Global Warming Validated

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

bigolsmitty,  if I posted a bunch of stuff showing that global warming proponents accepted funding from environmental groups would that taint their claims in your opinion?

 

Just because someone accepts funding does not mean that his opinion is tainted and furthermore it does not mean that he came to his conclusions based soley on that money.

 

Ann Coulter gets paid to right columns expousing conservative politics by conservatives, I somehow doubt that she was politically neutral until evil conservatives came along and paid her to side with them.  I would argue that said conservatives paid her to write columns because she was in fact already on their side.

 

On the flip side Al Franken gets paid to do much the same for the other side.  He was full of shit before he ever got paid for it.  The money that Air America is paying him had nothing to do with it.  It just made him a wealthier man who is full of shit.

 

Money does not always indicate bias.  This is something that many people tend to have trouble comprehending.

The EPA & NASA don't have hidden agendas, for the most part.

 

Al Franken does not try to pass his work off as legitimate science (Czech joke here--AL FRANKEN ISN'T FUNNY LIBERALS ARE DUMB!). His research is not used to create government policy.

 

You're telling me that if I gave you a million dollars to do research and *suggested* that you should probably come out with a certain outcome, you would do objective, detached research? Give me a break.

 

Giving credence to a global warming study funded by ExxonMobil is like giving credence to a study on belly fat by Crisco Lard.

[The Czech Republic 0]

[Al Franken does not try to pass his work off as legitimate science (Czech joke here--AL FRANKEN ISN'T FUNNY LIBERALS ARE DUMB!).

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. My problem is his fanbase that passes it off as legitimate science.

 

Giving credence to a global warming study funded by ExxonMobil is like giving credence to a study on belly fat by Crisco Lard.

A tobacco study by Philip Morris would have been more damning, but they can't really get away with shit like that anymore, and also, "lard" is a cool word.

[CanadianChris 0]

Well what does CO2 gas to for the quality of breathing air though? There are more issues relating to having filthy air then just global warming. Plenty of reasons are out there to want to cut down on things we can control, so we are better prepared to handle the things we cannot control.

That's a very valid point, but why don't scientists just come out and say THAT, instead of going off half-cocked, saying "OMG OUR OCEANS ARE MELTING THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!" like some nut on a street corner?

 

Did environmentalists want clean air so badly that they were willing to blame what could very well be a completely natural phenomenon on pollution without proper justification, just to scare the shit out of world leaders and make them do something about the air?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. My problem is his fanbase that passes it off as legitimate science.

 

So...that would be like 3 people, right?

[Guest MikeSC]

And you all continue ignoring the point.

 

Yes, the climate has phases. This explains everything from fifty year cycles of weather to ice ages.

 

This is normal.

 

However, the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't part of this, or any cycle, at least one that hasn't been repeated since the ages of the dinosaurs, when volcanoes were much more prevalent.

 

My point, Global Warming isn't a cycle. It's an accumulation of a pollutant in the atmosphere. It's not going to equalize itself. The only way is if we curb our emissions.

 

Fuck, you guys, I KNOW that we've had warm periods in the past. I never once denied it. I'm denying that Global Warming as caused by people is part of this cycle, or an acceptable thing.

 

You, of course, deny that putting more CO2, an established greenhouse gas, would have anything to do with the greenhouse effect.

And you CANNOT prove (I say you cannot because, to date, you HAVE NOT) that this "accumulation of CO2" either EXISTS or was anything but cyclical.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

bigolsmitty,  if I posted a bunch of stuff showing that global warming proponents accepted funding from environmental groups would that taint their claims in your opinion?

 

Just because someone accepts funding does not mean that his opinion is tainted and furthermore it does not mean that he came to his conclusions based soley on that money.

 

Ann Coulter gets paid to right columns expousing conservative politics by conservatives, I somehow doubt that she was politically neutral until evil conservatives came along and paid her to side with them.  I would argue that said conservatives paid her to write columns because she was in fact already on their side.

 

On the flip side Al Franken gets paid to do much the same for the other side.  He was full of shit before he ever got paid for it.  The money that Air America is paying him had nothing to do with it.  It just made him a wealthier man who is full of shit.

 

Money does not always indicate bias.  This is something that many people tend to have trouble comprehending.

The EPA & NASA don't have hidden agendas, for the most part.

No, they don't have HIDDEN agendas.

 

They want FUNDING for research and BAD NEWS tends to be quite good at getting money for research.

 

Their agenda is EXTREMELY open and obvious.

Al Franken does not try to pass his work off as legitimate science (Czech joke here--AL FRANKEN ISN'T FUNNY LIBERALS ARE DUMB!).  His research is not used to create government policy. 

Read "Lying Liars..." --- because that is precisely what he is attempting to do.

You're telling me that if I gave you a million dollars to do research and *suggested* that you should probably come out with a certain outcome, you would do objective, detached research?  Give me a break.

No more ridiculous than to assume that somebody SEEKING RESEARCH GRANTS might try to play up the bad news as good news has never really produced a desire to research a way to "fix" it.

Giving credence to a global warming study funded by ExxonMobil is like giving credence to a study on belly fat by Crisco Lard.

And giving credence to one funded by the EPA is, somehow, legit?

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

So Mike, you don't believe that burning hydrocarbons produces Carbon Dioxide? Or you don't believe that it accumulates in the atmosphere?

 

Because you seem to be sure that VOLCANOES put CO2 into the atmosphere, why then don't you believe that cars which are proven, actually, to produce carbon dioxide cannot put it in an atmosphere?

 

And how the fuck don't you understand that the extra CO2 would accumulate. You know about the carbon cycle right? The sources and consumers of carbon in our environment? Hint: if you make more carbon dioxide than there are consumers, you will have an excess of carbon. Similar hint, whatever takes in any amount of carbon generally gives off a lot of it when it dies, like a plant. So most of the carbon a plant absorbs in it's lifetime, it will give off when it dies. It's a closed cycle. But we are mining millions and millions of tons of carbon from the earth's crust and burning it into a gas. There aren't millions and millions of new plants to absorb this gas. So it WILL accumulate, Mike.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Well what does CO2 gas to for the quality of breathing air though? There are more issues relating to having filthy air then just global warming. Plenty of reasons are out there to want to cut down on things we can control, so we are better prepared to handle the things we cannot control.

 

CO2 isn't a major factor in the air quality problems either (ie. smog).

 

Outside of an enclosed area where CO2 can build up really quick. Smog primarily consists of CO, SO2, H2SO4 & (NH4)2SO4. Those are the gases that we need to reduce desperately. We have a very real air quality problem that is being ignored in favour of Global Warming.

 

CO2 isn't a problem except in small enclosed spaces where it can build up pretty quick because it has nowhere else to go. The human body can't use it, but it can also eject it easily, unlike CO.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. My problem is his fanbase that passes it off as legitimate science.

 

So...that would be like 3 people, right?

I think more than three people read his book and took it as gospel.

[Guest MikeSC]

So Mike, you don't believe that burning hydrocarbons produces Carbon Dioxide?  Or you don't believe that it accumulates in the atmosphere?

I don't believe it accumulates in quantities large enough to make a difference --- nor do I believe that the quantities it does accumulate in remain intact for long enough stretches of time to do anything.

 

In case you've missed the update, the atmosphere is rather large. It'd be like assuming that if I pissed in the Pacific Ocean, it'd make the entire Ocean full of urine.

Because you seem to be sure that VOLCANOES put CO2 into the atmosphere, why then don't you believe that cars which are proven, actually, to produce carbon dioxide cannot put it in an atmosphere?

Considering that volcanic eruptions spew more of the pollutants in ONE eruption than mankind was spewed in our COMBINED history --- yeah, I think my case is a strong one.

And how the fuck don't you understand that the extra CO2 would accumulate. You know about the carbon cycle right?  The sources and consumers of carbon in our environment?  Hint: if you make more carbon dioxide than there are consumers, you will have an excess of carbon.

We ALSO have an atmosphere so massive and so laden with all kinds of gases interacting in ways we cannot begin to fathom that you are simply engaging in fear-mongering rather than an actual pursuit of science.

Similar hint, whatever takes in any amount of carbon generally gives off a lot of it when it dies, like a plant.  So most of the carbon a plant absorbs in it's lifetime, it will give off when it dies.  It's a closed cycle.  But we are mining millions and millions of tons of carbon from the earth's crust and burning it into a gas.  There aren't millions and millions of new plants to absorb this gas.  So it WILL accumulate, Mike.

You then have other gases dissipate it. You have rain further dissipating it. And you have no real evidence that increased CO2 by us is increasing the volume of carbon in the atmosphere to a level high enough to actually cause anything.

 

Global warming is as provable as the fear of a new ice age was.

-=Mike

...Namely, it's not provable. At all...

[Jingus 0]

Czech, you gotta lighten up man, and learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Since I KNOW Eric won't post this:

Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'

By Robert Matthews

 

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

 

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

 

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

 

The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

 

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

 

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

 

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

 

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

 

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

 

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

 

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

 

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

 

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

 

As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."

 

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

 

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

 

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

 

Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.

 

In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

 

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."

 

Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.

 

"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.

 

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../01/wglob01.xml

Shocking news. Really. Science journals possibly politicizing research? I'm stunned.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Next thing you know search engines will be politicized...

[Guest MikeSC]

Next thing you know search engines will be politicized...

That seems like it'd be a stretch.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Czech, you gotta lighten up man, and learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.

I've gotten better about that but I don't expect facetiousness when arguing with the CE left. Walked right into that one

[EricMM 0]

No, of course I wouldn't publish that, even if I had heard of it. Check the thread title Mike. You know what I think. I'm not going to actively search for Luddites.

 

But in all honesty, they should have ran the story. The truth is the truth, I'm not afraid of a group of scientists telling me the equivalent of "the world is flat."

 

I know they're wrong, the majority of scientists know they're wrong. OR should I say think. You think I enjoy Global Warming but I don't. It's not like it's the only issue. I'd still be an environmentalist. This thread wasn't because I needed self-affirmation, it's because you need to learn something, and so does everyone else who prefers to doubt what they dislike.

 

But they should have printed the findings.

[Vyce 0]

This thread wasn't because I needed self-affirmation,

Wait, it WASN'T?!?!?!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The guy who analyzed the 1000 papers in Mike's article, Benny Peiser, is a social anthropologist--great source to determine whether research supports global warming.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Roy Spencer, another guy cited, is part of the right-wing-think-tank-o-sphere.

 

Heartland Institute.

 

Tech Central Station Foundation.

 

He's oilier than an oily Jew.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It's hilarious that they included Chris Landsea, the guy who left the IPCC, in the article. A global warming skeptic was on the IPCC! And the paper that he got all huffy and left over was co-authored by another skeptic! Landsea was the only one on the panel who had any problems with it.

 

So the whole crux of the article is that Science doesn't publish global warming articles by social anthropologists.

[Guest MikeSC]

Roy Spencer, another guy cited, is part of the right-wing-think-tank-o-sphere.

 

Heartland Institute.

 

Tech Central Station Foundation.

 

He's oilier than an oily Jew.

Well, when you don't ACTUALLY have a point, simply attack those who DO have one without attempting to, you know, refute them.

 

However, the anti-Semitism was a nice touch.

 

I'm already bored pointing that you haven't exactly REFUTED anything yet.

I know they're wrong, the majority of scientists know they're wrong. OR should I say think. You think I enjoy Global Warming but I don't. It's not like it's the only issue. I'd still be an environmentalist. This thread wasn't because I needed self-affirmation, it's because you need to learn something, and so does everyone else who prefers to doubt what they dislike.

Yet expecting you to prove it is beyond the pale.

 

"All of these scientific journals have articles about this"

"Well, what if they only print articles that support their agenda?"

"It doesn't change that most scientists support it"

"And a study showing that most scientists believe it is real is forthcoming, right?"

 

-=Mike

...And, Eric, look at the TITLE of this thread before claiming it wasn't because you needed "self-affirmation"...

[Guest MikeSC]

From the damned-if-you-do file:

Clear skies end global dimming

Quirin Schiermeier

Earth's air is cleaner, but this may worsen the greenhouse effect.

 

Hello sunshine: cleaner air could make the world warmer.

© Punchstock

Our planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.

 

Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.

 

That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.

 

The results suggest that a downward trend in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, which has been observed since measurements began in the late 1950s, is now over.

 

The researchers argue that this trend, commonly called 'global dimming', reversed more than a decade ago, probably following the collapse of communist economies and the consequent decrease in industrial pollutants.

 

The widespread brightening has remained unnoticed until now simply because there wasn't enough data for a statistically significant analysis, says Martin Wild, an atmospheric scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and an author on one of the reports.

 

Sunny days

 

Wild and his team looked at data on surface sunshine levels from hundreds of devices around the planet. They found that since the 1980s there has been a transition from decreasing to increasing solar radiation nearly everywhere, except in heavily polluted areas such as India and at scattered sites in Australia, Africa, and South America1.

 

A second study, led by Rachel Pinker from the University of Maryland, College Park, found a similar trend by looking at satellite data, although their research suggests the extent of the brightening is smaller2. Unlike ground stations, satellites can sample the whole planet, including the oceans. However, satellite data are difficult to calibrate, and so are considered less accurate than measurements from the ground.

 

Surprisingly, Wild's study shows a brightening trend in China, despite the fact that there is a booming, fossil-fuel-intensive industry in that country. Wild says he can only speculate that the use of clean-air technologies in China might be more widespread and efficient than has been thought.

 

In contrast, India's vast brown clouds of smog, which result from wildfires and the use of fossil fuels, have reduced the sunlight reaching the ground.

 

Just warming up

 

Researchers will now focus on working out the long-term effects of clearer air. One thing they do know is that black particulate matter in the air has been contributing a cooling effect to the ground. "It is clear that the greenhouse effect has been partly masked in the past by air pollution," says Andreas Macke, a meteorologist at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany.

 

Uncertainties remain part of the game because scientists have only a limited ability to track cloud cover and particulates, says Macke. Increased cooperation in programmes such as the NASA-led International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project should help to close the gaps in our knowledge of how dirty air affects climate, he says.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html

So improving air quality will WORSEN global warming now?

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What the hell am I, a bookseller w/ a BA in history, going to refute? I don't know the first thing about climate science. Watching you guys try to debate the science of this on a message board is hilarious, though.

 

All I can do is believe the arguments of the more credible source. And a social anthropologist and an oil-funded right wing think tanker don't fit this description when it comes to climate change research.

 

And I can't take credit for the anti-semitism. Mad props to my girl Coulter on that one.

[Guest MikeSC]

What the hell am I, a bookseller w/ a BA in history, going to refute? I don't know the first thing about climate science. Watching you guys try to debate the science of this on a message board is hilarious, though.

 

All I can do is believe the arguments of the more credible source. And a social anthropologist and an oil-funded right wing think tanker don't fit this description when it comes to climate change research.

Then STOP trying.

 

Simply questioning the critics without actually refuting their criticisms is idiotic.

 

I love that you criticize "oil-funded" think tanks --- but have no problems with think tanks pimping for gov't funding which global warming tends to draw.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What the hell am I, a bookseller w/ a BA in history, going to refute?  I don't know the first thing about climate science.  Watching you guys try to debate the science of this on a message board is hilarious, though.

 

All I can do is believe the arguments of the more credible source.  And a social anthropologist and an oil-funded right wing think tanker don't fit this description when it comes to climate change research.

Then STOP trying.

 

Simply questioning the critics without actually refuting their criticisms is idiotic.

 

I love that you criticize "oil-funded" think tanks --- but have no problems with think tanks pimping for gov't funding which global warming tends to draw.

-=Mike

A. Please don't tell me what to do. I haven't told you to stop playing

scientist, have I?

 

B. oil industry-->global warming research

tobacco industry-->research on the effects of smoking

 

C. Think tanks exercise no academic checks & balances. They can put out any

crap they want to without even the slightest peer review. Plus, they start

out with a premise and build their case around that. Using them as a source

for research is not a good idea, obviously.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Also, what think tanks have I cited or supported? The EPA and NASA are hardly think tanks.

[Guest MikeSC]

What the hell am I, a bookseller w/ a BA in history, going to refute?  I don't know the first thing about climate science.  Watching you guys try to debate the science of this on a message board is hilarious, though.

 

All I can do is believe the arguments of the more credible source.  And a social anthropologist and an oil-funded right wing think tanker don't fit this description when it comes to climate change research.

Then STOP trying.

 

Simply questioning the critics without actually refuting their criticisms is idiotic.

 

I love that you criticize "oil-funded" think tanks --- but have no problems with think tanks pimping for gov't funding which global warming tends to draw.

-=Mike

A. Please don't tell me what to do. I haven't told you to stop playing

scientist, have I?

I don't simply say "Well, this guy is doing this...".

 

I point out legit problems with the ENTIRE fucking premise of their theory.

B.  oil industry-->global warming research

    tobacco industry-->research on the effects of smoking

Gov't funded global warming research ---> PFAW calling anybody an extremist.

C.  Think tanks exercise no academic checks & balances.  They can put out any

      crap they want to without even the slightest peer review.  Plus, they start

      out with a premise and build their case around that.  Using them as a source

      for research is not a good idea, obviously.

Clearly --- science journals do the exact same thing.

 

And the think tanks ARE peer reviewed. Constantly.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Okay, if you believe that right wing think tanks are more legitimate than actual science journals because Science wouldn't let a social anthropologist publish an article about global warming then the debate ends here.

 

Peace and chicken grease.

[Guest MikeSC]

Okay, if you believe that right wing think tanks are more legitimate than actual science journals because Science wouldn't let a social anthropologist publish an article about global warming then the debate ends here.

 

Peace and chicken grease.

And if you wish to ignore LEGITIMATE complaints and criticisms because you dislike who funds the research, then you're just blind and unable to face reality.

 

Or, you're a cultist.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Okay, if you believe that right wing think tanks are more legitimate than actual science journals because Science wouldn't let a social anthropologist publish an article about global warming then the debate ends here.

 

Peace and chicken grease.

And if you wish to ignore LEGITIMATE complaints and criticisms because you dislike who funds the research, then you're just blind and unable to face reality.

 

Or, you're a cultist.

-=Mike

I love it when you call me names, big daddy. Do it again!