence On Petroleum (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming (USA Today)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol Won't Solve Energy Problems (USA Today)
Ethanol - Test results: E85 vs. gasoline (Consumer Reports)
Ethanol - The Environmental Costs of Ethanol (National Center For Policy Abalysis)
Ethanol - The Many Myths of Ethanol (John Stossel, 20/20)
Ethanol - The Ethanol Fallacy (Popular Mechanics)
Ethanol - The Ethanol Myth (Consumer Reports)
Food - Biofuel Brews up Higher German Beer Prices (MSNBC)
Food - Biofuel Demand Makes Food Expensive (BBC)
Food - Biofuels Could Lead to Mass Hunger Deaths: U.N. Envoy (Reuters)
Food - Ethanol Fuel From Corn Faulted As "Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning" In Analysis By Cornell Scientist (Science Daily)
Food - Ethanol fuels food price frenzy (Financial Post, Canda)
Food - Ethanol Mandates Could Drive Up Food Prices, Enviros Say (CNSNews)
Food - Ethanol Production, Worldwide Demand Sends Prices for Dairy Goods Soaring (MSNBC)
Food - Germany's Cheap Beer Tradition Under Threat From Biofuels (Deutsche Welle)
Food - IMF Warns About Impact of Biofuels on Food Prices (Forbes)
Food - How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor (The New York Times)
Food - Mexicans Torch Tequila Fields for Ethanol Boom Corn (Reuters)
Food - More Ethanol, Less Sugar (The New York Times)
Food - Think Tank Warns Biofuel Will Lead to Rocketing Food Prices (Vnunet, UK)
Food - Will Demand for Ethanol Raise Food Prices? The Government Says Yes (FOXNews)
Livestock - Cattle Fed Byproducts Of Ethanol Production Harbor Dangerous E. Coli Bacteria (Science Daily)
Livestock - Ethanol, Corn To Weigh Heavily On Future Of Livestock Industry (Science Daily)
Water - Ethanol Production May Put Pinch on Water Resources (FOXNews)
Water - Ethanol Production Threatens Plains States With Water Scarcity (Environmental News Service)
Water - Ethanol's Water Shortage (The Wall Street Journal)
Water - Increase In Ethanol Production From Corn Could Significantly Harm Water Quality (Science Daily)
Water - Water Constraints Rain on Ethanol Zeal (USA Today)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Summation of Science for the last Decade
March 7, 2008 - 08:52 ET by Polazerus"After several years and thirty-million dollars, the results of our politically motivated, yet scientific, study indicate that we still don't have a clue how this planet was formed or how any of it works. We are quite confident, however, that bad things must be happening. Further, we guess, with near certainty, that evil humans are responsible for the bad things, and that such bad things are impacting women, children, and minorities in a disproportionate manner."
This was sent to me from a relative. Not sure if it was his quote or if he got it from somewhere. I just thought it was perfect.
Polazerus, Thats a great
March 7, 2008 - 08:59 ET by USA4freedomPolazerus,
Thats a great statement. I think I might save it to my files.
If the world cools via natural causes they will be wishing for global warming!!!!!
women and minorities hit hardest.....
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
Heads, they win
March 7, 2008 - 11:45 ET by ThalpyHeads they win; tails we lose.
So Noel...
March 7, 2008 - 09:56 ET by Sick-n-Tired...the brilliant, mental giant that emailed you yesterday was a government employee eh? With comments like his I am soooo suprised <end sarcasm>
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
Anybody see a trend
March 7, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Giles WinterbourneUh, yeah,
First, using anecdotal evidence of weather to dispute global climate trends has been an ongoing skeptic technique - one that may work with a small number of people in the world that have a problem differenciating between local and global and weather and climate. A topic covered pretty well from about the 4th grade up.
Second, using newspaper articles as though they were science studies to refute the science has also been a long term trend.
Third, using weak data, cherrypicked data, and unelipised quotes; then stating that it disproves every piece of data that far more strongly supports antropogenic global warming has also been an oft-repeated technique.
Some clarity http://www.columbia....
Speaking of cherrypicked
March 7, 2008 - 13:28 ET by danboSpeaking of cherrypicked data. You have the Kahunas to lecture people when you use http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf
which compared the last few months with the mean of 1950-80. The last cool period.
What will be your next revelation? That it's warmer now than during the plistocene, or the little ice age..
"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
And continue reading on to
March 7, 2008 - 14:40 ET by Giles WinterbourneAnd continue reading on to page 2
Or even the text on page 1 "The maps are used to show that, even averaged over a month, local weather anomalies
(dynamical fluctuations, more-or-less independent of forced long-term climate change) are much larger
than the global mean temperature change of recent decades.1 Weather fluctuations or ‘noise’ have a
noticeable effect even on monthly-mean global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere
winter. Weather has little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or more."
"1950-80". It's your
March 7, 2008 - 15:52 ET by danbo"1950-80". It's your garbage.....
"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
Why don't you try to debate
March 7, 2008 - 15:59 ET by NL207Why don't you try to debate the details of this stuff you link?
Maybe the reason you don't is because you don't actually understand any of it and are simply relying on the opinions of others?
Since this is primarily a
March 7, 2008 - 16:33 ET by Giles WinterbourneSince this is primarily a political site, I'm providing links to the science that supports my position.
"There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort by some
individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has
led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that
there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's
climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate
scientific debate through the peer-reviewed literature, they are waging
in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with
which they disagree." Avery et al, Special insert--An open letter to Ben Santer July 1996 http://www.ucar.edu/...
Giles... What exactly is
March 7, 2008 - 16:41 ET by Clear thinkerGiles...
What exactly is your position?
"Abstain from McCain"
should be clear
March 7, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Giles Winterbourne"There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort by some
individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has
led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that
there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's
climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate
scientific debate through the peer-reviewed literature, they are waging
in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with
which they disagree." (my bolding) http://www.ucar.edu/...
"...I’ve decided to put up this post as a work in progress, aimed at
establishing a list of basic facets of the climate and energy challenge
that are not in reasonable dispute..." A. Revkin 'A Starting Point for Productive Climate Discourse' http://dotearth.blog...
"What we have here is a case of dogged contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe that these people are not stupid, instead they seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story. They seem to know exactly what they are doing and believe they can get away with it, because the public does not have the time, inclination, and training to discern what is a significant change with regard to the global warming issue.
The proclamations of the contrarians are a deceit, but their story raises a more important matter, usufruct. It is the most important issue in the entire global warming story, in my opinion. The players in the present U.S. temperature story, we scientists included, are just bit players. The characters in the main drama are big fish, really big fish. But before we get to that matter, I need to expose how the deceit works." Hansen The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla http://www.columbia....
"Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical
and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to
warming" http://www.ipcc.ch/p...
"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming." http://www.ipcc.ch/p...
"Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)." http://www.ipcc.ch/p...
"A vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that it poses a serious threat to society. They also agree that it is being caused largely by human activities that release greenhouse gases, such as burning fossil fuels in power plants and cars and deforesting the land. This scientific consensus emerged gradually over decades of research and debate. The current state of knowledge on climate is summed up in the periodic reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are compiled by thousands of scientists. Unfortunately, much
of the American public remains unaware of this overwhelming scientific agreement. Part of the blame for this lies with coordinated efforts within certain industries to spread misinformation about global warming." Environmental Defense _The Latest Myths and Fact on Global Warming _ http://www.edf.org/d...
"It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the
scientific evidence that has been collected about climate change and
the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities as an
exaggeration. Some articles have claimed that scientists are ignoring
uncertainties in our understanding of the climate and the factors that
affect it. Some have questioned the motives of the scientists who have
presented the most authoritative assessments of the science of climate
change, claiming that they have a vested interest in ‘playing up’ the
potential effects that climate change is likely to have." The Royal
Society A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (pdf)
http://royalsociety....
But you already knew that.
Interesting You use a
March 7, 2008 - 18:40 ET by danboInteresting You use a quote from the Royal Society. Didn't the Royal Society write Exxon demanding that they stop funding anyone who disagrees with them (The Royal Society) on AGW. That's a group that's really interested in the truth.
And of course it also states anyone who recieves money and support from an oil company is suspect. And lying.
This morning I saw another warmer post, where they cited the organizations and societies who have come out in support of AGW. (Not individual scientist.) Also the corporations. Guess what one of the corporations was. You guessed it. Exxon/Mobile. When is Exxon supposed to be lying? When they support climate hysterics or skeptics?
Giles also gives us a link that defends Hansen after his Y2K error. Trying to minimize it. Of course the US records are the worlds best. And a serious error there isn't good for the rest of the world. Further as there are so few long term stations that GISS has for the rest of the world it's hard for them to prove the last 20 years are warmer than the 20's, 30's and 40's without using stations heavly influenced by UHI. (See McIntyres where's Waldo series.) Please Giles give us the long term records for the antarctic that prove it's warmer now than the 20's or 30's.
Giles if the US records aren't that big a deal. Why is Giss readjusting them again since the error was found?
We've already talked IPCC till you're blue from holding your breath. Enough there.
As we now have 4 studies that indicate Oreskes is wrong in her assertion that there is a scientific consensus. Please provide proof of a consensus.
As far as decit. Gile's I wasn't the one who posted that biased research using a 1950-80 base. You did. It's probably very true. Just misleading as all get out. And I did point it out. That was your second time. And my second time pointing out the bias.
There are three ways to lie. A falsehood. Not telling all the truth and research/statistics.
"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
Interesting, though logically flawed
March 7, 2008 - 19:27 ET by Giles Winterbournere Royal Society letter "The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups
that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that
emissions are linked to climate change." http://nielsenhayden...
It might be interesting to do a bit of research: there is a growing legal opinion meme on what is becoming obviously deceiving PR from the various astroturf skeptical groups. You've probably also noticed that skeptical arguments tend to be met with more derision lately as reporters, and citizens are starting to see the GWS arguments holding less and less water.
"..cited the organizations and societies who have come out in support of AGW..."
I think most of the major petro, electrical producers, car cos., retail outlets, etc have come out with policy statements about reducing energy use and being better stewards of the environment.
"..4 studies that indicate Oreskes is wrong .."
And they are where? One at least used incorrect search terms (though if I remember right, there was an early article that gave incorrect search terms but corrected that later), One also used a different database for their comparison.
Care to cite how big the 'serious error' was? Or would you like me to point out how small it was?
"A minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century." NASA '2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year' http://www.giss.nasa...
Likewise, the rationale for Hansen's choice of data for the 'cooling' discussion is to show the trend. I don't see any science in your objection, only opinion. Use a different base and see where the trend leads.
In any case, there are sufficient other studies debunking the 'cooling' meme; I used Hansen mainly because he attracts a certain vehemence often reserved for Mann or Clinton.
You said ""The move
March 7, 2008 - 20:53 ET by danboYou said ""The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that
emissions are linked to climate change."
You can white wash it. I call it censorship. If The royal Society is so sure iof itself they shouldn't fear. That's been your who mode of operation. No one has a right to disagree with you.
You said "I think most of the major petro, electrical producers, car cos., retail outlets, etc have come out with policy statements about reducing energy use and being better stewards of the environment."
As you and your friends said they're lying. When are they lying. When the support warmers are when they decide to make money by jumping on the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hysteria bandwagon.
You said "One at least used incorrect search terms (though if I remember right, there was an early article that gave incorrect search terms but corrected that later), One also used a different database for their comparison." The contention of Oreskes was that everyone agreed. The issue of the search terms or database is irrelevant. They were found. If you use use a set of search parameters designed to lean heavily to one type of response. And a subsequent researchers finds the reports that your parameters failed to find by using different terms or a different database. You're still wrong.
Sufficient to debunk the cooling? Ghee I though your models had it all figured out. I thought they accounted for La Nina or the PDO. I guess not.
Enough for now. Din-din to finish. I'll let someone else finish with this.
"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
Royal Society isn't in a
March 7, 2008 - 21:22 ET by Giles WinterbourneRoyal Society isn't in a position to 'censor'. They could recommend, they could point out the ludicrous position that that funding is trying to project.
And where are those 'four studies' refuting Oreskes' The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
"That's been your who mode of operation. No one has a right to disagree with you." No, you can disagree all you want. But your opinion holds little weight without some good support. Show us the support.
Not legally but their
March 7, 2008 - 22:14 ET by danboNot legally but their attempt was.
You still haven't disputted the study didn't find research contrary to AGW. Do you understand what a population and a sample are? Do you understand what a hypothesis is in reference to these two factors?
The 4 researchers are Benny Peiser, The one you complained of. Also Klaus-Martin Schulte, Von Storch, and the one that is now being reported on by the Edmonton Journal of a poll of those licensed by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. “
"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
"Not legally but their
March 7, 2008 - 23:03 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Not legally but their attempt was."
How? What can the RS do to compel or force them to not fund? It seems you are taking a very forced position on the context of their message.
Why are you not citing the studies disputing Oreskes?
"You still haven't disputted the study didn't find research contrary to AGW. "
??????
"Do you understand what a population and a sample are? Do you understand what a hypothesis is in reference to these two factors?"
Pretend I (and the rest of the audience) don't - Explain it and what it has to do with the discussion.
"The celebrated research by
March 7, 2008 - 23:18 ET by Giles Winterbourne"The celebrated research
by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still
continues over the science behind climate change, is "a bit patchy and
nothing new," according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication."
http://www.desmogblo...
"Benny Peiser, The one you complained of."
That would be - pointed out that there has already been discussion on the errors of his methodology.
Benny Peiser ....
March 8, 2008 - 00:06 ET by NL207Benny Peiser .... hmmmm... he tried to reproduce Naomi Oreskes results according to the protocol she described in that bogus 'consesus' piece that was published in Science and discovered her paper was hogwash. It could not be reproduced.
The inability of independent researchers to reproduce results previously obtained using the methods described and documented bty the author is sufficient without any other proofs to invalidate unreproducible results. Real Science is repeatable and predictible. That consensus drivel Oreskes wrote is neither.
Giles. You really need to
March 8, 2008 - 08:14 ET by danboGiles. You really need to give us a warning. I almost got coke on my keyboard.
You're so desperate you use that great bastion of science desmog to counter the 4 studies. A public relations group associated with Suzuki.
Let me point out from desmog what you failed to print from Sonja.
"For your information. I have informed Dr Schulte that I am happy to publish his own research findings on the effect on patients of climate alarmis/Angst"
I notice no one provides the entire letter. I'm having trouble finding it. From 2 sources I see his research was accepted for publication. May not have been published yet.
If you don't know what research is about. You can just try to trash it.
So we have 4 studies that show Oreskes erred. And everytime one of us finds research that casts doubt AGW, that is another piece of evidence that Oreskes got it wrong. Pop Tech has proved her wrong many times as have a number of us. We find the studies she couldn't.
"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
Bottom of the desmog link
March 8, 2008 - 09:20 ET by Giles WinterbourneBottom of the desmog link is the email conversation. As noted at the top of the link.
Maybe you could write her and ask for the publication schedule; though it sounds pretty dead in the water.
Maybe you didn't hear me.
March 8, 2008 - 09:56 ET by danboMaybe you didn't hear me. As I said. I noticed they didn't produce the entire letter. That doesn't look like the entire letter. And I also noticed you didn't produce all of what desmog wrote.
"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
" I noticed they didn't
March 9, 2008 - 10:45 ET by Giles Winterbourne" I noticed they didn't produce the entire letter."
How do you figure that? They don't say 'included in this statement is '...' or indicate any selective quoting The statement is "And this is Bochmer-Christiansen's response:"
Now, even if they did pull a para out, it is still clear that E&E made a choice to not publish his work on 'survey of papers critical of the consensus' but are publishing the work about 'effect on patients of climate alamism/'Angst'.'
And the orig point (remember the orig point?) was that Oreskes' work has been published, had a correction (in search terms being described) has had discussion, but has been found to be valid.You have been saying it has been proven invalid, stated there were 4 studies, 4 studies that you have not been able to show.
Which, generalizing a bit, is fairly typical how asinine denier argument/discussions go; not looking at the valid evidence, Arguing pine needles and not seeing the forest, insult when reason doesn't work, attempt to equate one questionable piece of data with a large body of evidence to refute areas beyond the scope of the topic.
But, the deniers have had their day in the sun. It has become pretty obvious to journalists, politicos, general public that you're off to sea in a sieve.
"The water it soon came in, it did,
The water it soon came in;
So to keep them dry, they wrapped their feet
In a pinky paper all folded neat,
And they fastened it down with a pin.
And they passed the night in a crockery-jar,
And each of them said, 'How wise we are!
Though the sky be dark, and the voyage be long,
Yet we never can think we were rash or wrong,
While round in our Sieve we spin!'" Edward Lear 'The Jumblies'
Giles Fact is. By your own
March 10, 2008 - 09:48 ET by danboGiles Fact is. By your own admission you know these studies exist. You found desmog to try to rebut one of them. I don't need to show them as by your own admission they exist. And desmogg backs that up but whines.
If they found studies that disagreed with Oreskes contention. If I find studies that oreskes didn't find, if PT finds studies that Oreskes didn't find. If NL finds studies that Oreskes didn't find. The studies exist. No matter how much you whine.
Skeptics 4+ warmers 1.
"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
Go back a couple of steps
March 10, 2008 - 23:55 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou stated that there were four studies. and couldn't, can't, won't show links to any of them. From my previous research, I know of one and gave some brief discussion on how it has been subsequently proven invalid.
Of the remaining ones, I dug up a reference to one not having been published, and the editor of E&E stating they weren't going to publish it (there was a separate study on another subject that they said they were interested in publishing).
The remaining two you haven't provided a link to, I don't have knowledge of. They, so far, only exist on your say-so. You've had opportunity to prove their existence.
But, we are arguing a fine point; the vast preponderance of climate research agrees with the general AGW position as stated by IPCC, virtually all major science organizations, many large corporations, and most government entities (note that many states are taking up the initiative where federal hasn't). That was the case when she did the research, and that continues to be the case now.
" And everytime one of us
March 8, 2008 - 09:25 ET by Giles Winterbourne" And everytime one of us finds research that casts doubt AGW, that is another piece of evidence that Oreskes got it wrong"
No. Her work was done on a specific date range in a specific dataset. So for your comment to be correct, it would have to be from the data set, search terms, and date range.
So far, supposedly there are 4 studies; one is not published, one has been poked through and found to be poorly done, and the other two are unidentified. 0 /4-about average in skepticland for conclusive proof.
Right Giles
March 8, 2008 - 09:30 ET by Cool ArrowBut maybe it it gets a little warmer the Horney Toads will return.
Why do you hate Horney Toads?
♣ a seal
Giles. You use a search
March 8, 2008 - 09:51 ET by danboGiles. You use a search parameter to find a sample to make a study of a population.
We have two options here. She didn't adequately assess or study the abstracts. Or Oreskes used the wrong search criteria to sample the population.
Sorry Giles. You really don't understand what research is, do you? Hypothesis testing?
You can manipulate and dance around. That's more than 4+-1. Including every piece of research produced here. I wasn't the one that claimed consensus. Oreskes did. Kind of dumb. But she did. Every piece of research that disgrees with AGW shows her wrong. Keep dancing the anthropogenic global warming cha-cha.
In case you never learned this. Evidence and data exist totally seperate from studies. Though studies may be evidence. Evidence exists on it's own. Guess you don't understand that.
"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
Let me jump in here Giles . . . as a layman
March 8, 2008 - 10:21 ET by JayTeeAre you Familiar with the Book "Irreversable Global Warming every 1500 years" in which the Authors present ample Proof of Previous Global warming. Emphasis on the word "Proof".
Al Gore and Company have NOT shown Proof. I can walk out my Door in the Dallas area, in March (Yesterday), and see it snowing like I was in Colorado. Compared that to July, when I was sweating a river mowing my lawn, it was HOT...but then it's usually Hot in Texas in the Summer. Conclusion, Warming covers about 4 months of the Year in Dallas, and Winter does about the same. Tie - Tie. No winner declared.
CO 2 is NOT a pollutant, it is one of 3 core necessary Elements for Life.
When it comes to predicting the Future....encoded Hexadecimal bytes on the Tracks/Cylinders of a Disk Drive just don't cover the "proof" requirement, they don't convince me that CO 2 is Bad. The Book above, has ample PROOF of Global warming in the past, ad nauseum.
Hansen and NASA have showed up that their Figures were found suspect, and issued corrections. . . . none of which offsets the Mother Nature Correction (un-predicted) just issued this Winter.
So take your Models and Data, and realize that even in Dallas, if you want to find Global warming, it only last about 4 months of the year. Meanwhile, everyone in Wisconson reading your posts thinks your Model looks like a NASCAR Model crushed by a Freight Train.
The average lay person doesn't believe, and right now they are in the majority. . . per the polls surveys, GW is an uphill battle.
»→ Giles
March 7, 2008 - 16:44 ET by Cool ArrowOK, I'm just a run of the mill schmuck who wants to know what's it gonna cost me to cast my lot with a bunch of academics who voted we are in serious trouble from AGW?
Shoot me some figures, and I'll tell you to what extent I'm willing to be robbed.
If all I gotta do is buy one of them chocolate bars you're selling for the library fund, I'll spring for a buck. Otherwise, it's still cold here in Texas, and though I've seen it colder this time of year, I've seen it warmer too.
PS: were you in "The Woodlanders" or "Return of the Native"?
♣ a seal
Cool... I understand that
March 7, 2008 - 16:50 ET by Clear thinkerCool...
I understand that the snow in TX is bigger than anywhere else, and it's all caused by Global Warming. Is this true?
"Abstain from McCain"
»→ Yes, Clear
March 7, 2008 - 16:54 ET by Cool ArrowThough our precipitation in San Angelo was tiny ice pellets, DFW had some serious flurries.
But back to your point. I did notice the ice crystals were a little warmer than usual.
Maybe I am a denier.
♣ a seal
I've seen it colder this time of year, I've seen it warmer too.
March 7, 2008 - 18:01 ET by Giles WinterbourneYup, that's weather for you.....
"what's it gonna cost me.." should be recast as 'us' and rather than (I'm assuming) thinking only in dollars, we might want to think in terms of life quality and effects that may not directly effect us immediately; and in any case, much of that will depend on how soon reductions start, wouldn't it? I suppose we should also be considering the costs and effects being foisted off on the grandkids and their kids.
How big a car do you need to bring home the groceries, esp. that head of lettuce in the wintertime?
Guess you'll have to read both; I like _Woodlanders_ more
»→ For me?
March 7, 2008 - 18:11 ET by Cool ArrowI've got a 4cyl 91 Toyota 4wd @ 20 mpg.
And a 2000 Toyota Echo @ 32 mpg.
I've been living the EcoConservative lifestyle for years. I've never liked buying gasoline, and my energy bill runs about $130 per month.
My decisions are market driven. I'm not much into this fear factor nonsense.
♣ a seal
The warming alarmists are
March 7, 2008 - 16:55 ET by NL207The warming alarmists are not carrying out any kind of debate through peer-reviewed literature.
Al Gore and his movie are not peer-reviewed literature. The alarmist, sham movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" was not a peer-reviewed publication. Don't give me this crap about peer-reviewed literature.
Within the scientific community, there is tremendous pressure on everyone who disagrees with the select few promoting AGW theory. Publications are stifled. Grants are denied. The political meddling is enormous.
The IPCC is so contaminated with politics as to be, like most UN sponsored organizations, uttterly worthless. It and its "Policy Maker's Summary" are pure politics. The position IPCC and the PMS do not reflect an accurate picture of the 4AR. Even the 4AR itself has been perverted by science-activists. to. wit. The resignation of Dr. Landsea over tampering with his work.
Save the excuses for somebody else. You try to debate the science here, you get your head handed to you. Why? Because your position is entirely indefensible without some very complicated feedback arguments for which the science is most unsettled. I bet you don't post your drivel on CO2Science either.
Now THAT is how you put the
March 7, 2008 - 17:32 ET by Sick-n-TiredNow THAT is how you put the hammer down on somebody! whew! Nice post 207. I don't think Giles (aka Prof Truth) won't be coming back anytime soon.
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
" The warming
March 7, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Giles Winterbourne"
The warming alarmists are not carrying out any kind of debate through peer-reviewed literature"
The scientists are adding to the body of literature, adding support for AGW. Just sit down in the library and read through some of it.
And no, AIT would fit into a definition of documentary. I might have pointed to a source pointed to in the movie, but not to the movie (though I think there was a discussion on the British court case that skeptics tend to cherrypick to 'prove inaccuracies'.
"Within the scientific community, there is tremendous pressure on
everyone who disagrees with the select few promoting AGW theory.
Publications are stifled. Grants are denied. The political meddling
is enormous"
Got cites for that? Beyond the Singer insinuations
Actually, any cites for any of those contentions? I've noticed your post tend to be heavy on opinion and light on effective discourse or proofs.
Head's still firmly attached; not much debate on the science merits of any study going on here.
The literature supporting
March 8, 2008 - 00:00 ET by NL207The literature supporting AGW is being produced by a narrow segment of the body scientific and their disciples. Much of it is colossally bad science, an embarrassment. Example; Mann, Bradley & Hughes 98 and 99, which form the underpinnings of much of the claims of alarm. These have been thoroughly discredited on scientific grounds. Yet these flawed papers were published in Nature.
Want citations? Need somebody else to do your research for you? try this. Lindzen describes the pattern of intimidation applied by the orthodoxists to Climate Realists. then read this. Its Dr. Landsea's resignation letter to the IPCC. This is a story of distortion, alarmism and manipulation.
I don't see you debating ANY science here, just vomitting up the usual lefty AGW talking points.
I will hand you a similar challenge as I handed lotr: explain the Beer-Lambert Law as it applies to CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Then tell me what the alarmists think about this.
Then for kickes, I'd like you to explain heat transfer and how it applies to earth's atmosphere.
Quite frankly, I think you are totally clueless about these topics and couldn't debate these if your life depended on it.
"...narrow segment of the
March 8, 2008 - 00:21 ET by Giles Winterbourne"...narrow segment of the body scientific and their disciples."
You are saying that the the studies in IPCC are authored by a smaller group than what the skeptical scientists are producing? Then, why are the lists of works defending that position so small compared to what is available in IPCC reports? Any source of stats to prove your contention?
Ahhh, here we go again: "These have been thoroughly discredited on scientific grounds."
Where? I've read some attempts, but also see far more cases where Mann, et al have be supported.
Landsea and Lindzen seem to be vomiting up some ipse dixit - no documentation.
Piltdown Mann!!!! Good
March 8, 2008 - 09:28 ET by danboPiltdown Mann!!!! Good going.
"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
>FLUSH!< Thus to you and
March 10, 2008 - 10:25 ET by NL207>FLUSH!<
Thus to you and your empty rhetoric.
Your team has failed to prove and of the following in the peer reviewed lieterature that:
(1) CO2 is the predominant driver of global climate.
(2) Recent changes in CO2 are entirely on human origin.
(3) Whatever portion of CO2 changes that are attributable to human activity have caused significant changes in global climate which are outside the range of natural climatic variation.
(4) These changes are in aggregate harmful to life on Earth.
Without ALL of these points, there is no justification for alarm. Your team is batting .000 on these points.
Stick around and keep spewing out your rhetorical sewage. I enjoy destroying your flimsy argunments.
You have it backwards
March 10, 2008 - 23:42 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou have it backwards; as the minority (in a global sense, just not here and the few scattered blogs of septic science) it would be your case to prove that what is wrong with all the IPCC reports and the attendant research they are based on. The realists, the far larger majority, who can read the reports and review the data in the IPCC reports, know the science is sound. That work has been done. So it really up to you to prove your point; which pop tech's lists don't, which your, so far, empty rhetoric doesn't.
Oh, nevermind.
March 8, 2008 - 19:16 ET by R D HelmOh, nevermind.
have been an “Expert
March 7, 2008 - 17:09 ET by danbohave been an “Expert Reviewer” for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157....
Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition…
http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?p=824
But this is not new.
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns...
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading trans cripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record....
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
17 January 2005
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html
That's 2 scientist on IPCC.
"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
Giles, you said,"There
March 8, 2008 - 08:43 ET by danboGiles, you said,"There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process"...
Earth to Giles. When you show a chart or piece of research that is obviously designed to distort and present an image that supports a specific political agenda. And I catch it. I'll point it out.
Like. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf
I don't care who produced it.
"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
Whack a Mole still in Progress
March 8, 2008 - 09:18 ET by JayTeeGiles is certainly poping up each time he's whacked......Da man is persistent.
Is it because his initials "GW" are Famous ?
It's a marthon, that should have ended with yesterday's Snow fall in Dallas . . . In March . . .preceeded by the coldest winter since 1901. . . . . but heck, when your non-Scientific leader of the Pack, gets a totally Climate unrelated "Nobel Prize", you have to Support Al and what ever he's thinking of at the moment...there's $$$'s to be made, and government Grants to be Had.....before the dumass Congress figures out the Scam.
"..supports a specific
March 8, 2008 - 09:27 ET by Giles Winterbourne"..supports a specific political agenda.."
And that agenda would be?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, the socialist/communist takeover of the world....
Giles. Am I to assume you
March 8, 2008 - 09:32 ET by danboGiles. Am I to assume you don't know what you're trying to portray?
"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
an example: "The
March 9, 2008 - 13:58 ET by Giles Winterbournean example:
"The environmental extremists’ true agenda has little or nothing to do
with climate change. Their true agenda is to find a means to control
our lives. The kind of repressive human control, not to mention
government-sanctioned mass murder, seen under communism has lost any
measure of intellectual respectability. So people who want that kind of
control must come up with a new name, and that new name is
environmentalism." Walter E. Williams: Fearmongering injures civil society http://www.examiner....
Gee Giles. You were trying
March 10, 2008 - 09:55 ET by danboGee Giles. You were trying to do all that?
My hat's off to you.
I thought you were just trying to cause people to worry, by using a biased study that compared recent tempertures to a the mean of a known cold period. Like comparing tempertures today to the little ice age, or the plistocene. It's kind of a distortion.
I like old Walter.
"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
»→ Your agenda
March 8, 2008 - 09:35 ET by Cool ArrowYou hate Horney Toads.
♣ a seal
He finds something he
March 7, 2008 - 16:35 ET by danboHe finds something he things says something. Then expects everyone to go, "Why didn't I see that?"
Obviously he doesn't think anyone who disagrees knows anything.
Inconvenient facts. Hottest temperture ever recorded. 136degF El Azizia, Libya, sept 13, 1922. Hottest spot in North America Death Valley, 134 degF July 10, 1913.
"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
Everything you said aptly
March 7, 2008 - 15:43 ET by JerryEverything you said aptly describes what the Climate Alarmists do. Well said.
Nice how you speak of "global climate trends". If you are so certain that your "scientific consensus" is true, stick to your guns and proudly profess your "global WARMING" banner and stop copping out with "Climate" change, which we have experienced since the beginning of time.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
almost clever riposte
March 7, 2008 - 16:08 ET by Giles WinterbourneA simple click on the link would have made it more clear for you that the trend is warming. And a more careful reading would have informed you that the thread is about skeptics attempting to use a weather report for proof in denying global warming.
GW got any more links?
March 7, 2008 - 16:51 ET by upcountrywaterget back to me when it's 120F in Omaha THIS SUMMER ok.
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!
Oh thank goodness you
March 7, 2008 - 19:21 ET by contraryOh thank goodness you arrived doctor,
I was worried the AGW operation would not go successfully. Hurry and put on your mask and gloves, this planet needs you.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
What Peer Reviewed Journal Was this Published in?
March 7, 2008 - 20:27 ET by PopularTechI am curious what journal was this lecture published in?
BTW AGW has never been proven via the scientific method, if you can please do so.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
feel free anytime to show
March 7, 2008 - 20:56 ET by Giles Winterbournefeel free anytime to show where the breakdown occurs.
Or where any other (your choice) forcing is the cause through scientific method.
So you cannot do it - just as I thought
March 7, 2008 - 21:21 ET by PopularTechSo you are unable to prove AGW via the scientific method.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Or perhaps you are unable to
March 7, 2008 - 21:30 ET by Giles WinterbourneOr perhaps you are unable to point out where IPCC isn't.
That makes no sense
March 7, 2008 - 21:40 ET by PopularTechWhere does the IPCC claim to prove AGW via the scientific method or is 4th grade science class too much for them?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT -- yes, I too would love
March 8, 2008 - 08:21 ET by Jack BauerPT -- yes, I too would love to see the published scientific experiments in the laboratory which seek to test two things:
#1. That the colorless, odorless gas Carbon Dioxide has any effect on the average air-temperature of the planet.
#2. That the miniscule amounts of CO2 produced by industry (and people when they breath out) could have any significant, or measureable impact on the totality of CO2 produced by the planet itself.
At that point real scientists could do what is necessary for the advancement of sceintific knowledge...
That is to use the scientific method, to attempt to refute and falsify the experiments which seek to test the hypothosis and establish a theory.
But all we get is "computer models" and blather and watermelon politics and communistic threats.
And, of course, the anti-science idolotary funded by BIG GRANT which seeks to STOP skepticism and inquiry, the very foundation of science.
Well, until recently anyway. Now, apprently, scientists are expected to abandon skepticism for consensus -- or ELSE.
It's all very Stalinist. And therefore must be opposed by all free thinkers.
»→ Come on Jack
March 8, 2008 - 08:24 ET by Cool ArrowDon't you think a vote is just as valid as any silly scientific experiment?
♣ a seal
cool -- of course, if only
March 8, 2008 - 08:28 ET by Jack Bauercool -- of course, if only Copernicus could have put his wacky theories to a vote maybe he could have avoided the clink!
I'm assuming you're
March 7, 2008 - 20:59 ET by Giles WinterbourneI'm assuming you're referring to the Hansen 'cooling' paper based on his presentations; as he states in the beginning.
But then, I'm not the one citing Richard Pryor and George Carlin ...
So, your point is?
So it was never published
March 7, 2008 - 21:27 ET by PopularTechSo what you linked to was never published in a Peer-Reviewed Journal. I saw no citation and no mention of a paper until the end, nor Hansen's name. Thanks for filling us in that you are a RealClimate.org troll.
I never cited Pryor but I did Carlin in a section labeled "Humor". It is pretty sad when a comedian can quickly and easily destroy one of the enviro's mantra's "Save the Planet". Embarrassing to say the least, especially to people like you.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Carlin's working from a
March 7, 2008 - 21:39 ET by Giles WinterbourneCarlin's working from a teleological POV, which really doesn't support any realistic argument.
So Humans will cause the Earth to cease to exist?
March 7, 2008 - 21:46 ET by PopularTechThe argument is simple, we cannot "Save the Planet" from some existence based peril. The planet will be here no matter what we decide to do about plastic. Thus idiot environmentalists have chosen an illogical catch phrase.
George Carlin - The Planet is Fine (Adults Only) (Video) (8min)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Warm Earthers will do,
March 7, 2008 - 20:38 ET by Jack BauerThe Warm Earthers will do, say, and lie about anything to promote their junk science witterings.
But their old trick of blaming every natural occuring weather event on the lie of "manmade" global warming has long since worn thin.
Yes they put in a valiant effort to say too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, not windy enough -- it was all down to the miniscule amount of CO2 produced by mankind.
But you can't fool all the people all the time, despite the fraud Gore's best efforts.
Found your causes of GW
March 9, 2008 - 13:19 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou're right, it isn't manmade it seems -
" Let’s talk about global warming
science that was not covered in Al Gore’s movie. How about Geophysical
and Geological? That is the study of the earths core for those of you
that wondering. Did you know the earths very core is getting warmer?
Now that is something our CO2 levels do not touch! Did you know the
electromagnetic field is weakening? Ah there, that should be a shocker
- because it is the EM field generated by this planets spinning molten
core that keeps the sun’s “bad energy” away from the surface. Um, did
Al Gore cover that? No. (See: http://www.cambodianonline.net/earthsun02010.htm) "
Frosty E. Hardison ' Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?' Federal Way Conservative
And he cites sources! Fox News, JunkScience, home.flash.com, cambodianonline, harvard gazette.......
Gile's last time I looked
March 10, 2008 - 10:17 ET by danboGile's last time I looked no one has drilled to the core. There isn't a thermometer down there. There are a lot of "theories" in geology. I remember them from when I studied it in college. There are a lot more than back then.
Here's another fact. The magnetic poles wander. And periodically shift. And may linger near zero before a shift. Some people think the earth pulses. And some think the earth's core temperture has an effect on climate.
Are we to assume Al is also an expert on this. I'm glade you're not blaming this on CO2
"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
Frosty the snowman
March 11, 2008 - 00:11 ET by Giles WinterbourneMight want to read the rest of the link of Frosty's post.
His position is a bit further out that the average in NB; one could say 'over the edge' and get a flat earth reference in.
But in a discussion of Global Warming, you'd want to reference research that shows the pulsing and effect on climate.
But, you might want to look at the somewhat illogical position you're in. True, we don't know the temp of the core by thermometer; but then, we also don't have direct proof how the sun works.
But you are ready to trust that sunspot activity causes the temp fluctuations even though there is no evidence in the data that matches that cycle.
Plenty of evidence for a Sun-Climate Connection
March 11, 2008 - 14:44 ET by PopularTechThe persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles (Science Daily)
Basic physics supports solar activity as cause of global warming (The Guardian, UK)
Changes In Sun’s Intensity Tied To Recurrent Droughts In Maya Region (Science Daily)
Cosmic Rays and Climate (The Danish National Space Center)
Cosmic Rays Blamed for Global Warming (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Cosmic Rays 'Linked to Clouds' (BBC)
Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming (Science Daily)
Cosmoclimatology: A new theory of climate change (The Danish National Space Center)
Evidence For Sun-climate Link Reported By UMaine Scientists (Science Daily)
Solar Variability and Climate Change (Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics)
Exploding Stars Influence Climate Of Earth (Space Daily)
It's the Sun, Stupid (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences)
Holes In Sun's Corona Linked To Atmospheric Temperature Changes On Earth (Science Daily)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (NASA)
New Analysis Shows Earth's Lower Stratosphere In Synch With Solar Cycle (Science Daily)
New Experiment To Investigate Effect Of Galactic Cosmic Rays On Clouds And Climate (Science Daily)
Northern Climate, Ecosystems Driven By Cycles Of Changing Sunlight (Science Daily)
Read the sunspots (Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology)
Regional Variation In Warming From Sun During Solar Cycle Shown By Satellite (Science Daily)
Solar blow to low cloud could be warming planet (Nature News)
Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report (Science Daily)
Sun more active than for a millennium (NewScientist)
Sun, Not Man, Main Cause of Climate Change, New Study Says (CNSNews)
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming (Space.com)
Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated' (BBC)
Sunspots: correlations with temperature (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard)
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle (Science Daily)
The Sun's Chilly Impact On Earth (Science Daily)
The Sun and Global Warming (NASA)
The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years (Science Daily)
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
appear, inferred, may
March 11, 2008 - 18:11 ET by Giles WinterbourneQuotes from your links except as noted
"..proposed that variations in solar activity control the 100 ka glacial–interglacial cycles"
"..appear to have been caused by a cyclical brightening of the sun."
http://news.bbc.co.u... has a pretty thorough discussion of Dr. Henrik Svensmark's theory, book, and paper. " ... since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s,
the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed
that of the Sun by a factor of about 13 to one."
BTW, 2-3 links to 2-3 articles about the same study is a bit disingenuous. Offhand, it would be like padding the Works Cited page.
" suggested the rays might cause changes in cloud cover which could explain the temperature conundrum"
"..inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about
0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend
would be important if maintained for a century or more." (my bold)
".. they may have an influence on cloud formation."
"..that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said." (my bold)
"Shindell noted that the effects of this period of a dimmer sun were
concentrated more regionally than globally. "Global average temperature
changes are small, approximately .5 to .7 degrees Fahrenheit
(0.3-0.4C), but regional temperature changes are quite large."
Hardly conclusive proof, especially when it is painfully obvious that most of any measured cosmic rays or solar brightness variation is already accounted for in the IPCC report.
Cherry Picking
March 11, 2008 - 20:37 ET by PopularTechIt is pretty said you had to quote a statement that was presented to show the otherside of the argument in one of the news articles
"Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
"...over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. [...]
When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]
...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]
The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
It is pretty cool that I was
March 11, 2008 - 23:08 ET by Giles WinterbourneIt is pretty cool that I was able to quote from your own sources to show that the the studies you listed actually point out that they only 'might be' proof.
The only you proved was your incompetence
March 12, 2008 - 02:52 ET by PopularTechFirst of all your quotes don't even support what you just said, let alone make much sense in the context you are trying to use them in and the one you bolded was from an article that included an opposing position on the actual position of the article. This is common with objective journalism and science unlike AGW which is neither objective nor scienctific.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
read more carefully - esp the stuff you're linking to
March 12, 2008 - 08:13 ET by Giles Winterbourne"..appear to have been caused by a cyclical brightening of the sun." from your Maya civilization collapse article in Science Daily.
"suggested the rays might cause changes in cloud cover which could explain the temperature conundrum" from your Cosmic Rays 'Linked to Clouds' (BBC) link
"..inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about
0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend
would be important if maintained for a century or more." (my bold) from your NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (NASA) link
"
"..proposed that variations in solar activity control the 100 ka glacial–interglacial cycles"
Minor error; I quoted the actual abstract of the paper that you cited a ScienceDaily article about:
http://www.sciencedi...
From your cite
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles
(http://www.scienceda... ) : "Although there is a strong relationship between solar activity and
oxygen isotopic variations, it is too early to say exactly what is the
mechanism though which the sun is influencing the terrestrial climate.""
and
"Plus, regarding the current global warming debate, it still needs to be
examined if the role of solar activity will exacerbate the rising
temperatures that result from carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere."
So, other than citing an abstract of a paper that you linked to a pop press article about, my point stands: YOUR LINKS DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT SUN-CLIMATE CONNECTION.
Proof of sun/climate connection - not so much.
Mentally Retarded?
March 12, 2008 - 17:55 ET by PopularTechDon't tell me to read more carefully what I have already read. You quotes didn't make any sense the first time you posted them. You blatantly cherry pick and ignore what you wish. Do I have to post this again? Apparently so...
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
"...over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. [...]
When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]
...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive
feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]
The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Sweetheart,
March 12, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Giles WinterbourneI'm quoting from YOUR SOURCES! You're the one saying there is a strong sun/climate relation - I guess implying it is stronger than anthropogenic CO2 in causing global warming.
My 'cherry-picked' quotes are from the newspaper PR pieces and other sources YOU LINKED TO (other than the one link I pointed to a discussion of a source you linked to and one abstract of a paper that you linked to the PR of it).
I think most any intelligent reader can see that the links you're providing don't offer the unequivical proof you are suggesting they do. Just like linking to two or three newspaper articles about the same study to pad the length and make your list look more impressive to a reader without a critical eye.
Here is the article that is published in a real journal article refuting the sun-climate connection espoused in the list - one of your links had to self-publish their attempt to comment:
"Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures. "
Lockwood and Frohlich _Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface Proc. R. Soc. A
air temperature_
Cherry Picking Sources
March 12, 2008 - 18:44 ET by PopularTechNO you are cherry picking from my sources in a deliberate attempt to propagandize what the articles are about. I have quoted below what they are about.
Any intelligent reader can see that my articles offer extensive evidence for a Sun-Climate connection.
Man-Made CO2 has not been proven to cause anything so your point is irrelevant.
FYI, there has been more than one paper published about Cosmic Rays and climate.
I have already posted the link and quote above TWICE disputing
Lockwood and Frohlich. Anyone can read it and make up their own minds.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Discerning readers might
March 12, 2008 - 22:02 ET by Giles WinterbourneDiscerning readers might notice a discrepancy between where the
Lockwood and Frohlich paper was published and where the SF rebuttal is. Think peer review.
Your list is an attempt to prove a theory that has been gone over for years. Data does not and has never supported it. In your implication, that the studies cited were conclusive proof; in the authors' own words, or in the writing of the PR, it is obvious they are not.
Sure, there are several papers on Cosmic Rays and climate. And there is discussion on that and Sunspots and several other forcings in the IPCC reports.
Giles you win... how can I argue this logic?
March 13, 2008 - 15:09 ET by PopularTechMy paper does not exist and was not written by real scientists because it was not published in a Peer Reviewed Journal. Therefore no discerning reader should read it because you Giles say so.
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Actually, the SF rebuttal
March 13, 2008 - 19:25 ET by Giles WinterbourneActually, the SF rebuttal is certainly not being cited in a positive sense in further research, which gives a discerning reader a fairly good idea of its value.
The psych studies show conservatives tend strongly towards accepting authoritarian figures; I noted discerning readers can and do make their own choices.
The Propagandist
March 13, 2008 - 21:30 ET by PopularTechScience is now determined by popularity? So the more a paper is cited the more correct it is? You can ignore the reality that the paper exists all you want - a discerning reader can click on the link.
The psych studies show liberals have a mental disorder.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I'm not sure your
March 13, 2008 - 22:17 ET by Giles WinterbourneI'm not sure your misreading on purpose or just not understanding.
Paper cited and discussed positively by others in further studies increases its importance.
Paper cited and discussion about its problems would limit its importance.
Paper in a non-peer-reviewed journal raises questions about why it was refused for peer-reviewed journals.
So, why wasn't the SF review not published in the same journal as the study it was discussing? Why was it not in a peer-reviewed journal? Who else has discussed the LF paper? Who has continued discussion of the SF paper?
some easy read discussion of the RWA syndrome
Cracks In The Wall, Part I: Defining the Authoritarian Personality http://dneiwert.blog...
Irrelevant
March 13, 2008 - 22:44 ET by PopularTechI am sure you are not understanding.
Citations are irrelevant to the paper's content.
Peer-Review is irrelevant to the paper's content as is the story or lack there of behind it.
Don't worry Giles people can still read the paper even as you try to prevent them from doing so.
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
As for your confusion about conservatives/libertarians and fascism - I am not surprised.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Lost in Space
March 13, 2008 - 23:14 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Citations are irrelevant to the paper's content.
Peer-Review is irrelevant to the paper's content as is the story or lack there of (sic) behind it."
Perhaps in your world, but in the real world - not so much.
First of all, science, and virtually everything else, builds on previous research and discovery.
Second, the focus, scope, and quality of your research in many ways is influenced by what has been done previously; to not acknowledge your peers' work is dishonest.
--- funny, I didn't say anything about fascism.....
--- dissuade from reading your link? Heck, I probably have it linked @ http://del.icio.us/g... Remember, I'm OC.
PT... He's allowed to do
March 13, 2008 - 19:25 ET by Clear thinkerPT...
He's allowed to do this because he only gives credence to alternate reality universal truths. Or what I affectionately call horse shit!
"Abstain from McCain"
Science proves things to wrong.
March 14, 2008 - 15:09 ET by SyriusCT,
Once again, you're not thinking clearly. Science becomes difficult for those who do not understand it nor want to understand it. I often question the unenlightened, such as yourself, on how they can see when they are blind, how they can hear when they are deaf. Once again blind faith equates to a self-imposed ignorance. PopTech knows how to cut & paste into boring rants with little credibility. I know you have an agenda you want to keep pushing, it will only be a bullsh*t scorecard in the end.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Superb posting...
March 13, 2008 - 19:12 ET by SyriusGiles,
Great job!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
March 13, 2008 - 19:17 ET by Free StinkerHa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . .
Oh, wait . . . you were not kidding?
Let me do it for you...
March 13, 2008 - 19:26 ET by SyriusGiles: 1
PopT: 0
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
I saw some serious mistakes
March 13, 2008 - 19:32 ET by Clear thinkerI saw some serious mistakes in your post so I took the liberty of fixing for you. No need to thank me.
Syrius: 0
Giles: 0
PopT: 1
"Abstain from McCain"
What You Missed...
March 12, 2008 - 18:34 ET by PopularTechChanges In Sun’s Intensity Tied To Recurrent Droughts In Maya Region (Science Daily)
"...a team of researchers led by a University of Florida geologist reports finding that the Yucatan Peninsula, seat of the ancient Maya civilization, was buffeted by recurrent droughts. More importantly, the research shows, the droughts - one of which is thought to have contributed to the collapse of the Maya civilization -- appear to have been caused by a cyclical brightening of the sun.
"It looks like changes in the sun’s energy output are having a direct effect on the climate of the Yucatan and causing the recurrence of drought, which is in turn influencing the Maya evolution," said David Hodell, a UF professor of geology and the paper’s lead author."
Cosmic Rays 'Linked to Clouds' (BBC)
"German scientists have found a significant piece of evidence linking cosmic rays to climate change. They have detected charged particle clusters in the lower atmosphere that were probably caused by the space radiation. They say the clusters can lead to the condensed nuclei which form into dense clouds. Clouds play a major, but as yet not fully understood, role in the dynamics of the climate, with some types acting to cool the planet and others warming it up. The amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth is largely controlled by the Sun, and many solar scientists believe the star's indirect influence on Earth's global climate has been underestimated. Some think a significant part of the global warming recorded in 20th Century may in fact have its origin in changes in solar activity - not just in the increase in fossil-fuel-produced greenhouse gases."
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (NASA)
"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study."
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles (Science Daily)
"...the sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100,000-year cycles, a much longer time span than previously thought, and this solar activity, in turn, may likely cause the 100,000-year climate cycles on earth. This research helps scientists understand past climate trends and prepare for future ones. [...]
Over the last 1 million years, the earth's climate record has revealed a 100,000-year cycle oscillating between relatively cold and warm conditions, and Sharma's data on the sun's magnetic activity corresponded to the earth's ice age history.
"Surprisingly, it looks like solar activity is varying in longer time spans than we realized," says Sharma. "We knew about the shorter cycles of solar activity, so maybe these are just little cycles within a larger cycle. Even more surprising is the fact that the glacial and interglacial periods on earth during the last 200,000 years appear to be strongly linked to solar activity."
Sharma's calculations suggest that when the sun is magnetically more active, the earth experiences a warmer climate, and vice versa, when the sun is magnetically less active, there is a glacial period."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource