Do you believe in Global Warming?

It gets warm in the summer and it cools off in the winter..Of course I believe in Global Warming .. Otherwise the February snow would still be here in June.
Sooner or later the Government will realize we do have Global warming and they will develop a sun spot reducer so things cool down again...Oh wait they must have already used one ..Better buy some extra sweaters for this this winter.




Science Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age



Michael Asher  - February 9, 2008 11:53

Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years.

Henrik Svensmark explains the SKY experiment  Global Cooling comes back in a big way

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum,"  along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting Eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

But will it happen again?In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures.  Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.

Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly."

Others aren't so sure. Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson, we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.

Such research dates back to 1991, when the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. A 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute found a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes.

However, researchers at DMI continued to work, eventually discovering what they believe to be the link. The key factor isn't changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun's magnetosphere A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increase, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off.

Recently, lead researcher Henrik Svensmark was able to experimentally verify the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, in a cloud chamber experiment called "SKY" at the Danish National Space Center. CERN plans a similar experiment this year. A few years ago, Stanford University's Hoover Institution also reported finding a correlation between the sun and climate.

Even NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies -- long the nation's most ardent champion of anthropogenic global warming -- is getting in on the act. Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.
 

Not in man made Global Warming.  The planet has always had cycles but some people think they are the only influence in the universe.

For the past 7 or so years, the Goddard Space Center has posted an increase in surface temperature and a decrease in the polar ice caps on the planet......



MARS!

It is interesting that the models used to predict the increase in our (Earth's) temperature are used to support Global Warming.  However, when those SAME models are fed historical data, they fail to accurately (or even approximate) the historical temperature record.... not a shining example that.

However, having said that, our Earth has undergone continual changes in climate.  Both warming and cooling.  Do I believe that happens?  yes... Do I believe that we are in a period of changing climate?  Perhaps... Do I believe that it is only attibutable to man's presence? NO... after all - how do you explain the change on Mars.

In short, we know so little.  The pronouncements by politicians (by the way, most reputable scientists are starting to shy away from this one.... wonder why) stated with such absolutism... is a bit scary... Most GOOD scientists are much more skeptical than that.

some people think they are the only influence in the universe."

Whether or not our favorite fuel source is the actual reason for global climatic warming; a continued exclusive dependence on it will ultimately warm us in the glow of a nuclear fireball.

in a National Energy Policy to secure this country our economic well being and the Constitution? No other policy will best insure domestic tranquilty, provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare than a comphrensive energy policy.

Having 60-percent of our fuel needs derived from foreign sources is a strain on our economy and our military. The problem in saying that Global Warming is a problem is that it is an elusive and nebellous idea. For example, not only do we need to make more efficient use of our energy sources but all resources that we have been Blessed with, must be conserved for our posterity.

To say we need to drive hybrids to reduce carbon emisions disregards the need for a better comprehensive land use policy and disregards our decaying civil infrastructure. I love the automobile but as our country becomes more populated and denser, expanding freeways reaches a point of diminishing returns.

The reason Global Warming remains elusive is that the Earth has always gone through warming and cooling cycles. Last year while I was in Alaska, my friend and I dug fossils with tropical flora from the early Pleistocene epoch (a million years ago). The point is, a more constructive debate while still achieving your goal of lower carbon emissions would be to frame the conversation around national security.



-- Modified on 9/12/2008 12:02:59 AM

Yes, I think to a large extent,it results from interrelated random events.

-- Modified on 9/12/2008 5:10:30 AM

If you read the actual scince in peer reviewed journals and not the pap dispensed by the media, it's clear that there is overwhelming consensus that global warming is occurring. It doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not, It's happening.

There is still some debate about the causes but there is also more consensus than ever that human activity is at least a major contributor to this.

If the right wingers would get their info from peer reviewed journals instead of latching onto the few crackpot or oil-and-coal-funded scientists like Baliunas then there could possibly be some debate about how to deal with the changes. As long as they run around with their fingers in their ears yelling, "Nyah, nyah, nyah. I can't heeeeaaar you." then, like unruly little children, they just get in the way of the people who are trying to do something worthwhile.

Eventually, the right will be forced to admit that global warming is real and that human activity is a contributing factor. Reality is what it is and denial only works for so long. Well, maybe not. There are still people who think GW is doing a good job.

also more consensus than ever that human activity is at least a major contributor to this.


Where exactly is the consensus that human activity is a MAJOR contributor to this..I scoff at your blanket statements.
By the way how did you do on the Would you be a Nazi quiz??  Yep I thought so

If you "REALLY REALLLY REALLLY" read the fuckin peer reviewed journals... you come to the conclusion That it is NOT settled.  Most of these articles are from repected climatologists who resent being used politically.... Dude.... read - knock yourself out... but read ALL that is available.  This has been provided before - so I will assume that you failed to do the reading assignments for scientific investigation of data fraud 101.

Oh and in case you missed some others:

Colorado State University's Bill Gray, perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert criticizes global warming as a hoax.  And another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

And how, if all this exists - AND is manmade - does that explain the warming of MARS!???  (oh pluto is also warming)....???  http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=17977

But my fave????  mixing politics with science - a no no... kinda like makin a new religion... no???  Read the literature my ass.... http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom26.htm


I've redacted due to TER's 8000 character limit.

1. (1965) Pure & Appl. Geophys., 62, 142-147.
2. (1965) Radiative and photochemical processes in mesospheric dynamics: Part I. Models for radiative and photochemical processes. J. Atmos. Sci., 22, 341-348.
3. (1965)  J. Atmos. Sci., 22, 469-478. [pdf]
4. (1966) Part II. Vertical propagation of long period disturbances at the equator. J. Atmos. Sci., 23, 334-343
5. (1966) Part III. Stability of a zonal vortex at midlatitudes to axially symmetric disturbances. J. Atmos. Sci., 23, 344-349. [pdf]
6. (1966) Part IV. Stability of a zonal vortex at midlatitudes to baroclinic waves. J. Atmos. Sci., 23, 350-359.
127. (1988) CO2 feedbacks and the 100K year cycle. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 38, 42-49.
Publications 128. - 130.
131. R.S. Lindzen and A.Y. Hou (1988). Hadley circulations for zonally averaged heating centered off the equator. J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 2416-2427.
Publications  132. -137.
138. (1990) Some coolness concerning global warming. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 71, 288-299.
139. (1990) Some remarks on global warming. Env. Sci. Tech., 24, 424-427.
140. (1990) A skeptic speaks out. EPA Jour., 16, 46-47.
141. (1990) Greenhouse warming: science v. consensus. in Environmental Consequences of Energy Production, proceedings of the seventeenth annual Illinois Energy Conference. Publ. by Energy Resources Center, The University of Illinois at Chicago.
142. (1990) Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 310pp.
Publications 143.-174.
175. Lindzen, R.S., D.-Z. Sun, E. K.-M. Chang, and P. Ioannou (1994) Properties of a troposphere with zero EPV gradients on isentropes.Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Climate Diagnostics Workshop. NTIS, US Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, VA.
176. (1994) What we know and what we don't know about global warming. pp 335-358 in International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies - 18th Session - 1993, K. Goebel, editor, World Scientific, Singapore, 444pp.
177. (1994) Classic problems in dynamics revisited. pp 90-98 in The Life Cycles of Extratropical Cyclones, Volume 1 (Grønås, S. and M. Shapiro, Editors), Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 286 p.
178. (1996) The importance and nature of the water vapor budget in nature and models. In Climate Sensitivity to Radiative Perturbations: Physical Mechanisms and their Validation, H. Le Treut (editor), pp. 51-66, NATO ASI Series 1: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 34, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 331p.
179. (1995) How cold would we get under CO2-less sky? Phys. Today, 48, 78-80.
180. (1996) Science and politics: global warming and eugenics. in Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, R. Hahn, editor, Oxford University Press, New York, 267pp (Chapter 5, 85-103).
181. (1997) Can increasing atmospheric CO2 affect global climate? Proc. Natl..Acad. Sci. USA, 94, 8335-8342

197. N. Harnik and R.S. Lindzen (2000) Are TOVS temperature retrievals capable of resolving the vertical structure of stratospheric planetary waves? submitted Ann. Geophys.
198. Encyclopedia of Global Change, Environmental Change and Human Society, Volume 1, Andrew S. Goudie, editor in chief, pp 562-566, Oxford University Press, New York,710 pp.
199. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28 , 259-262.
200. Giannitsis, C. and R.S. Lindzen (2001) Non-linear saturation of vertically propagating Rossby waves. accepted J. Atmos. Sci.
201. J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 3443-3462.
202. J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 2872-2894
203. Geophys. Res. Ltrs. 29, (26 June) 10.1029/2001GL014074
204. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 29, 10.1029/2001GL014360
206. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2, 99-101.
207. Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2002) Comments on "No evidence for iris." Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 83, 1345-1348.
208. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2, 99-101.
209. Chou, M.-D., R.S. Lindzen, and A.Y. Hou (2002b) Comments on "The Iris hypothesis: A negative or positive cloud feedback?" J. Climate, 15, 2713-2715.
210. Bell, T. L., M.-D. Chou, R.S. Lindzen, and A.Y. Hou (2002) Response to Comment on "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?" Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 83, 598-600
211. Lindzen, R.S. (2002c) A new approach to wave-cumulus interaction. submitted J. Atmos. Sci.
212. Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2002) New results on the Iris Effect. in preparation.
213. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2004) "Baroclinic equilibration and the maintenance of the momentum balance. Part I: barotropic analog." J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1469-1482
214. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2004) "Baroclinic equilibration and the maintenance of the momentum balance. Part II: 3-D results." J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1483-1499. [pdf]

215. J. Climate, 15, 2566-2570
216. Lindzen, R.S. (2003) The Interaction of Waves and Convection in the Tropics. J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 3009-3020
217. J. Clim. 18, 2123-2127.
218. Kennel, C.F., R.S. Lindzen, and W. Munk (2004) William Aaron Nierenberg (1919-2000) - A biographical memoir. Biographical Memoirs of the N.A.S., 85, 1-20.
219. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2006) A generalized momentum framework for looking at baroclinic circulations. In press J. Atmos. Sci.
220. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2006) Theories of baroclinic adjustment and eddy equilibration. In Recent Results in General Circulation Theory. T. Schneider and A. Sobel, Editors. Princeton (in press).
221. Rondanelli, R., V. Thayalan, R. S. Lindzen, and M. T. Zuber (2006) Atmospheric contribution to the dissipation of the gravitational tide of Phobos on Mars. Accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.
222. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Is there a basis for global warming alarm? In press in Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto (Ernesto Zedillo, editor), Yale University Press.
223. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Quelques observations sur la répartition des juifs dans Paris intra-muros. Submitted to L’Arche.
224. Lindzen, R.S. and R. Rondanelli (2006) On the need for normalizing satellite cloud data when applying results to climate. In preparation
225. Rondanelli, R. and R.S. Lindzen (2006) Reexamination of Iris Effect using TRMM and Kwajalein Ground Radar, In Preparation.
226. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Climate of Fear, Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2006.
227. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006.
228. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Debunking the Myth. Business Today, 43, 66-67.
229. Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen (2006)

I believe that so called global warming is a scam designed to get "rich" people and "rich" countries to pony up billions of dollars.

OTOH I doesn't take a genius to figure out that we cannot burn  nonrenewable sources of energy indefinitely without consequences.

He doesn't seem to be the same happy openminded soul he was just a short few weeks ago. He is starting to develop the same type of intolerance for other's opinion that is endemic with partisans. I'd hate to lose one of our (left leaning) independents to the dark side of partisanship.

Wormwood, you really need to take a pill dude. You know the saying "you can disagree without being disagreeable". I've always liked you inspite of our political differences. You might want to go back and reread some of your posts of late. There is a markedly different tone to them of late.

is taxing .... pun intended.  let's face it, if you don't control energy, the source, processing or distribution - there are few ways to make money off of energy.  Unless (and here is the big punch line) you create an artificial niche for a product, such as carbon credits... then you can make money selling nothing.  No energy, no services, not nuttin.

And - if (and again here is the punch line) you really believe that CO2 causes global warming (if it exists) then it is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and not the source of emission, such as 1st world vs. 3rd world) that is the problem and the ONLY way to maintain, slow or halt the increase in CO2 emissions is to decrease them, and not shift who makes them...

something that Al, the no bell idiot savant, Gore forgets to tell his 3rd world buddies...  but then again, the Chinese and Indians are exempt.... but the Chinese don't worry as they have the special effects folk just image in air quality.... kinda like they did for the olympics...  right....

A realistic energy program however, Is a mandate for the following reasons:
1) maintenance of our standard of living.
2) sovereignty
3) the environment in general (not just global warming)
4) National security
5) the ability to continue to provide equal opportunities to our citizenry.

Our technology support should pour into research and development of alternatice sources and uses of energy - at the highest funding level available...  Universities should be mandated under all of the federal grand and funding programs to dedicate a specific percentage of faculty time to the endeavor.  Tax abatement should be granted to ALL companies dedicated to the effort, and most important -  the public needs to be educated, informed and convinced that this is top priority...

but hey?  Can politicians be honest?  or even educated?

which is why the somewhat moderate response I first gave... truth is, I just don't know.  And even if I pretended to know, I would then not know what caused it, or what failed to cause it...  (example, suppose we were going into a cooling period - caused by a decrease in solar activity, BUT simultaneously - greenhouse gases caused a stabilization or increase in temperature... voila, no global warming would be deteced - when in fact, there was gloabal warming occuring... this has been discussed in some articles I have read.)  

Questions posed - in the manner that MRB did, eilicit thoughtful responses, which I do appreciate... and permits folk to express doubt, when they don't think they are being attacked...

But to say one is too stupid to have read the literature...?  gimme a break...  I've read several books, INCLUDING one on the economics of global warming... now there is a page turner... Bwahahaha!!!

"but hey?  Can politicians be honest?  or even educated?"

NO and NO

Two comments

The Chinese may or may not use "special effects". They may just tell Al Gore & Co to Fuck Off!!!

Doesn't Al Gore's carbon credit scam reming you of religion? Charge money and give nothing in return except some type of false sense of having done something.

One last comment, I agree completely on taxing both universities and churches. One of the best ideas for raising revenues I've heard. Both groups would definitely fall into the category of "tax the rich"

Science is not about the majority shouting down the minority. Science is not about trying to silence the minority from doing research, from publishing, from speaking. . .

Oh wait a minute. I guess it IS!

You are actually 'coming around' WW. You did NOT claim that human activity is CAUSING global warming.

Oh and BTW, didn't you get the memo from the left? It's not GW anymore. It's called Climate Change.

GW does not come about...lol!  I mean after all, who will remember what the scare was when it is cold... we have no energy to keep us warm... and well, climate change fits an ice age as well...

smooth move by the left... smooth.

Wormwood only reads those journals that agree with his personal opinion.

I beleive that average global temperatures have increased by a few degrees in recent years. That much can be observed and documented, so there is little cause for debate. So yes, overall, the globe IS a little warmer, even though in some areas average yearly temperatures have dropped very slightly.

What I have a very difficult time believing, and what science absolutely cannot prove, is the notion that we mere humans are the sole source of rising temperatures. Just as a single example, let us not forget that in centuries and millennia past, forest fires burned unchecked over vast forest lands for not just days or weeks, but MONTHS before we humans were around to put them out. The resulting carbon dioxide dumped in the air far away outpaces the amount we humans contribute with our fossil fuel burning cars. If vast forest fires that occurred on every continent every year couldn't cause global warming, it is difficult to imagine that we humans could do what mother nature could not.

Furthermore, the even greater question is: If global warming is a reality, can we realistically do anything to slow or reverse the process? My answer to that is a resounding NO, and I have to chuckle when I say it. Lets be honest here. If we humans ARE causing global warming, do you really think that making minor changes in our behavior is going to stop it?? If we are the cause of global warming, it would take changes on the scale of returning to caves in order to reverse it.

Having said all of that though, yes I fully support efforts to dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels and reduce the resulting pollution. If there is any doubt about the overwhelming effect of total disregard for environmental pollution, go and look at some of the coverage of the Olympics in Beijing. I recall one camera shot in particular where a cameraman filmed some reporter standing in front of Tiananmen Square. The camera panned out, and the haze of pollution was so thick, you could not see the other side of the square. Tiananmen Square is huge, but not THAT huge. That is what having total disregard for the environment and air quality will do.

it's too damn hot to worry about stuff like that

But everybody is on to them so they're going to get stopped in their tracks.  Sarah Palin is going to kick their butts.

Climate change is caused by that solar index stuff.

Just too lazy. Much easier to get your opinion given to you by Rush, Hannity and the rest of the echo chamber.

Bizarro, you've read all those articles you posted the bibliographic info for? No? Oh.

And GG, shrill? Nah. That's just the word you righties use when someone stands up and calls you folks on your uninformed views.

Next, maybe I'll be called uppity.

-- Modified on 9/12/2008 11:23:02 PM

Assuming, arguendo, that it is real, the questions are what caused it and can people do anything about it?

An additional question remains whether the United States could do anything about it considering the increases in emissions in China, India, and Russia, exanding their energy consumption at a huge rate in the dirtiest manners possible.  (Check out the number of dirty coal power plants that China opens each month.)

It may well be that if we turn every US freeway into a bike path, those three countries will make up for any difference and continue the rate of global warming, if it exists.

(And of course the last question that seems to be coming into play is whether global warming existed, but is over.  Some scientists in Russian, Mexico, and other places are predicting a cooling period begining. May sound silly, but so did global warming when it was a new idea.)

-- Modified on 9/13/2008 6:30:17 AM

Wormwood, WTF is up with you lately?

You righties???

We don't always agree, but since when do you consider me one of the Rush, Hannity following Righties?

I've always treated you with respect, what have I done to incur your ire?

as I said in my post - in some of the articles - artificial masking of the greenhouse effect is discussed... Rush Hannity and other talk - did they write these articles - are they the top meteorlogical hurrican expert at colorodo state????  Where - EVER do I quote Rush or Hannity - I DO QUOTE Gray and Pielke(I find Rush boring, Hannity to be mean spirited, Beck, well what can you say about him, he is funny, but only because he is certifiable....  lol... but the left leaning mainstream media also is biased....), The GODDARD SPACE CENTER is kinds funded by the TAXES of those folk.... and that is the source of some of my opinion get it dude... THE GODDAMN GODDARD SPACE CENTER!

as to reading the articles,  as I say, I've read some of them, as I have access to university libraries.... AS DO YOU!!!

I read in a typical week about 50-100 articles A FRICKIN WEEK and edit a couple more, and review research proposal (about 2-5 PER FRICKIN WEEK)

What do you read, the box top from Captn Crunch?

As I say, IF you read the literature, you will learn that there actually two sides to these arguments - AND YOU WILL ALSO LEARN THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS!
1) Global warming
2) That it is MANMADE (if it exists)

You will also learn that there is an increasing number of scientists who are in the middle... they simply say we've not enough info to make assertive statements either way.

Heck, EVEN AL, GOD OF ALL TECHNOLOGY, GORE in his lucid moments, will state, "Even if we do not know that global warming exists and is manmade, by the time we have the proof to act, it will be too late."  NOW THAT, dude, is an honest statement.  But it is uttered rarely and you REALLY REALLY have to listen to hear him say it... But then again, most of us only hear what supports our belief... me?  I am a techno junkie, and like to read the lit.

Dude, be honest, the guy commented on scientific lit.... I doubt that he expected ANYONE to actuallly be aware of the mass of scientific lit out there that fails to support, and actually teaches the opposite of global warming and the related man-made issue.  When I say open and honest debate, I mean it should include ALL the data, ALL the opinion and all the potential interpretations of the data.

Second, "Some scientists in Russian, Mexico, and other places are predicting a cooling period begining."  Expand your list to include Colorado... lol - see my post above...

Countries which are most technologically advanced but fossil fuels with the greatest efficiency...  How about providing that technology to China, india and other up and commers, as a way to "carbon credit" balance restoration... that makes bunches of more sense than simple payments to Gore and his ilk.

We gotta get a grip on logical and HONEST exploration of all the threats to our existance.  If we don't - future intelligent beings looking a the fossil record of earth, will wonder, what killed off the humanoids in only a few short years.... much as we wonder what killed off the dinosaures in only a short period of time....

was directed toward the post to which I replied, not yours.

No ire toward you but I do find your accusation of shrillness interesting. That seems to be the predominant tenor on this board and I do like to fit in so....

who padded his research with tons of articles he'd never read?

I'm guessing an F.


Do you read and edit articles related to climate change or in another area? If in another area, then you have no more expertise in the area than any other layman.

Nice ad hominem with the Cap'n Crunch comment. That's always a favorite logical fallacies employed by people who don't actually desire dialog and tells me much about whether you actually know anything about the topic or not.

FYI, I've been interested in global climate change for a long time and get my info primarily from Nature and Science where I found this article which directly addresses your assertion that there is no consensus.
" Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

FWIW, I have 3 grad degrees, one in econ, so I'm intimately familiar with research methods and sifting through BS like your post. Nice try, though.

The list of papers I provided as well as the names of respected climatologists do not agree with the assertion of man-made GW.  Indeed, in my previous posts, I have quoted the authors of the much cited IPCC report, wherein the conclusions were authored, not by the scientists, but rather by bureaucrats and politicians.  Go figure.  I also provided a link to the story wherein some of the scientific authors of the IPCC report - have requested the removal of their names from the report.... Go figure.

What would I give a student who was aware of papers and their conclusions, and cited them appropriately... same as I would a student who did read every paper... A, B, C, or whatever based upon the quality of the work...

Now, and this is IMPORTANT TO YOU since YOU want to know, the real question is what grade would I give a student whose research quoted only out of date papers... and therefore reached an erroneous conclusion, or failed to see the error in the previously quoted publication... answer 2 letter grades lower...  ok?

Now why this is important to you!  you quote the paper 2004 Science article by Naomi Oreskes...  who drew upon the literature using the search term "Global Climate Change" as opposed to the more inclusive "Climate change."  This led her to believe that there were 928 or so papers...  And by the way, did ya notice that she failed to read the papers.  Her work was based largely only on the abstracts - and NOT the work, conclusions or discussions contained within the work.  So, talk about NOT reading the lit!  BWAHAHAHAHA... I've written reviews, and I can tell you that reading all the papers is a mind daunting task.  In sum, her work was subsequently corrected by Science (Science (2005) 307:5708; 355).  When including the broader term, one finds significantly more publications on the subject (thousands) with opposing views... In short, and and all scientific findings that fail to support the political "dogma" is ignored.  

But EVEN IF you accept Naomi's original work (is she that hot???) it contains the flaw that it has an unprovable conclusion... that 1) Global warming exists (beyond cycles due to other forces in nature) and that it has an anthrophomopic cause... in short, she fails to differentiate between causal, and correlative...

but hey, with all those degrees.... ya probably knew that one already...

My point about your "shrillness" was meant to convey that you seem to be rather pissed off as of late. As you've correctly pointed out, you are hardly the only one.

Some of the other posters like MRB and RR I don't really give a fuck about, but I consider you a friend and I am relieved none of this anger is directed at me.

Peace

some of these same "Chicken Littles" were predicting that greenhouse gas emissions would cause a man made "ice age" instead. lol

or probably more accurate, Aimed at.

First, Hannity - I find him totally offensive, and while he is on as I drive home in the PM, I am far more inclined to listen to prarie home companion on disk... it sooths my mind, as I deal with traffic on a 1 1/2 hour trek home, because the democratic run city hall in my home town refuses to reinstate light rail to my home... that's right folk, a perfectly good railroad track (that is active for freight) runs directly behind my house.... and runs right to my work place... but they shut it down... and we complain about saving gas.... Dems... phuleese... ya wanna do somthin about global warming?? then do it...

Rush!  Bwahahaha... First he is on when I am at work... you?  second, he has NO empathy for those who have demonstrated a bit of human frailty... But then, he has those moments too - and apologize?  for all his comments on others... NEVER!  first the pain killer episode... then... VIAGRA!???  wha...   what a buffoon...

but I guess you think I listen to the others... Don't!  ok...  My opinion on GW was largely triggered by the fact that the suggested solutions do NOT make any sense whatsoever, they only serve to penalize those who use energy.  

IF one really believes in GW and that it is totally man made... the solution is fairly simple... reduce the human population - across the board... no exceptions for china, India - and the you're-a-peeings will have to honor their committements of C emission reduction - which to date, they have not.

ok?  that do it for ya!  

and I still stand by my post - that open and honest debate, taking ALL the data into account is the only real way to go about finding out what is going on with the planet... you cannot cherry pick your data, as did ms. Naomi.

-- Modified on 9/14/2008 5:58:12 PM

The correction was minor. Orestes wrote that she used the search term "climate change" when she actually used the search term "global climate change". That has no impact on her observations.

In addition, you are apparently citing Benny Peiser's claim that he tried to replicate Oreskes' work and found that 34 articles specifically refuted the consensus view. I've read those 34 articles and only 1 specifically refutes Oreskes' assertion on consensus and that 1 article is not peer reviewed and is from a petroleum engineers' publication. Surprise. The other articles either express some skepticism concerning statistical analysis or policymaking or incomplete data, not skepticism about global climate change or anthropogenic causes.

And, before you cite Bray's survey which supposedly shows that there is a great deal of skepticism rather than consensus, please note that the survey was on-line and anonymous making it useless in terms of actual research. In addition, his survey actually shows significant consensus that global warming is occurring and that human activity is at least a major cause.

You set up a pretty frail straw man in your last paragraph. Orestes was not trying to show any causal or correlative relationships, merely to show that consensus existed among the vast majority of climate scientists as to the existence of global warming and human causality. She did that.

2004 is out of date? Hmmm. What about the articles you cite in your list that date back to 1965? Oops!! BTW, where did that list come from? Did you compile is yourself or nick it from some right wing source. Tell the truth now!

I also can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question about the nature of your expertise. Are all those articles you review and edit concerned with climate change?

I am royally pissed off at being subjected to the circus that we think is a political race. I'm disgusted that we have to wade through the BS of whether Michelle Obama loves America as much as Sarah Palin or Bristol Palin's pregnancy rather than any semblance of national dialog about policies that mean something. I should be immune to the BS but I'm not. I'll have to work on that. Maybe a good session with a particularly lovely young blonde lady I'm thinking of will provide momentary solace.

But, I mainly seemed pissed off because it's easier to get under the skin of the right wing nut jobs here that way.

But, if you really want to make sure I'm not pissed at you, you could take me along on your next soiree down south! All expenses paid, of course. LOL!

I thought that the number of papers used, 900 or so, was light in terms of the number of papers published on hot topics... it is.  Using only part of the available lit, is a bit dishonest.... especially if you are trying to Prove Your Point.  

The citations are actually from the CV of Richard Lindzen - noted meteorologist who has been somewhat outspoken on the lopsided political agenda concerning GW.  He is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  In short, no lightweight.  I provide his background of publications -(redacted by the way) to provide evidence of his appropriate expertise... and yea, some of his stuff is a pretty good read.... but some of it is dry...

You claim that Orestes went in depth on her research... she did not.  she only went - did a quick lit search - something I do every day... and then read only the abstracts... she has no concept of how the research was conducted and if it was valid... and if the conclusions are supported by the data in the paper.  and please do not give me that crap about peer reviewed... found too many papers that are "peer reviewed" that have to be retracted, corrected or flat out burried.... oh, PNAS - technically is NOT peer reviewed... but guess what, its a rush to publish there!

The other citation that i provided dealt with Chris Landsea's resignation from the UN-sponsored climate assessment team because his group’s leader had politicized the process.

Sorry, but from where I sit... this is not concensus....

As far as Orestes... she is trying to prove a "scientific fact" with concensus... you tell me, is that a valid scientific method?  be careful how you answer that - in the 1920's there was 'scientific' concensus in this country (USA) that the practice of Eugenics was not only ok, but moral.  go figure.

and again, I cannot stress this enough, some of the current data, may be coincidental - or it could be causal - it is sometimes hard to separate those out.  She does not even bring up the problem.  Her paper is self-admittedly politically biased.  and there is your biggest clue as to how supportable the science in it is.  

Finally, as to what I do, currently, and for the past 7 or so years, investigate fraud in academic institutions that receive some form of governmental funding - mostly in bio sci... but also in the physical sciences as well.  You'd be amazed at what turns up.  

and that is another reason I look at this with a somewhat skeptical eye....  folks have lost jobs just for having an opinion... and that is never a good idea... people worry about book burning.  me, I worry about burning ideas and concepts that differ.  Even if they are every bit as valid as those in a position of power.

can I do much about what I find?  no, I can only hope that it can be brought to light.  Is it done in an official capacity - yup.

decent candidates, discussion of real issues, and honest debate on various proposed courses of action...  that would be great.

Instead - we get this.  I blame us all. for putting up with it and for not demanding more of our elected officials.... we get - that which we deserve.

Me? I'd settle for a nice evening - watching the Eagles stomp on the Cowboys... with a lovely wench on my lap.... feeding me wings and LI Ice tea...

keeps dummies from making pronouncements about their regions cooling and thus negating the idea that the planet is overall becoming warmer. As you are no doubt aware, as the warming continues some areas will get cooler due to shifts in things like El Nino.

Anyway, it's not the left which changed the terminology, it's the scientific community.

The number of scientists who were predicting a new ice age was extremely small and the idea was not considered serious by the vast majority of climate scientists. The ice agers were wrong and the scientific consensus was correct.

Kind of like now.

A good refutation of Lindzen's latest.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/

If there is no consensus on these issues, then can you point me to any national academy of sciences or other major climate research organization (not funded by energy interests such as the Marshall Institute) which rejects the consensus?

Thanks for taking the time to actually discuss your positions (even if they are wrong). That's refreshing on this board.

as they get.  I was a part of the hearings at the NAS in the early 80's concerning the use of animals in biomedical research.  Wow!  now that was a politically driven agenda if EVER there was one, it made Congressional hearings seem sane by comparison.  All that was missing was Bozo the Clown.  

There are number of scientists, from countries other than the US, who also have problems with the assertions of manmade global warming....   and remember, I'm NOT saying that it does not exist, and if you read hiw work, for the most part, neither is Lindzen.  I AM saying that it is very hard to rule out coincidence - and if you review data such as that concerning Mars, and other planetary bodies, how do you account for their surface temperature increases, if only it is earth - and manmade... that assertion (to me and others at least) just does not take into account the totallity of the data.

Closed minded...?  I get called closed minded - just for having an open mind... which is what most of the scientist who disagree are.

By the way, You've not addressed the issue with scientists asking that their names be taken off teh IPCC report.  Why do you suppose they requested that?

I guess we will just have to disagree.

-- Modified on 9/15/2008 7:11:37 AM

Since it's quasi- governmental organization. However, it's interest is primarily in advancing science and it's lead primarily by scientists. The National Association of Manufacturers is political, too. Do you automatically discount any information which comes from them or their 'scientists'? Also, I asked about any national academy of any nation. Are all national academies controlled by corrupt politicians and therefore unbelievable?

There are a number of scientists who are skeptics, some honestly so. Many others are paid skeptics who derive their income from organizations directly supported by energy companies and the like. Baliunas, Paul Reiter, Tim Ball etc. are good examples.

You're not using the list of scientists disseminated by The Heartland Institute, are you? That list contains many, many names of scientists who agree with the consensus.

As for Mars, etc.  I agree with the folks at Realclimate.org. We know too little about the earth yet to be trying to figure out why Mars is warming.

As for me, personally, I lack the expertise to state whether global warming is definitely due to human activity but that hasn't been part of my discussion here. All I am saying is that a definite consensus exists among the scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals, who belong to various national academies, and who direct major professional organizations such as the American Meterological Association, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, etc.  You can cite the few skeptics all you want but that doesn't change the fact that consensus exists.

the warming on Mars is another fact.... incase you've not thought of it, and it has been pointed out above, Gloabal Warming, can ONLY occur if the sun is shining.... and sometimes, the sun, it shine a bit brighter... and make it warmer.... perhaps that might be why mars is warming?  I dunno - cycles.... we are talking about cycles here.