In his discussions Tom Harris said the American Geophysical Union's
conclusions as to climate change are not credible. What? Saying the AGU has no
credibility is like saying the New England Journal of Medicine has no
credibility. Tom Harris also said; "...94% of the
approximately $1 billion a day being spent worldwide on climate finance being
dedicated to trying to stop what might happen in the distant future. Only 6% of
it is going to help real people suffering today due to climate change, however
caused." This is another way of asking "what has posterity done for
us?" Tom Harris is absolutely positively convinced the AGU is
wrong about climate change. How? Why should I believe Tom Harris
against the scientific weight at AGU? Well, I don't.
"Sorry global warming alarmists but the climate is cooling". That is one
of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International
Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week
in Chicago.Why is the climate now cooling? "Solar activity has
decreased recently compared to a slight increase in solar activity a decade ago
which caused the temporary warming trend." Use your brains people!
CO2 emissions have noting to do with climate change. Its the sun and there is
nothing we can do about solar activity. Does this mean we shouldn't do
reasonable things to protect the earth from pollution? Of course not but wasting
our economy to chase ghosts is futile and even destructive.
Most people who deny the results of scientific discovery by cloaking themselves
with a faux scientific tone, use a lot of bad logic, but one of the worst is the
assumption that natural development is linear. So if it was this way today and
there is a trend in this direction it will be that much more tomorrow. When you do that anything other than the expected development can be
proof that the trend is not true. In fact natural development is
anything but linear, So it's easy to cherry pick those periods of
exception and insert them into your linear mind and conclude you're right
and science is wrong. Tom Harris did this numerous times in his
article. They aren't hard to find.
Who benefits if "scientists" tell us that we are causing global warming?
It's the government that will collect taxes, taxes that it will spend to
buy votes by supporting projects and programs not authorized by the
Constitution. Who pays for "scientific" experiments and
"research" dealing with "global warming"? Again, it's the
government.When a "scientist" receives a grant to prove that
we are causing global warming, what conclusion do you think he will
"find"? Forbes Magazine reported: "Similarly, the
theory of man-caused, catastrophic, global warming is embraced not because of
any “science,” (that sham is for the “useful idiots,”),
but because it is a justification for a government takeover of the energy
industry, with massive increases in regulation, taxes and government spending. .
. Scientists who go along with the cause are rewarded not only with praise for
their worthy social conscience, but also with altogether billions in hard, cold
cash (government and environmental grants), for their cooperation in helping to
play the “useful idiots."
Science is not a democracy, and has never been ruled by the democratic principle
known as "consensus." The reported "consensus" does not, in
fact, exist. The word was applied to a very broadly worded survey taken a
decade ago that asked whether humans had a "discernible" influence on
climate, which, of course, nearly everyone agrees with. That's where the
majority opinion ends. Asked more pointed questions, there is widespread
disagreement as expected in any complex scientific endeavor.If we
automatically assume that an energy industry expert is biased and therefore
discount his ideas, to be fair we must also assume that an expert from the other
side is biased and discount their ideas as well. A better approach is to evenly
evaluate the arguments from all sides on their merits, trying to set aside our
own biases to arrive at the most logical and defensible conclusion. Not many
people are able to do that, but it's vitally important.
Re: ". . . no part of the scientific consensus was arrived at by anything
other than the deepest, most skeptical study."Sorry, but
that's just utterly, laughably false.Though they squeal in
protest every time it's mentioned, we have the emails between eminent
climate "scientists," cynically advising one another on concocting ways
to hide, cherry-pick, obfuscate, and "smooth" the data to achieve their
pre-determined political goals. We have the controverting satellite and
observational data. We have the speeches and activism, based entirely on cooked
data, carefully, cynically ignoring any data that might fail to confirm pet
theories. We have the non-sequential "scientific" arguments arriving at
pre-determined political conclusions. We have the failed predictions from the
failed models used to demand resort to failed political positions. We have the
background information on today's "scientists," nearly all,
yesterday's campus socialist radicals.But, even if we
didn't, a consensus among rigidly orthodox, fat-cat,
government-grant-dependent, socialist-leaning "academics," people whose
primary tactic to advance tenuous theories is the ad hominem attack, is hardly a
solid foundation upon which to base important public-policy decisionmaking.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWho benefits if "scientists"
tell us that we are causing global warming?========= Answer: We ALL do, that's who.Happy Earth Day.
Mike Richards South Jordan, UtahOf course you would say that
if scientists receive a grant then their conclusions will be slanted. That is
absolutely not true. You have insulted the many valuable scientists that work
diligently to make your life better.My family supports via
endowments many scientists at the University of Utah. Your statement is not
only incorrect it is short sighted. But you use the Constitution yet again to
explain this one. Your arguments are more for humor anymore than real fact.
Nice to see DN print a letter from someone who actually understands how science
works and just what sort of rigor must be developed over an extended period of
time to reach a consensus approaching anywhere near 90%.@Mike
Richards – “Who benefits if "scientists" tell us that we are
causing global warming?”It’s a fair question Mike and
one that should be weighed (with equal fair mindedness) against the interests of
the side determined to keep the petro grave train going as long as possible. All of this and much more is covered in Dr. Brin’s excellent
article on Climate Skeptics vs. Climate Deniers.
The earth and all things on it should be used responsibly to sustain the human
family. However, all are stewards — not owners — over this earth and
its bounty and will be accountable before God for what they do with His
creations.Approaches to the environment must be prudent, realistic,
balanced and consistent with the needs of the earth and of current and future
generations, rather than pursuing the immediate vindication of personal desires
or avowed rights. The earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be
consumed or conserved. God intends His creations to be aesthetically pleasing to
enliven the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved. Making the
earth ugly offends Him.The state of the human soul and the environment are
interconnected, with each affecting and influencing the other. The earth, all
living things and the expanse of the universe all eloquently witness of God.
“Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees.” — Rev
9:4ElderNealA.Maxwell: “True disciples … would be
consistent environmentalists—caring both about maintaining the spiritual
health of a marriage and preserving a rain forest; caring about preserving the
nurturing capacity of a family as well as providing a healthy supply of air and
water…Adam and Eve were to ‘dress the garden,’ not exploit it.
Like them, we are to keep the commandments, so that we can enjoy all the
resources God has given us, resources described as ‘enough and to
spare’ (D&C 104:17), if we use and husband them wisely.” “The outward expressions of irreverence for God, for life, and
for our fellowmen take the form of things like littering, heedless strip-mining,
heedless pollution of water and air.” — Ezra Taft Benson
“So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are.” — Numbers
35:33“And it pleaseth God that hath given all these things unto man;
for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess,
neither by extortion.” — D&C 59:20 ~ LDS Church
Noah started building the ark 120 years before it started raining.
Utefan60,Do you disagree with Forbes? My conclusions are based on
authoritative information, some of which I quoted. When you side with those who
have received money to produce certain results, you are as guilty as they.
Enough scientists have debunked global warming, scientists who were not fed and
clothed and housed by government funds, that it is easy to see who was paid and
why they were paid. "Standing up" for fraud is fraudulent.
You can bury your head in the sand and tell us that no scientist would ever
falsify data, even when he knew that his "sugar daddy" would cut off his
funding unless he did so. You can pretend that those "scientists" who
told us that we were destroying the earth by living on it have examined all the
facts when all the facts are still not known. You can attack the messenger all
that you want, but if you read with an open mind, you'll have to agree that
those "conclusions" are anything BUT agreed upon.
@UteFan60Can't you say that your view insults scientist from
the other side that disagree with your biased view?The problem
Global warming scientists have is credibility. They lose it when they try to
use their science as a way to sway political opinion through one party one
platform and only one way to solve the problem (ie. forcing people through the
government strong arm to do things your way).The science is not
settled and as I see it there is know way to settle it because you can't
factor in all of the elements in global warming or climate change. You would
have to factor in how the Sun ways in and scientist haven't developed a
model for it yet. You would have to factor in volcanic eruptions and other
things. Also how do we not know that the cooling and the warming are not
cylical and come from changes from within our own earth? These areas have not
been explored so excuse me if I am a little sceptical especially when you have
people on your side fudge data and smear sceptics in such a political way.
What's wrong with conservation?What's wrong with
recycling?What's wrong with developing green technology?What's wrong with being good stewards and not merely big oil
pillagers of the earth?One cannot be a good Mormon and not do
everything possible to take care of the earth. Let's stop putting our trust
in dirty fuel and start cleaning up our planet.
Tom Harris is a paid dissenter, supported by the 'heartland
institute'. Of course science should entertain all valid hypotheses, and
climate science is by no means exact. But a consensus is forming, and his
theories are tending to fall outside of it. How we approach this consensus will
be telling; is it a growing body of evidence on which we should act or is it the
Simpson trial where any doubt at all is enough to throw it all out?
Maverick. Is your job and your life tied to fossil fuels? Ready to give up your
job, destroy our economy and our food supply? We can all hope for cleaner fuels
but things are what they are. One can not be a good Mormon and wish suffering
upon the human race because of a theory.
@Mountanman"sponsored by the Heartland Institute"I
don't see why anyone should get their science from partisan think
tanks..."Its the sun and there is nothing we can do about solar
activity."We have the weakest solar cycle in a century and the
warming has only "paused". Shouldn't it be cooling? We've
certainly had plenty of La Nina years of late (4 of the past 6 years) to help
that cooling along. One might think these negative forcings are merely
cancelling out a positive anthropogenic component. Plot .5sin(x) and
pretend that's natural forcings, then plot .1x and pretend that's
anthropogenic forcings. Then plot .5sin(x) + .1x and you'll see how pauses
in warming can occur despite continued anthropogenic influence.@Mike
Richards"Who benefits if "scientists" tell us that we are
causing global warming? It's the government"The gov't
would much rather spend money on other things (wars, healthcare, whatever) than
having to do any sort of disaster prevention.@procuradorfiscal"We have the controverting satellite and observational data."Actually RSS and UAH show similar trends as NASA, NOAA, and CRU.
@Thid Barker "Ready to give up your job, destroy our economy and our food
supply?"Who or what is asking us to do that? I know I'm
not. That is certainly not the position of the AGU.There's an
old saying "Make hay while the sun shines."For the benefit
of future generations we need to shift to solar power while we still have
economical fossil fuel reserves. But we need to be doing it NOW.
to Mike Richards (1st post)...The whole Cui bono angle was good
until you brought up Forbes Magazine.Forbes IMO is a periodical to
promote or apologize for Hard core, no holds barred, extreme rules capitalism.
I am in full agreement that we should be good stewards of the Earth and its
resources; also that God prepared the world with these resources for our use and
benefit. Remember when the "Science was settled" back in the 70's
and the Earth was headed for another Ice Age due to all the junk we were putting
into the atmosphere? Relative to the age of the Earth, this is a complete
reversal in the blink of an eye. Now we see that the models were a little off
and it is not quite warming as much as was predicted and may be even cooling.
The term Global Warming was traded for "Climate Change" to fit any
variation in climate, cooling or warming. To me this raises questions as to
what is really going on and what is really causing it...this doesn't put me
on par with a Holocaust denier despite the labels people throw around. It is
legitimate to question who benefits financially from the current movements as
there are many who have made tons on Global Warming since the "science is
settled" at least for now.
@Mike Richards"When you side with those who have received money to
produce certain results, you are as guilty as they." Mike - you
do realize that Harris and his coalition are funded in large part by the
Heartland Institute, correct? The same Heartland Institute that argued on
behalf of tobacco companies about the safety of cigarettes. Does
your assertion work both ways, or does it selectively apply only against those
ideas you disagree with?
Thid BarkerVictor, IDMaverick. Is your job and your life tied to
fossil fuels? Ready to give up your job, destroy our economy and our food
supply? We can all hope for cleaner fuels but things are what they are. One can
not be a good Mormon and wish suffering upon the human race because of a
theory.9:13 a.m. April 22, 2014========= I
work for the Department of Defense.I double DOG dare you to put me and
everyone else out of work and out on the streets.I think Doctors, Firemen,
and Policemen share my feelings as well for the very same reason.Also -- What is so wrong with cleaner, alternative, and more efficient forms
of energy? Other than someone's "job" depends on it?[BTW -- If I didn't know so many Chemical Engineers working in the OIL
industry making more than double than any other engineering field, then my
bleeding heart might cry for you.]
On the difficulty of reaching "consensus" on science...We
have "science" so precise that we have full confidence that we KNOW with
exactness the forces required to... successfully launch a manned vehicle into
space and maintain earth orbit. Or travel to the moon, or land an un-manned
vehicle on an asteroid, or on Mars... with almost 100% certainty that the moon
and the vehicle will be where they need to be when they need to be... AND we
KNOW the exact angle and speed required to get them back safely.I
would hate to be the first person climbing into a capsule and betting his LIFE
that Climate Scientist's have their science figured out...With
their record of being able to accurately predict things pertaining to their
"Science"... that would be a disaster.===But
regardless of their ability to understand the science that controls our
climate... I agree that the things they are telling us to do.. are things we
should be doing anyway. So I do them. But not because I believe their
predictions. Just because I love the earth and have always done everything in
my power to keep it clean.
@2 bits – “But regardless of their ability to understand the science
that controls our climate... I agree that the things they are telling us to do..
are things we should be doing anyway.”I’ve been making
the same point here for years. All the “huge taxes and government running
our lives” hyperbole aside, most of what’s needed to mitigate
pollution and move to cleaner energy are no brainers.As for the
science, be careful not to conflate basic axioms of climate science with cutting
edge research. For example, the climate models are being continuously refined in
order to make better predictions, but predictions are always the final piece of
any scientific puzzle.By contrast the basic fact that CO2 is a
greenhouse gas and all other things being equal will warm the planet is
incontrovertible. The fact that the Deniers on this forum continue
to argue this point displays amazing scientific ignorance and proof that they
were not paying attention in middle school science when Venus was being studied.
It seems somehow ironic that it is the conservatives who are dead-set against
conservation. Maybe they don't understand the meaning of the word they use
to describe their views.
@borox23"Remember when the "Science was settled" back in the
70's and the Earth was headed for another Ice Age due to all the junk we
were putting into the atmosphere?"Back then (post WWII-early
70s) we were throwing all sorts of aerosols into the atmosphere and aerosols do
have a cooling influence via something that is called global dimming.
That's a large part of the reason why global temperatures during that
period were steady to declining slightly. Also created quite a pollution
problem. So we regulated them through national and international policy
primarily in the 70s. Some geoengineering solutions for addressing climate
change involve strategic use of aerosols. The thing is though, there was never a
global cooling consensus. The vast majority of the papers then still said
warming. (Bulletin of the American Meteorologoical Society article "The Myth
of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus")"The term
Global Warming was traded for "Climate Change" to fit any variation in
climate, cooling or warming."Using climate change is to note the
breadth of the issue (sea level rise, ocean acidification, glacial retreat etc).
It doesn't claim cooling.
Tyler D,Basic "planet husbandry" is a good thing. And that's
mostly what we need (and what I do).What we DON'T need is...
global governance... to FORCE people to do it YOUR way. That will never work
(as long as men are free).And I like being free. And doing good
things because they are good (not because somebody forced me to do it their
way).====I like government... just so long we can select
our leaders and control them (not them controlling us).Remember...
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear
the government, there is tyranny."People should do good things
because they are good people... not because they fear government retribution.===We ALL want a good planet, and happiness. Some are more
radical about their level of environmentalism than others... but we ALL love our
planet.Making Global Warming into Government Policy... is people
wanting OTHERS to be just as radical as they are (by force).That
rarely works. Especially GLOBAL government. Who would ELECT
these global climate rulers?? If the decide they must destroy the US economy
(for the good of the world)... could we stop them??
Re: "For the benefit of future generations we need to shift to solar power
while we still have economical fossil fuel reserves."Well, if
you add in breeder fission technologies, fusion technologies, biomass conversion
technologies, and wind [the last two being, technically, solar, of course],
we're all with 'ya.The problem is not the azimuth, but how
reckless and ruinous the velocity.When we have an assured supply of
fossil fuels for, at least the next 500 years, there's no real need to
engage in the destruction of the civilized world's economy, in favor of one
or another not-ready-for-prime-time scam of the crony capitalists buzzing around
the rotting carcass of the Obama regime.Least of all some unproven,
unprovable AGW hypothesis -- the perennial, almost-but-never-quite-there,
string-theory dodge of socialist climate "science."
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTTyler D,What we DON'T
need is... global governance... to FORCE people to do it YOUR way. That will
never work (as long as men are free).========= You win
-- Let corporations dump whatever they like into rivers and streams,
add lead to gas and paint, go back to cheaper freon,spray with
DDT, I like mercury based chemicals in the environment, I prefer
throw trash along the highways of America, and Down with pollution
controls and emmission standards of vehicles.It's a FREE
country, ain't it?The Government can't FORCE anyone to do
anything!hrumpf!and let the countries next door do whatever
THEY want, because it has zero effet on anyone else on the planet.What a silly comment.
Why do I have the suspicion that if we had a global organization to force all
countries to be nicer to the planet... that this organization would eventually
be infiltrated by people who despise freedom and turn it against us?Because I'm paranoid? Or because it's happened every time
we've had ambitions for global governance in the past?I
don't know if you're aware of this but... most nations in the world
don't like us a lot. And I really don't think they would bend over
backwards to save us.That's why I don't want a group of
unelected people, that can't be removed by the people no matter how corrupt
they become... governing the globe ala the new world order.They
become too powerful. And as we all know... the lust for this power eventually
corrupts people and they start using it for their own benefit and the benefit of
their well connected friends (not the little people).
Good thing none of you voted for Mitt Romney.And even better that he
didn't win.Because, I can't see any of you trashing him
for his concurrence with Global Climate change...unless you are hypocrites.
Ok people, lets take a step back and look at what was said here. First, we know
that the process is slow. We also know that we have only had the ability to
accurately measure the temperature over the entire earth for 35 years. The data
used before that is just a best guess for many areas around the earth.Next, we can go into what the experts have said about their models. According
to the NOAA, if we have more than 15 years with no significant warming that
would prove the models to be wrong. We are now going on 16 years with no
significant warming.You can also look to see what NASA is doing with
the raw data collected from their ground based weather stations. They are
adjusting the temperature up, and making the problem look more significant than
it truely is.Finally, you should realize that science is never
settled by consensus. It is settled by repeatable experiments or valid models
that not only explain the past but can predict the future with 95% certainty.So, with global warming we don't have valid models, the data has
been tampered with, and the results are not accurate.
In the case of Global Warming "Science"... Science consensus is truly
slow, but far from methodical."Methodical" means..."Done according to a systematic or established form of procedure.Orderly, ordered, organized, (well) planned, efficient, businesslike,
systematic, structured, logical, analytic, disciplined; meticulous".That doesn't describe how Global Warming Science has been done
about at all... it relies mostly on anecdotal evidence and fear... not
This debate unfortunately demonstrates why capitalist enterprise cannot deal
with climate change. The corporations which sponsor Tom Harris' outfit
have a profit interest in continued fossil fuel production to the exclusion of
solar energy. When you have such an interest, objectivity is out. Global capitalism will not deal with global warming. Period. So with
apologies to Lenin, what is to be done?Only socialism can save us.
The fossil fuels industry has its hands on the political levers (of both parties
in the United States) and will not be denied. I don't see how the levels
of cooperation necessary to save the global environment can come any other
way.This is not to say that socialist regimes cannot be
"dirty." The Soviet Union was in fact one of the worst examples (the
record of Russian environmentalists in bringing down that regime is not heralded
in the west). But since capitalism can't reform itself, what
other alternative are there?
To "marxist" the only way that socialism saves us is by killing off the
"surplus" population.What about the profit and power that
governments gain by promoting the idea of AGW? Governments can raise taxes and
control businesses through regulation.If capitalism can't deal
with climate change because of profits, then governments can't deal with
climate change being purely natural because it destroys their justification for
their power grab.You realize too that right now one of the biggest
producers of CO2 is China. You also realize that the air in China is filthy and
is polluting the rest of the world.The socialist/communist nations
that are not heavy polluters have such poor infastructures that they can barely
keep their power plants running, so they can't pollute because they
can't produce either..Capitalists and conservatives are
actually strong supporters of the environment, and put their money where their
mouth is. Did you know that all of those hunting fees paid by predominantly
conservatives and capitalists go to supporing wildlife efforts in the states.
Plus it is conservatives that have destroyed the myths perpetuated by radical
environmental groups and have kept public lands accessible by people.
There is a huge amount of scientific information about our climate and the way
it is changing! Some of the worlds best scientists have talked about it for
years! People see what they want, and when they mix ideas with their religion,
they will overlook anything! The problem with this issue, I think, is it has
somehow, who knows why, been mixed up with religious points of view. Here in
Utah, it seems that to be a good Mormon, you shouldn't believe in global
warming! Even if a person does not believe in global warming, it is hard to
ignore how we are hurting the Earth! Isn't it foolish not to take action to
keep are World healthy? People believe in treating the body right!
Shouldn't we do the same for our Earth? I don't think it should take a
lot of thought to figure this out!
@2 bits – “What we DON'T need is... global governance... to
FORCE people to do it YOUR way.”So the issue is not climate
change per se, but that trying to mitigate it MAY lead to global government?
That’s a pretty paranoid slippery slope, but OK…Actually
I’m with you on this. Given the moral development of many of the nations
on this planet, I’m not too keen on global government either (e.g.,
allowing nations like Russia or China, who consistently show little regard for
humanitarian causes, veto power over us is foolish). Sadly, we have a lot of
evolving to do before our world will look anything like Star Trek.So
rather than focus on sovereign, market friendly solutions, why do think the
Right has adopted the Denial tact?Isn’t that a bit like
denying the patient has cancer rather than discussing treatment options? Regarding your last comment, it was extremely insulting to climate
scientists and doesn’t match what I know about them in the slightest.
Scientists have facts, figures and data. Deniers have religion; "god is
coming back soon so don't worry, be happy".
@Redshirt1701 " We also know that we have only had the ability to
accurately measure the temperature over the entire earth for 35 years. The data
used before that is just a best guess for many areas around the earth."Well, no, it is not quite as bad as that. We have "records" in
tree rings, ice cores, and in the earth's crust which have been used quite
effectively in estimating past earth temperature.
For Redshirt: Just pointing out all your falsehoods.“First,
we know that the process is slow. We also know that we have only had the ability
to accurately measure the temperature over the entire earth for 35
years.”False. NOAA has data from before 1900. The data show
temperature increase since 1970. “The data used before that
is just a best guess for many areas around the earth.” See NOAA
article sited above. They described the data and how it is treated. 'best
guess' is an opinion? ”Next, we can go into what the
experts have said about their models. According to the NOAA, if we have more
than 15 years with no significant warming that would prove the models to be
False. NOAA shows global warming. It shows
increases in CO2. And decreased snow cover. And sea level rise. And decrease
in artic sea ice. And decreasing glaciers. It also shows little net change in
sun's energy for you sun blamers.“We are now going on 16
years with no significant warming.”False. Each of the last 3
decades has been warmer than the last one. With 2001-2010 was the warmest on
@Mike Richards:Forbes did not "report" the quote you cited.
It was contained in an opinion piece written by Peter Ferrara who is affiliated
with the Heartland Institute.
Having data as far back as the 1900s is less than a blip on the screen of the
history of our earth. As we look at the fossil record we know that this earth
has had climate change from the beginning and it wasn't caused by increased
carbon emissions. There is plenty of room for skepticism in the climate change
theories that exist. Its not settled science and there is no
consensus as to its cause. I wish there was more sense in the debate but it
seems that those who question the Al Gore's of the world are labeled and
bullied like nerds in school. When a lawyer knows his case is not
solid he just starts pounding his fist on the table and that is the reality of
the climate change bullies. Deep down you know your case is week and would
never stand up to true scrutiny. That is why you are slamming the door shut on
people who poke holes in your paper walls and scream and call names and say
deniers should be jailed or silenced.How sad?
To "marxist" and "Bebyebe" if you look at a map (available
through Google Maps) of the locations of the GISS surface temperature stations,
there is nothing over the oceans, very few in Africa, and nothing in the artic.
Most temperature stations are in the US and Europe.Since most of the
earth's surface is water, how do you think that they can report on the
temperatures in the areas that have few to no temperature sensors?To
"Bebyebe" lets get into the NOAA quotes.From the NOAA report
titled "State of the Climate in 2008" the NOAA states "The
simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or
more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed
to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate." In the
NY Post article "Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating" they
quote a peer reviewed article that states "that average global surface
temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this pause could
extend into the 2030s."You see, if you listen to the experts,
you find that the models are garbage.
@The Hammer"The problem Global warming scientists have is credibility.
They lose it when they try to use their science as a way to sway political
opinion"Most climate scientists don't get involved in
politics. @procuradorfiscal"We have the controverting
satellite and observational data. "@Redshirt1701" We also
know that we have only had the ability to accurately measure the temperature
over the entire earth for 35 years."During the satellite era UAH
had the slowest growth, and RSS the fastest (but not much different than UAH).
HADCRUT, NOAA, and NASA-GISS were all in between those two satellite models.
That isn't controverting satellite and observational data."people whose primary tactic to advance tenuous theories is the ad hominem
attack"You just called them socialist radicals...@Mountanman"CO2 emissions have noting to do with climate change.
"Absolutely it does. It's a greenhouse gas and in the ice
core records they're highly correlated. (Look at the Vostok ice core data).
The sun is in its weakest solar cycle in a century, so why did we just have the
warmest decade in the modern record?
To "Schnee" so then you agree that the satelite data has been verified
where the land stations exist. But you also must realize that in the ocean,
Africa, Australia, and most of Asia the temperature stations are hundreds to
thousands of miles apart, so the temperatures are extrapolated and are
guesses.So again, knowing that we only have 35 years of accurate
worldwide data, why put so much faith in extrapolated data that goes back
slightly over 100 years? You are looking at 1 page in a 1000 page book and
making assumptions over what has gone on before.
I'm astonished that so many people won't believe the scientists.
Let's just believe them. OK, now that we've gotten past that
conundrum, we can begin to examine all the things we can reasonably do about the
problem. Who should decide what needs to be done? Certainly NOT
the politicians, with their rediculous "Global Carbon Tax" proposal.
That's just an income distribution scam.The only technologies
we have to reduce CO2 emissions are those that generate electricity through
solar, wind, water, and nuclear power. Of these, nuclear power is the only one
that can make a significant difference.Why aren't more nuclear
power plants being built to replace coal burning facilities? Because of safety
regulations that cannot be ignored. We need to look for some compromises here,
because the only thing worse than global warming are frequent nuclear meltdowns.
Redshirt, NOAA doesn't report straight temperatures. It reports
temperature changes. Temperatures over all the locations are averaged and are
compared from year to year. This is done specifically to avoid the arguement
you have just made. So you are wrong.As far as a 2008 report by the
NOAA, I don't find any reference to it besides right-wing websites. NOAA,
for this year, still has all the data for temperature, CO2 levels, spring snow
melt, sea level, arctic sea ice, glaciers, snow, & ocean heat. All show
warming. The only measurement which doesn't is the Sun's energy. So
again you are wrong.
To "Bebyebe" I am sorry that you can't find the NOAA report, it is
available on their website, and the quote I provided was taken directly from it.
When I searched for "State of the Climate in 2008" on Google using the
quotes, the first result was fro the NOAA website. Do you consider the NOAA
website a right wing website.I never said that the climate is
changing (FYI it always has), just that the temperature models are wrong and the
data being fed into the models is altered.Where is your proof that I
am wrong. I have given you the quote from the NOAA, and have given enough
witneses about the temperature alterations that there should be little to no
question that there is something wrong going on with climate scientists. If you
refuse to believe the NOAA and the researchers that have exposed the data
alterations by NASA, that is your choice.
procuradorfiscal: "...squeal in protest... climate 'scientists,'
cynically advising one another on concocting ways to hide, cherry-pick,
obfuscate, and 'smooth' the data to achieve their pre-determined
political goals... based entirely on cooked data, carefully, cynically ignoring
any data that might fail to confirm pet theories... pre-determined political
conclusions... nearly all, yesterday's campus socialist radicals...
rigidly orthodox, fat-cat, government-grant-dependent, socialist-leaning
'academics,' people whose primary tactic to advance tenuous theories
is the AD HOMINEM ATTACK..." [emphasis added]Spoken by an
authority on the ad hominem argument. Lessee... accusing your opponents of
being intellectually dishonest socialist moochers at the government trough,
cynical self-serving radicals who substitute ad hominem attacks for substantive
data, all done with the requisite scare quotes. Nope, no irony here. Move
@Redshirt"If you refuse to believe the NOAA and the researchers that
have exposed the data alterations by NASA"You championed RSS and
UAH because they're satellite datasets, only to ignore (if you were aware)
that those datasets get adjusted as well. RSS and UAH have undergone adjustments
in both directions over the years. There are reasons adjustments are made and
rather than figure out the context for them, you just assume there's
something sinister in the motives. Plus you ignored the fact that for all your
complaints about adjustments to NASA and faults with NOAA, those datasets have
trends during the satellite era that lie in between RSS and UAH, the satellite
datasets you put more value into. So whatever your problem with them is, it
doesn't seem to be hurting anything if they're in between your gold
To "Schnee" yes RSS and UAH have adjusted their data, but if you
bothered to look into why, it has been only to calibrate the readings with a
known reading. The GISS data has been adjusted for no other reason than to make
the warming more apparent.You are also ignoring the simple fact tha
the ground based systems are so far apart over much of the globe that between
datapoints NASA is doing little more than guessing what the temperature should
be.So again, why trust faulty data that doesn't cover most of
the earth? Knowing that all temperature measurements have been tampered with
should bother you and make you question the validity of the results based on
that data. Instead, you are doubling down on bad data and insisting that the
conclusions are still rght.
For those who say "Follow the money," in order to find which side if the
issue is telling the truth, let's go ahead do that.Consider the
following scenarios:1. The majority of the world’s scientists
are cooking the books, manipulating the data, and falsifying, or at least
exaggerating, results to make it appear that the earth’s climate is in
danger because of man’s behavior. This is to secure funding for their
institutions so that they can continue to do research.2. The major
oil companies who provide most of the country’s fuel are manipulating the
media, and using their influence with politicians, to foster doubt about climate
change in order to prevent major revenue loss from competing energy sources such
as renewables.Which is more likely?
When you get right down to it, scientific consensus is meaningless. There was
scientific consensus about the geocentric universe a few centuries ago. The
scientific consensus was very wrong. The scientific consensus about climate
change may or may not be wrong as well. But, the proponents all seem to be
telling the people that they must give up freedom and the hope of a better life
for them and their children. In fact, they are telling people that they must
expect a poorer life in order to 'save the planet.' This just
isn't going to work to get people to get on board.
Judging from the above error-riddled comments, I suggest people have a look at
this short video of a radio interview I handled on April 21: http://tinyurl.com/myglomo