Thread: Cold and Snow VS Global Warming

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I'm the conspiracy theorist?

Obviously, yes.

You're the one proposing that more ice is forming despite the fact that the water is getting warmer. You explain to me how more ice forms in warmer climate.

Im not proposing that at all. NASA is proposing it. NASA is suggesting that the ozone hole is effecting wind patterns which is in turn causing a slight increase in sea ice.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

I’ll begin with your websites: Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism
How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic : A Few Things Ill Considered
I have been to these before and I am well aware that they are specifically set up to aid the AGW fanatic in their attempt to mystify with scientific jargon those who have not done their homework. You complain about my use of “certain unacceptable” websites, but it is alright for you to continue to present links to obviously biased websites with the purpose to provide the true believer with ammunition to attack those that do not accept the dogma of AGW.

You are so full of shit. Those sites reference the science directly, skepticalscience itself is purely scientific and moderates out all unwarranted or uninformed "alarmism" and all political comments. The other site is more political but it references the actual state of the science.

Then address: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? | ScienceBits
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf

The first one is not peer reviewed. But regardless i would only ask you how it is that CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere? (im surprised you do not see the absurdity in that guys theory).

Closer. The second one is actually more interesting but the correlation between cosmic rays and global warming is just not there. Here:

It's cosmic rays

This references almost all of the actual scientific discussion on the cosmic ray connection.

The correlation ends after 1970. It does not explain recent warming. Hence, this does not invalidate the theory or stand up to any wider scrutiny.

The third one is also a common argument from skeptics but it also does not stand up to any scrutiny either. The problem is that prior to 1940 and after the LIA the climate was driven by natural forces mainly, i.e. volcanoes and the sun. Those two factors do not explain current warming. Akasofu proposes no other mechanism that could be causing this "recovery". Indeed, talking about recovery in climate is sort of nonsensical anyway since there is no one right or correct state for the climate.

We're coming out of an ice age

The research presented in the above has been in peer review journals and each of these individuals are respected scientists in their fields.

none of which are actually climate scientists though, but nice try anyway.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf
While Wegman's report has not been in a peer reviewed journal, why would it be since the report was specifically done for a Congressional committee, it has been reviewed by acknowledged experts in the field of statistical analysis. Of course, since it is further evidence of how flawed Mann’s work is and how corrupted the paleoclimatologist community is and also confirms Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit you’ll probably ignore it, present some thing from the Skepticalscience website or Mann’s website, or just insult me again.

Yet the NAS confirmed its conclusions and any legitimate criticisms were corrected in subsequent studies and had no effect on the indication of rapid 20th century hemispheric warming. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?

Also, the wegman study is turning out to be a plagiariazed and wrongly-cited piece of political witch hunting.

Wegman (and Rapp) on tree rings: A divergence problem (part 1) Deep Climate

Neither of these nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter) are “some guys pet theories.” The first is a respected scientist calling for a complete investigation into the IPCC and its corrupt practices and methods, while the second is the resignation letter of a respected scientist to the IPCC out of disgust for the IPCC methods.

Yes they are. What original science have they produced? Have they doner anything but issue PR statements? I know in at least one case they lost all credibility by lying and have not corrected themselves to regain any credibility.

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends : Deltoid

You keep accusing me of being a conspiracy theories, yet you keep claiming that there is this disinformation campaign and that industry interests are behind all of the “deniers” efforts to debunk AGW

.

There is a disinformation campaign, run by some of the same people who denied tobacco caused cancer. Using the same tactics that anti-vaccination people use, that creationists use, etc.. Here:

Global warming skepticism is fueled by public relations, author says / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

and here:

The Lippard Blog: Who are the climate change skeptics?

I wrote: “No, you have provided mythic beliefs dressed up in scientific drag. After reading nearly a hundred books, reading hundreds of web pages, looking at hundreds of mag articles I have come to the conclusion that AGW is at best an unproven theory and at worse a mythic belief.

Right, you can right that all you want and you are still uninformed, massively.

Please present a link to a peer reviewed journal that does not require me to pay for the access or be a member of a scientific organization. Oh, how often have you provided a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal rather than one of your AGW propagnada sites or a politicized government organization with an agenda?

Every single link i provide on the science of global warming references the actual peer reviewed studies and provides the links directly to the studies or their abstracts. But thanks for proving that you don't even look at them.. hardly surprising.

I wrote: “No one engaged in attacking an innocent respected scientist when they critizied Mann and his flawed and debunked hockey stick.”

Yes they did.

You mean like giving them the runaround about data or the code he used to make his stick? You mean like the very flawed code he used that would make random noise generate a hockey stick? You mean like being an editor of the IPCC’s 2001 report so he could include his hockey stick? Right now evidence whatsoever.

Right, you are doing the same thing now, i.e. repeating myths that are either flat out lies or misinformed gibberish.

Respond to this if you can:

RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

Oh, I am sure you believe that it is science and you believe that you are providing facts, but really it would be easier to show you the few times that you are presenting something other than religious dogma.

Im providing the actual science, would you care to show me otherwise? Or are you just being completely dishonest again?

I wrote: The hockey stick is junk science.

I know, and you are wrong.

1) There is no consensus about AGW. Period.

There is though. You are being dishonest again.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

2) The validity of a theory is not determined by consensus.

True, so why do you keep bringing it up?

3) We have seen what happens when science becomes politicized and when a so-called crisis is used to further an ideology.

Right, yet you keep citing the Wegman report which precisely marks the shift to politicizing this issue. Funny how you can't even recognize that.

Andrew

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I think that's a bit of hyperbole, don't you? If problems become serious enough the supposed man-made causes will go away. This will be either by our own self-correcting actions or via that culling of humans and society to a large enough degree that we wouldn't have the numbers or ability to damage the environment. Remember, we had an extinction even, already, and it didn't kill all life. Tons of life survived, everything you see today is a result of that survival. Humans are sentient and advanced creatures, we'd be able to survive much better than non-sentient life forms. Humans, in worst case scenario, are not threatened with extinction.

You seem to be disagreeing with yourself. An extinction event could very easily happen that would eliminate humanity. Warmer temperatures mean new diseases. All it takes is one virus with the right set of characteristics.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Just what ARE the policies being demanded? All I've heard so far is stuff like Cap and Trade and Kyoto protocols. Now, despite all the propaganda this site comes up with on that they don't really look like very much more than we are eventually going to have to do anyway.

Here are two reports from the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy on the economic impact of either the Kyoto Protocols or Cap and Trade legislature
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/pdf/kyotobrf.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/44xx/doc4...9-CapTrade.pdf

Bjorn Lomborg, a person who does believe in AGW, but does not agree with the doomsday fears and does not accept the policy recommendation of the IPCC analyzes the potential damage to both people and the costs to the economies of the world of a Kyoto like program. Its not pretty and even more, using the IPCC’s own numbers such a program would only delay the alleged warming that would occur in a hundred years by six years at a cost of trillions.
Amazon.com: The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (9780521010689): Bjorn Lomborg: Books
Amazon.com: Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming (9780307266927): Bjørn Lomborg: Books

Either from the expense of the resource running out, as with oil, or from the other environmental costs, as with coal and other fossil fuels.

The fears of peak oil are over inflated. We have a few hundreds of years worth of oil, several hundreds of years of natural gas, and thousands of years of coal. Two hundred years ago the main sources for energy in the Western world was muscle, wind, water, and the burning of wood and dung. One hundred years ago, wood and dung was dropped from the list and coal was added. Seventy-five years ago oil was added, lowering our levels of coal use. Shortly after that natural gas was added, limiting our use of coal even more. At no time was massive governmental programs required for these changes to occur, all of it was market driven. Each energy source gives off less and less carbon and each is cleaner regarding particulates and other real pollutants. We could with nuclear power truly end our dependency on Arab oil and have an energy source that gives off no greenhouse gases.

The scientists are "demanding" in other words. that we do slightly more rapidly what we are going to have to do in a few years anyway.

At a cost in trillions for the economies of the world, with dire consequences for the poor world wide for no real benefit in the long run for us or the environment.

I almost see your point with the validity of the info. Climatology is a physical science, yes, but my understanding is it's not like celestial mechanics where nearly everything is known and accounted for, but more like medicine, where despite a very large and rapidly growing body of knowledge we still can't cure cancer or the common cold.

However, I am going to continue to use a doctor with an accredited license, not seek out someone who says he can cure cancer with diet and exercise just because chemotherapy is unpleasant.

AGW advocates are like someone who is claiming that they can cure cancer by regulating our diet. Al Gore claims that the world has a fever and he has the cure. Garbage.

All else being said, given the really dire possibilities;

What dire possibilities? The doomsday scenarios have no scientific foundation supporting them.

is paying an extra 10 cents a gallon a year sooner WORTH possibly flooding most major Coastal areas in the world?

There is no evidence to support such a claim. In spite of what Al Gore says, not even the IPCC predicts such a thing. The costs of putting such things as Kyoto or Cap and Trade into practice would be a lot higher than just an extra 10 cents a gallon of gas. There would also be no real benefit to such programs even if you could get every nation on board.

tashi deleks,

M