Posted 8 months, 0 days ago in 
3 votes. Average 3.67/5
Loading ...
I am an “old toot,” born many years ago. These days I never cease to be amazed at how quickly and readily many people of our supposedly educated society accept ideas such as “disastrous global warming,” the theory that has been promoted by Al Gore, the fellow who allegedly invented the Internet. Many of these zealots are members of our local, state and federal government, our leaders who are all too ready to apply their solution to this “problem.” Most of these solutions are based upon money to solve the perceived problem, usually in the form of a tax, fine or other penalty of some sort.
I ask the question: does anyone remember that, according to our older science and history books, many years ago and long before my time, much of the northern part of this country was covered by a glacier that some experts estimated was a mile thick? Yes, as far south as Indiana and Ohio. My point is “global warming” has been happening for thousands of years, is cyclical, and is part of nature. Yes, I am in favor of reducing pollution, reducing or eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels, etc., but let us apply some common sense (a rare commodity today) to the approach and not get caught up in more wild social reform schemes and ideas. I encourage you to think about it.
PETE ROSS
Montrose
44 Responses to “Common sense needed when discussing global warming”
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 11:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Ross,
The reality of anthropogenic global warming has not been accepted quickly and readily. After all, it was back in the 1890s when Svante Arrhenius first predicted that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would result in warmer temperatures on earth.
It wasn’t until about 90 years later that scientists felt enough evidence had accumulated to be able to conclude that Arrhenius was right about the connection but that he underestimated how quickly CO2 would build up.
It took another 20 or so years of research before scientists concluded that they could say, almost without doubt, that observed recent temperature changes were linked to human production of waste gases.
In the last few years, Al Gore has been reporting a simplified version of what scientists have discovered over the last 100+ years. That you may not like Gore, or that you may not like some of the proposed “solutions” does not in any way affect the underlying century’s worth of science.
It never ceases to amaze me how when some people suddenly learn about a new issue, they think no one else had been studying the problem before. I’ve been following the global warming research for over 20 years. For most of this time scientists have been very cautious and conservative about their public statements. In the last 5 years or so scientists are becoming more and more alarmed. I think it is worth listening to them. It’s kind of like, how would you say it, common sense?
Think about it.
Posted March 26th, 2009 at 2:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
Would you please supply your irrefutable scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming for us all please? This whole thing is a political hoax. How would Svante Arrhenius explain this - from 1949 to 1975 manmade Co2 was dumped into he atmosphere at about the same rate is now in parts per million but average global temperatures fell in spite?
Furthermore, the average global temperature has risen and fallen by less than half a degree over the last 100 years or so of official recorded temperature in spite of how much Co2 has been put out due to mankind. Stop drinking the kool-aid, take a deep breath and start looking at the bigger picture, get some perspective. This all a political driven issue. Since you have been following global warming for a mere 20 years, go back and look way further into the geologic past, Vostok Ice Core samples and explain to us all why it is scientifically proven that when temperature rises Co2 lags behind and rises AFTER temperature, not before. The letter writer is right on the money. Global warming and global cooling are being done by nature not man.
Co2 is a trace gas less than 0.01% of the earth’s atmosphere. The majority of Co2, 80% plus of the 0.01% is put in to the atmosphere by the oceans, and then the rest divided by volcanoes, biological decaying matter, and last humans, which would account practically nothing. And last please explain why average global temperature is now falling again since 2001 and we are entering a cooling period in spite of how much Co2 is in the atmosphere. You expect people to buy on to this nonsense of temperature fluctuation of less than +/- 1/2 a degree rise and fall. Why should I listen to scientist whose very livelihood depends on the federal funding to do their research? This is nothing more than a way for them to collect a paycheck. Once the anthropogenic global warming myth is finally busted completely they will be out of a job post haste. The facts are coming in stronger everyday that anthropogenic global warming is simply false.
Posted March 26th, 2009 at 3:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
This statement you made is comical at best - “In the last few years, Al Gore has been reporting a simplified version of what scientists have discovered over the last 100+ years. That you may not like Gore, or that you may not like some of the proposed “solutions” does not in any way affect the underlying century’s worth of science.”
You sure never hear the liberal media reporitng on issues like this…
http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/DonSurber/200902250614
Posted March 26th, 2009 at 7:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
A centuries worth of science. Let’s put “science” in context here. You are going to bet you hard earned money to pay a carbon tax based on a centuries worth of science that hasn’t proven anything substantial in reagrd to AGW? Science takes into account all the paleo climate in the geologic past, jst not teh last 100 years or so. I think it would be worth at that. It’s kind of like, how would you say it, common sense?
Posted March 26th, 2009 at 8:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rotting organic material produces far more CO2 than cars and our other energy production methods do. We should carbon tax the forest and oceans too! Also, whatever happened to the ice age fear mongering of the 60’s and 70’s? If Bruce86 has been studying the establishment diversionary tactic of global warming for so long certainly he can remember the predictions of the coming ice age? Global Warming as a scientific theory is dependent on computer modeling that makes assumptions on 99.9% of the variables in atmospheric change. That can’t be a recipe for accurately predicting a damn thing.
Posted March 26th, 2009 at 8:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
An excellent, entertaining, and highly readable book about “global warming” is State of Fear by Michael Crichton. There are many charts and facts, all set in a great story. As always, Crichton did meticulous research and has an extensive bibliography if you would like to fact-check on your own. This book convinced me global warming is simply a multibillion dollar industry playing off peoples’ ignorance and good intentions. Until I read this book I thought global warming was true; now I just feel foolish for being so gullible. Happy reading.
Posted March 26th, 2009 at 11:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow, you all have your wingnut talking points down. I sure wish I was a smart as you. All of you seem absolutely certain that you know more than the vast majority of the world’s scientists. We sure are lucky to have such brilliant people in the Grand Valley.
I’m sure you’ve all submitted your research ideas to review by scientific funding panels and you are all funded to study atmospheric science. I am humbled just to have you respond to my earlier post.
Really, the fact that you use a popular magazine and a book of fiction for your primary sources is just brilliant. I wish I would have thought of that. It would make research so much easier.
Knowing that the actual scientific papers that Newsweek “reported” on forecast a cooling period sometime in the next several thousand years or that predicted that if particulate pollution continued unabated then pollution would drown out the CO2 warming effect and lead to cooling. Funny thing that after clean air legislation was passed around the world in the 70s the cooling trend stopped and the CO2 warming took over, just as predicted.
It’s just a stunning achievement of monumental proportions to adopt Crichton’s fiction writing as if it was an authoritative scientific work. I am impressed. I guess I can now claim that since I’ve watched Star Trek, I know all about life on planets outside out solar system.
Funny that knowing actual facts just makes life more complicated. If only I just accepted fully prepared talking points and repeated them I would be able to live the American Dream. I wouldn’t have to trouble my head knowing that fossil fuel carbon has a different isotopic signature than the carbon released from current biological decay, thus it is possible to understand that the additional carbon released from burning fossil fuels is quantifiable and adds to the normal greenhouse effect. I now see this is just worthless knowledge and useless for actual problem solving.
Since scientific conclusions ALWAYS have well defined expressions of uncertainty, it makes it easy for bozos to nit-pick at the edges. If only I was ignorant I could make demands like “show me irrefutable scientific evidence” and then think I “won” the debate when someone with knowledge refused to consider the challenge.
If you really think that trace quantities can’t have outsize consequences, you might consider whether you’d be willing to eat 0.01% of your body weight in arsenic. See, when you just recite talking points, you frequently say unbelievable stuff.
I am truly impressed. I stand in awe of your incredible understanding and admirable communication skills. I am truly fortunate to live at the same time as such intellectual giants as yourselves. I wait in trembling anticipation of your next atmospheric research results being published in a peer-reviewed journal.
How do I join your fan clubs?
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 4:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
You sure took up a lot of space to say a whole lot nothing. Do we all have to have a degree and submit a scientific paper to prove our points as to why some of don’t believe in AGW? You babbled on and on with no substance that I can see at all with the one exception being the different isotopes of carbon. You want to bring the EPA Clean Air Act into this arena? Sure there is something we can believe in. Just another political excuse for more tax and cap and trade for BO’s agenda.
Please also provide irrefutable scientific proof regarding your research that AWG due manmade Co2 caused temperatures to rise. If you are banking it on the clean air act, well need I say more? I am trembling in anticipation of your work to be published as well.
Also since you want to demean us with your sarcasm touting how stupid we are compared to your depth of knowledge on the subject, what is your college degree in Bruce86? I happen to have one in geology, a scientific discipline. So yes Bruce86 I actually can study and have some knowledge about “atmospheric science”. Some of my prerequisite classes for my degree were meteorology and paleoclimatology. However I am not out to impress the likes of you or anyone else.
Everyone posting here may not rise up to your intellectual expectations. We are so fortunate to have such a brilliant mind in the Grand Valley who can run his mouth forever and not address but one point I brought up with any scientific proof. How do I join your fan club?
This one is even more comical if not a complete sad attempt at comparisons - “If you really think that trace quantities can’t have outsize consequences, you might consider whether you’d be willing to eat 0.01% of your body weight in arsenic. See, when you just recite talking points, you frequently say unbelievable stuff.” Based on this, your comparison, Co2 is a poison gas. Everyone STOP breathing right now, you are taking in poison C02 into and expelling it from your lungs. See, when you make up talking points you have no knowledge of, you frequently say unbelievable stuff.
A quantity of any element or chemical compound in a large enough proportion can be disastrous to anything. You are comparing apples to oranges Bruce86. Take chlorine gas for example. It doesn’t take very much of a concentration to kill you just as arsenic doesn’t take much of a quantity to kill you either.
There is scientific proof in the past to show Co2 was twice the levels it is now and there was not rise in global temperature as a result. So by your theory, with C02 levels being twice as high in the past due to natural phenomena, the earth should have been completely flooded over with all the water vapor bi-product and melted ice caps. Thus life should have ceased to exist and we should not be here. You want to ignore this because it blows holes in any theory you believe in.
Last let’s talk about your “isotopic decay” theory compounding the release of natural Co2 due biological decay. In the end of all chemical processes that release Co2 as a byproduct, fossil fuel burning and biological matter decay, Co2 is the same chemical composition with only slight variation n the isotopes. Co2 is Co2 is Co2 is Co2 in the end. Human burning of fossil fuels does add on to the already natural release of Co2. So let’s talk about your “isotopes” Bruce86. One of the purported signatures of AGW CO2 is the carbon isotope ratio, C13/C12. The “natural” C13 content of CO2 is just over 1.1%. In contrast, the C13 content of the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels is claimed to be slightly smaller - just less than 1.1%. So, as the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased, so has the C13 content which, of course, makes sense when one realizes that fossil-fuel CO2 has only very slightly less C13 than “natural” CO2 (about 2.6% less in relative terms). If you add more CO2, whether from a natural or anthropogenic source, you are going to add more C13. As anyone can see the isotope theory of burning fossil fuels changes nothing since it produces less isotopes than naturally made Co2, nice try though Bruce86!
As scientifically proven by paleoclimatologists Co2 in the past did not correlate with temperature rise, again also proven by the Vostok Ice Core data. SO if Co2 manmade, natural r a combination of both have nothing to do with global warming, we are not going to buy in to Bruce86. We can just agree to disagree. History will prove it in the end. As a betting man on past history and scientific fact, it has been proven Co2 has nothing to do with global temperature rise and fall, never has, never will. It’s exactly the opposite, Co2 is driven by temperature due to natural phenomena, earth wobble, lack of or more sunspots, etc. is driving global temperature, not AGW.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 10:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco,
You even got that wrong. I took up a whole lot of space responding to nothing.
As I said, I am in awe of your intelligence and understanding. I do not consider myself smarter than the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists. Thus, I recognize that I do not have the expertise to conclude that they must all be wrong. That you so freely dismiss all the published and peer reviewed scientists on this issue means you must be smarter than all of them. Right?
As for what my knowledge is on the topic, it’s really not relevant. I’m not claiming to be smarter than than everyone else in the world, unlike you. I have, however, completed one graduate level atmospheric science course. It taught me that I’m not smarter than the experts in the field. And I’m certainly not smarter than the self-proclaimed experts like you.
You wrote:
“it has been proven Co2 has nothing to do with global temperature rise and fall, never has, never will.”
Do you have your own research to support this ridiculous claim of yours? Please provide citations to your publications, or other scientific publications, that document this claim.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 10:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce, I am going to assume that you truly believe that man made global warming is a disater that must be stopped at all cost.
If that is your position, my suggestion to you would be to stop offending those who do not agreee with you and, instead, start thinking about how you, and those who agree with you, can start convincing the population of the world, those who will have to pay a heavy price for the solution, of why fixing the problem is a matter of life and death.
Just repeating at nauseum that scientists believe the world is about to die is not going to cut it. The folks won’t buy it.
How do I know the folks aren’t buying it? Look at what has happened to Obama’s cap and trade. The good Senate Democrats have decided to pull cap-and trade out of the budget. Why? Because they know that talking green is cheap, but paying to be green is not. And they know that when they ask Americans to pay 50% more for electricity in order to get greener, they will lose their next election.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
If it’s convenient for you to believe your assumptions in your latest post, well I guess I can’t stop you. You’d be wrong, but if you need to to make these sorts of assumptions about others who disagree with you, I’ll understand. I understand how ideological positions require you to stereotype and demonize others who might disagree with them on an issue.
If you took the time to read my posts, you might note that I never said anything about “disasters” or “stopped at all cost” or “matter of life and death” or “the world is about to die” or “Obama” or “cap and trade”. And I’m not trying to convince anyone of any of this. These are all things you have attributed to me. Why did you feel the need to do this?
And thanks, truly, for your advice. I’m humbled that someone of your intellectual prowess would take time from your day to offer me advice.
But I really don’t care about offending you or others who think their personal opinions, buttressed merely by ideological talking points, are in any way equivalent to the conclusions developed by those who actually perform rigorous scientific studies.
While I’m thinking about rigorous scientific studies, are you going to provide us with those citations that support your claim that “it has been proven Co2 has nothing to do with global temperature rise and fall, never has, never will.”
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
Acutally that’s publiusco who keeps claiming that since man wasn’t responsible for warming in the past, he can’t be responsible for it now. I haven’t seen any evidence supporting that claim either.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 7:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCPOHYoR4GA
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 8:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WTF, publiusco?
You made the outrageous claim that “it has been proven Co2 has nothing to do with global temperature rise and fall, never has, never will.”
I asked you for CITATIONS of scientific research that could be used to support this claim and you instead link to a video? WTF?
A video? Really? I am awed.
I guess it was foolish of me to think you actually had any evidence.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 8:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86, You need to check your fact that tempted you to write in post # 7: “you know more than the vast majority of the world’s scientists”. More to correctness is that 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disrupt the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon natural plants and animal environments of the Earth”, including 9,029 with PhDs http://www.petitionproject.org/
“This means that far, far more scientists don’t believe in the global warming myth than those who do. In fact, over 100 members of the IPCC have defected from that organizations opinion on global warming since the last report was issued last year. In other words, the skeptics within the scientific community are growing. The theory is losing steam fast as more scientists call global warming a myth and the actual data doesn’t support the global warming theory. Ask yourself, why haven’t you heard of this petition from the mainstream media? Why do you not hear from the vast number of skeptics or the defections from the IPCC?” http://spagreport.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/31000-scientists-refute-global-warming/
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 9:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
PhDs in what fields? A lot of the names on that list are medical doctors or veterinarians. Why would you trust their opinion on whether or not the planet is warming up? Would you ask your auto mechanic for a medical opinion?
Another recent poll showed 97% of climatologists agree global warming is real.
I know which side I’ll bet on…
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86, Did you play, look and listen to the video offered to you in post # 13? I think not, but you could prove me wrong.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 9:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
You have outed yourself; Global warming denier, Oil shale booster, Colorado Oil and Gas rules demonizer, and who knows what else. Tsk, tsk tsk.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 9:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, What are the names and qualifications of the scientists supporting global warming? Do you know? Have looked them up? Do you have a scientific education? If you did, you would be able to evaluate scientific facts and conclusions.
I gather that you disagree that medical doctors and veterinarians are scientists. Well, they signed the petition in support of the statement: “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon natural plants and animal environments of the Earth.”
I am amazed at how quickly you gloss over these facts and dismiss them.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 9:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
First, please grow up or have the common decency to leave this forum when you use acronyms like “WTF”.
When I posted that link did you see any where in that post where I put your name specifically for you to go watch it? As much as you want to wish it was for you so you can use it as an excuse to go off on a rant it was not put there in response to your questions of me. As much as you would like to believe you are the center of my universe, well…sorry to disappoint you, you’re not. The video link was for everyone’s benefit here so they see what some leading scientist on the denial side have to say about the issue, yes including you. It was not meant at all as a response to your question to me.
Regardless of your “WTF” attitude there is a compilation of scientific research from leading scientists in the field as noted in the videos. It obviously made you so mad all you can respond with is “WTF”. Trust me when I address your questions to me I will respond directly to you and you will know it. However since you want to use my video link post as my response, okay let’s look at “citations of scientific proof” you are so eager to have to try and discredit. IF and that’s a big IF, you had enough of an objective and scientific mind and watched the video series did you see that the scientists in the videos are noted and credible with their research. One of them being an award winning NASA scientist. My question is to you then - show me your own citations of scientific research that prove what the scientists in the video series are saying is wrong? It seems to me you are using your attitude of “WTF” to try and draw responses away from the points presented in the video series because there may be some truth to them and you can’t or won’t admit it. Scientific research is objective and not subjective. Your attitude dictates the opposite for you. You want it to be subjective so it fits your agenda. How about if you just simply post some scientific facts or research to discredit those in the video instead of just saying “WTF”?
Furthermore it appears you watched the video or portions of it and it hit a nerve for some reason and infuriated you so much you had to respond with “WTF”? How about not jumping to conclusions or making assumptions my post of the link was meant for you. How about also exercising just a little tact and diplomacy with your responses rather than “WTF”. If anyone were to judge your intellect based on this reaction with “WTF, how can anyone take you as credible or serious. All your statement says in response to the video link is you want to kill the messenger, me, rather than taking an objective look at it.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 9:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
Good point in post 15, get ready to be attacked, they just want to kill the messenger and silence you and the scientists who disagree so they can further their agenda with no opposition. AGW is truly is a religion rather than a science. Just look at Bruce86 post in #14 with his emotional hatred response of “WTF”. You sure have to take someone like him as being a credible source to defend AGW. This is the typical response of pure emotion rather than objective reasoning and logic. When all else fails, kill the messenger then flow of information will stop so they can they have proven all the deniers wrong by silencing them.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 9:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
I didn’t say that doctors and veterinarians are not scientists. I said they are not scientists in a relevant field. There is a difference.
I take that petition the same way I take the engineers, physicists and other non-biological professionals who signed the rather generic petition stating their skepticism of evolution. Not very seriously. When 97% of those in a relevant field express a certain position, I’m more inclined to believe them.
Don’t leap to the same conclusion that publiusco likes to. I’m not saying that AGW is a fact. I’m saying we don’t know. We don’t know if global warming is caused by man, and we don’t know if it isn’t. I don’t buy publiusco’s argument that just because man didn’t cause warming in the past he can’t be causing it now, and I don’t buy the argument from incredulity that CO2 is such a tiny percentage that it can’t be having any effect. Those who adamantly deny AGW are just as idological as those who claim is is, and just as off base.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 9:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Happy to be on the correct side of these issues rm. Please explain your comments: “You have outed yourself; Global warming denier, Oil shale booster, Colorado Oil and Gas rules demonizer, and who knows what else. Tsk, tsk tsk.”
Are you trying to classify these topics as scientific? You may be correct. But this a global warming blog. Oil shale and Colorado Oil and Gas are off-topic here, unless you can explain how they relate. You missed a comma after the second tsk. What is it you are trying to say with tsking? Or is it more of a sound? I was quite clear in my post as I did not include an outing. Your comments sure are unintelligible, as well as being off-topic. Sorry, I just don’t understand you.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 10:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce: “If you took the time to read my posts, you might note that I never said anything about “disasters” or “stopped at all cost” or “matter of life and death” or “the world is about to die” or “Obama” or “cap and trade”. And I’m not trying to convince anyone of any of this. These are all things you have attributed to me. Why did you feel the need to do this?”
That’s wonderful Bruce. Quite a relief. For a second there I thought you agreed with Gore.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 10:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually my posting of the video link was a scientific experiment. When I posted the video link with out addressing who I wanted to view it, I wanted to see whether supporters of AGW would react with logical, objective reasoning or react out of emotion and a subjective view. Before the responses to the video link were posted, I predicted that most of the AGW supporters posting here would react out of pure emotion instead of ojective reasioning and logic backed up with solid evidence. So far based on Bruce86’s and Scott’s response to the video link my theory is proving correct.
Posted March 27th, 2009 at 10:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, There is more than one relevant aspect of the global warming topic. Medical doctors and veterinarians contributed on their fields of expertise: “that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon natural plants and animal environments”. But, hey if you’re not ready to reach a decision, I’m not going to push.
So who are the “97% of those in a relevant field express a certain position”. Are you impressed by percentages or numbers? I sent you a list of over 9,000 PhDs. I gather that the number of medical doctors and veterinarians ruined the list of about 31,000 scientists signing the petition. That is a shame. I was impressed first by the overwhelming numbers, second by their willingness to sign such a petition, given all of the political pressure being applied and third by the cross-section of scientifically educated minds who have considered this subject and actually made a decisive decision.
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 1:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are too funny, publiusco! You call posting a video a “scientific experiment”. Whoa, our education system is really letting us down.
Do you feel swindled? I thought so.
Here’s an opportunity to read what real climate scientists have to say:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
As for how I respond to your posts and what acronyms I use, you need to check your faux sensitivity at the door. When YOU make claims that you are more certain about CO2 and temperature links than are the vast majority of the world’s scientists you make it clear that you are operating with ideological blinders on. That you then reveal that you get your “information” about how the world works from the likes of Ben Stein.
Thus my response of WTF? was perfectly appropriate. You set yourself up as an expert. Experts are familiar with the current peer scientific literature. But instead you posted a video and thought it passed scientific muster. This act left me speechless. Not angry. Just flabbergasted that our educational system has really let you down. I’m sorry.
Come on, the “Swindle” begins with a shot of Tim Ball, the guy who falsely claims to be the first Canadian PhD in Climatology (even though others had this degree 20 years before him) and in 2006 claimed to have been a Professor of Climatology at the U of Winnipeg for 32 years (http://www.orato.com/node/398/). This is impossible since he didn’t get his PhD until 1982. But as if that wasn’t enough, the “Swindle” is just an overly dramatic attempt to cast aspersions at science just because some politicians, media personalities, and naive activists say silly things.
Brilliant. I am awed to be the recipient of personal responses from an intellectual giant such as yourself.
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 1:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow, I am watching “Swindle” again right now. (I last saw it two years ago when it first came out) What a riot of conspiracy theorists!
Where’s my tinfoil hat?
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 7:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
What qualifications do medical doctors and vets have regarding the effect of CO2 on the climate? What are the rest of the PhDs in? The link didn’t say, only whether they had one or not.
The 97% figure came from a poll released two months ago.
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 8:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86, “Welcome. This website contains details of the most comprehensive of the complaints to the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) regarding Channel 4’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle. The complaint was submitted to Ofcom on June 11, 2007.”
“Unfortunately, Channel 4 abdicated their journalistic responsibility to give a fair and balanced picture of the current state of climate science. They presented a completely false picture of a community of climate scientists actively engaged in duping the rest of the world. Channel 4’s Great Global Warming Swindle focused on selling a bizarre conspiracy theory to the British public, rather than on doing the diligent, painstaking reporting that would have been necessary in order to improve public understanding of a complex scientific issue.” http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/
“While the international version doesn’t contain oceanographer Carl Wunsch’s interview (he demanded that it be removed); and a small number of the more obvious mistakes have been corrected (such as partially correcting some but not all of the graphs, and changing the title of one of the interviewees, Tim Ball, who was never a “professor of climatology”), the vast majority of the errors and misleading claims made in the film still remain.”
“Bob Ward peer reviewed one section of our complaint and also submitted a complaint of his own (see http://tinyurl.com/2n6j3n). He points out that five out of the seven major inaccuracies that he originally reported to Ofcom still remain in the international DVD version – see http://tinyurl.com/6k3q3g [climateofdenial.net]” http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/About/QandA.htm
And for the rest of the story see: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/CHANNEL4.html
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 8:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
For whatever reason you seem to have a consistent bias favoring the Oil and Gas Industry which colors your arguments.
Here are a few links explaining why the “Oregon Petition” that you referenced in post #15 is not a valid survey:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 9:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, Yawn, boring comments. But, thanks for the references.
Arthur Robinson’s actual references, http://www.oism.org/pproject/, would have been a better choice than http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12.html
And then there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Petitions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 10:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
Thanks for the links I will peruse them later. Here is one that I use for a blow by blow account of the latest climate information;
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/perspectives.html
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 10:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, “The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments*, “found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role”.” http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html
“humans play a role” but how much of a role? The role could range from 100% to 0.000000001%. The survey did not include a question quantifying the extent of the role humans play. Oh well, so much for scientific surveying. The questions may have been crafted to elicit the answer they wanted and some people fell for it. As confirmation, at the end of the article the salient question is stated, “Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?”, which is consistent with the previously stated “a role”. The scientific definition of significant is measurable. With the sensitivity of scientific equipment, measurable reaches down into parts per billion. How that relates to global warming issues has not been explained.
The title of the article, “97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans” is misleading. My experience is that English majors and minors write these articles and provide the titles. They do not know squat about science and claim that thinking about such subjects hurts, a sensation that they try to avoid. So, when their writings are edited by other English majors and minors, facts are skewed.
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 10:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, Nice references. I could get lost in all that Climate Monitoring data. I’ll leave initial conclusion drawing to those who speculate in the subject.
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 10:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My problem with the AGW hype is all the hyperbolic predictions. The reverse of a wise saying is — If it sounds too bad to be true - it’s probably false!
Interesting scientific take from the other side of Al’s Hollywood-enhanced visions of doom:
“A Cautionary Tale About Models Of Complex Systems”
“Al Gore has argued that we should trust long-term models, because Wall Street has used such models successfully for years (I am not sure he has been using this argument lately, lol). I was immediately skeptical of this statement. First, Wall Street almost never makes 100-year bets based on models (they may be investing in 30-year securities, but the bets they are making are much shorter term). Second, my understanding of Wall Street history is that lower Manhattan is littered with the carcasses of traders who bankrupted themselves following the hot model of the moment. It is ever so easy to create a correlation model that seems to back-cast well. But no one has ever created one that holds up well going forward.
“A reader sent me this article about the Gaussian copula, apparently the algorithm that underlay the correlation models Wall Streeters used to assess mortgage security and derivative risk.
“Wall Streeters have the exact same problem that climate modelers have. There is a single output variable they both care about (security price for traders, global temperature for modelers). This variable’s value changes in a staggeringly complex system full of millions of variables with various levels of cross-correlation. The modelers challenge is to look at the historical data, and to try to tease out correlation factors between their output variable and all the other input variables in an environment where they are all changing.
“The problem is compounded because some of the input variables move on really long cycles, and some move on short cycles. Some of these move in such long cycles that we may not even recognize the cycle at all. In the end, this tripped up the financial modelers — all of their models derived correlation factors from a long and relatively unbroken period of home price appreciation. Thus, when this cycle started to change, all the models fell apart.”
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/a-cautionary-tale-about-models-of-complex-systems.html
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 11:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH,
Some things to keep in mind;
In the last 30 years or, so the average global temperature has been increasing.The question is why? You look for a correlation of rise in temperature with some other parameter. There is a correlation with sunspots/cosmic ray activity and global warming, however, there is no physical explanation of how cosmic rays could increase global temperatures. There is also a correlation with manmade CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming and this fits well with our understanding of the physics of the atmosphere. See link about cosmic rays and cloud formation below.
Chaos and Climate from the Real Climate site, link below
” Although ultimately chaos will kill a weather forecast, this does not necessarily prevent long-term prediction of the climate. By climate, we mean the statistics of weather, averaged over suitable time and perhaps space scales (more on this below). We cannot hope to accurately predict the temperature in Swindon at 9am on the 23rd July 2050, but we can be highly confident that the average temperature in the UK in that year will be substantially higher in July than in January. Of course, we don’t need a model to work that out - historical observations already give strong evidence for this prediction. But models based on physical principles also reproduce the response to seasonal and spatial changes in radiative forcing fairly well, which is one of the many lines of evidence that supports their use in their prediction of the response to anthropogenic forcing.
Fortunately, the calculation of climatic variables (i.e., long-term averages) is much easier than weather forecasting, since weather is ruled by the vagaries of stochastic fluctuations, while climate is not. Imagine a pot of boiling water. A weather forecast is like the attempt to predict where the next bubble is going to rise (physically this is an initial value problem). A climate statement would be that the average temperature of the boiling water is 100ºC at normal pressure, while it is only 90ºC at 2,500 meters altitude in the mountains, due to the lower pressure (that is a boundary value problem) “.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=204
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/20/could-cosmic-rays-influence-global-warming/
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
intersting points on those sites. I think what a lot of the issue is since there is no absolute concensus among all the leaders in the feild on what causes global warming or global cooling, no one is willing to fork over tax dollars to pay for it right now. Especially in these economic times. The ting to keep in perspective is that we started recording official tempuratures in the late 1800′ for roughly 140 years now. At the time we first starting doing this we had just gotten out of the Little Ice Age, which on the larger geological time scale was at the lowest point of average tempurature in the last 10,000 years. Over the last 140 years of recorded tempurature we have fluctuated less than half a degree either up or down from the average. Now we are in another cooling trend since 1998. The problem is now politicians like Al Gore get involved. When they do there is now money involved. All the jobs that are funded for this research come mainly from the government. The need to keep this issue going with all the scare tactics of doom and gloom are nothing more than a way to keep jobs right now by pumping more of our tax dollars into it. This is still a democracy and right now AGW ranks pretty low on peoples minds of things to try to deal with right now and I think rightfully so. The tempuratures have not risen to the degree predicted in spite of all the Co2 still being pumped into the atmosphere. People are not going to buy it. Escpecially when they start hearing things like we must fix this NOW, just like the 100 page stimulus bill that was crammed down our throats saying we must pass this bill NOW. Of course since no one read that issue about AIG cis coming back to bite Dodd on the you know what. Just using that as an example of why get in such a hurry if all the science isn’t in on this.
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 12:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oops sorry I meant 1100 page stimulus bill sorry
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 1:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bill Bryson, in his book A Short History of Nearly Everything” writes something like scientists often are originally treated as lunatics for their science, then persecuted for the reality of their findings and finally another scientist will be credited for their discovery. Global Warming Science is simply too complex for the “old toots”, who forget the relative depth of our atmosphere is very thin. Once we fowl it up, there is no turning back. Maybe it is a plot by the CO2 loving plants, that look so innocent sitting there in their pots. There is a lot more to the analysis of climate science than computer generated forecasting. It is interesting to me that the Bush Administration used Michael Crighton’s book to for their climate policies.
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 3:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You offer the links to the realclimate website as something to believe in. I am scratching my head now wondering where you obtained your education. Perhaps you purchased your diplomas off a website or at Walmart, if actually even have any or one to begin with. Where can I get one wow I wish I were as smart as you. Let’s look at what some of the major scientists who support and document on the realclimate website – “Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt (a “real scientist” of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a “real scientist” of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it. Yep, credible information source for sure! Gaven Schmidt is an understudy of NASA famed scientist James Hansen who is really out there on the lunatic fringe. Talk about wearing a tinfoil hat, Hansen sells them. Oh yeah and let’s not forget Michael Mann, infamous hockey stick boy who turned out to be a complete joke and totally discredited. Schmidt has now taken to bullying to try and get information about him “stealing” ideas from others out of the public eye. No wonder you like that realclimate site Bruce86. You use the same bullying approach in this forum. I have news for you, it’s not going to work.
http://www.timothybirdnow.com/?p=1639
You are obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you. My little post on making an experiment of posting the video link was done in complete sarcasm as a joke. But if it were a real experiment it proves the theory, you then became all emotional all over again at my latest post. Foolish I thinking anyone would take it seriously. But alas you are so eager to discredit anyone here disagreeing with you, you can’t see beyond your nose. Or perhaps you forget to take your Prozac lately? We are truly in awe of your anger and rants along with your ability to seemingly cut anyone off at the knees. If you are the best your side has to offer for any rational thought to discredit AGW deniers, you got ripped at school and probably need to go back and learn something, especially on how to address and deal with others points of view. I have your tinfoil hat. I will give it back since you have the whole suit already. That way your wardrobe will be complete.
I guess anytime when trying to address you from now on I need to come down to your insulting level so I will check my faux sensitivity at the door when dealing with you and address you the way you wish to do to others then. Here is a little tip for you to clear your mind of emotion and start thinking with logic. When you get infuriated by my posts just take a couple deep breaths and hold it for a couple of seconds and let it out slowly. This way you will get your heart rate and blood pressure down and get back to thinking with your fore brain instead of your mammalian brain. I guess anytime when trying to address you from now on I need to come down to your insulting level so I will check my faux sensitivity at the door and address you the way you wish to do to others then. Or how about perhaps if you try to be a bigger man and let’s call truce and stick to the points at hand without the insults? I am willing to do it, the ball is in your court.
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 3:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
Post #41 is specifically for you.
Posted March 28th, 2009 at 5:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco,
You should refrain from attempts at psychoanalyis via blog postings. You really aren’t any good at it. (Just to be clear, I’m lousy at it too.)
First, you should not read any anger in my posts. I’m laughing hard the entire time. I’d suggest you are projecting, but I’ve already admitted I such at psychoanalysis.
Second, no I did not offer the RealClimate posts as “something to believe in.” Far from it. Scientific conclusions are absolutely NOT something to believe in. After all, if they are properly presented then it should be obvious how to challenge them and attempt to refute them. (Well, it is if you are also a scientist.) RealClimate is an opportunity to listen in on real climate scientists discussing the state of the science. If you read the responses to the initial blog postings, you will notice that other scientists regularly rake them over the coals. It’s not a bunch of liberals agreeing with each other.
The fact that you have to keep returning to attacking the persons and that you are unable to comment on the science, except to repeat “Al Gore bad” or “Jim Hansen bad” shows the ideology that you are coming from.
So yes, I am laughing at you. Just remember, you are the one who first set yourself up as the expert. You are the one who feels confident at ignoring the cautious conclusions of the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.
Me, I know I’m not smarter than all the true experts in the field.
So, I’m more than willing to admit my lack of deep insight on many of these issues. I’ve done so repeatedly above. You are the one who needs to consider which part of your anatomy controls your decision making.
Leave the personalities out of the discussion. Talk about the actual science. Be aware that the actual experts DO consider the contributions of solar output, orbital deviations, volcanoes, etc in their research (if you actually read any of the IPCC reports, you’d know this). The actual experts study all the potential contributions to temperature and precipitation patterns. They’ve found that looking at only natural influences completely fails to explain observed temperatures over the last 50 years or so. Only by including anthropogenic CO2 along with natural causes can they even come close to “hindcasting” recent temperatures.
The IPCC has a straightforward summary. Check it out. Or don’t. I really don’t care.
Posted March 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
Oh yeah baby let’s put a lot of stock into what the IPCC has to say regardign anything when they have this kind of thing going on - “One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”.
Read the rest here…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.