Global Warming....laugh...laugh...laugh

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Hi drbulltrout

 

Mellow out a little as it is Christmas after all. Asking someone to stop communicating just because you do not like the subject is lame. I will continue to respect your threads and your comments that add value to the discussion.

 

This board is set up to discuss anything. All hijacking aside and regardless of the credibility of doing that to other threads...if you do not like reading it don't. If you prefer others to treat your threads the same...then fair game it is.

 

I for one would just like to hear some interesting arguments and do not take other people opinions personally. This may not be the best debate forum but at least we get people thinking.

 

Those who truly feel there is irrefutable evidence proving global warming is man made then more power to them if their mind is now totally closed. Only time will say otherwise as I can not say it is necessarily proven either way for me contrary to what someone might think.

 

Cheers.

 

Kevin

[ladystrange]

it's all DBT's fault!

 

 

he can't stop farting

[Guest Sundancefisher]

LOL...what ever the case is at least it ain't warm this winter... I feel the need for ice.

[ladystrange]

i feel the need to a cold beer and a deck chair in the bahamas... oh wait. i'm doing that in january. i'm hoping for global warming on my trip. and then a short winter when i get back

[bulltrout]

kevin...just for the record, i was being mellow (hard to tell with the smilie at the end i know) ...and i'm not trying to get anyone to stop communicating (i would just like to hear new points and views rather than quotes and references from any news article found out there)...ask clive, i just hate GW is all ...nothing personal...another "the earth is round" arguments IMO...personally kevin, after reading your last post, i think YOU need to mellow ...LS...the beano ain't workin'...

[TimD]

If you have not stopped and thought about looking up the contradictory information then I might as well stop cause your mind is made up. The fact is there is no concrete information period either way. If you can admit that then we can go onto individual studies. Of those 10,000...how many do they have concrete historical data on ice area, thickness and growth or lack thereof. We all know there are lots of glaciers. There are also lots of trees. One can only study a few in great detail and saying two dying trees in a forest of thousand does not mean the extinction of the forest. By putting a long term forcast based upon this scenario is taking science to a useless path as it is not science but pure guessing and speculation. Same goes for glaciers.

 

Answer me this if you can...why are any glaciers growing in Canada at all?

 

Kevin,

 

All I am trying to do, as I am sure we all are, is protect against people who make wild accusations without backing up what they say. I would feel a little more comfortable about your position if you directly answered questions.

 

Regards,

 

Tim

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Kevin,

 

All I am trying to do, as I am sure we all are, is protect against people who make wild accusations without backing up what they say. I would feel a little more comfortable about your position if you directly answered questions.

 

Regards,

 

Tim

 

I posted the link on which glaciers are growing as of last year. I suspect with the cooling climate over the next 100 years...more will grow also.

 

Now can you explain why you think some glaciers in the world are growing if all is doom and gloom?

[reevesr1]

Get your parkas. The next ice age peaks in 80K years.

 

Interesting article in the New York Times:

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C1A9659C8B63

[ladystrange]

i think it started 2 weeks ago

[kylegs]

It's been proven that long-term weather predictions cannot be viable, In fact, Chaos Theory was discovered by attempting to model weather.

 

 

Ahhh, gotta love that Jurassic Park science.

[TimD]

I posted the link on which glaciers are growing as of last year. I suspect with the cooling climate over the next 100 years...more will grow also.

 

Now can you explain why you think some glaciers in the world are growing if all is doom and gloom?

 

Brother,

 

You posted that 2 out of like 10,000 are growing so there is 99.98% chance of a glacier receding; which by no coincidence means that it is warmer for glaciers now than it was. In other words, there is global warming. For you to support your side you should have evidence that says 99.98% of the glaciers are getting bigger - ergo - the world is getting cooler.

 

Just saying the other side is wrong does not help your argument one bit. In fact only being able to find a minuscule number of growing glaciers in Canada is strong evidence that global warming does exist and I am pretty sure that some tree-huggers have sent thank-you notes for supporting their case.

 

group hug,

 

Tim

[reevesr1]

This is like the John Bonham of posts. It just won't stay dead!

[ladystrange]

but it's warmer today

[reevesr1]

but it's warmer today

Hey LS, I'm gonna wait a couple of days and then call you out again on the Cuba post so we can revive it too. Be prepared.

 

By the way, did you notice that 9 out of 10 of the top North American cities to live in were in the States? It there really was global warming, then many of those southern cities would be too hot to live in, ergo global warming is a myth. Also, if too many people there were really loud and obnoxious then those cities couldn't have rated so high on the quality of life scale, so most of the people in the states must be nice and pleasant. Who would have guessed that one silly little study would end two raging arguments on an obscure fly fishing website. I mean, what are the odds.

 

I'm just sayin.....

[Taco]

Sigh**

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Brother,

 

You posted that 2 out of like 10,000 are growing so there is 99.98% chance of a glacier receding; which by no coincidence means that it is warmer for glaciers now than it was. In other words, there is global warming. For you to support your side you should have evidence that says 99.98% of the glaciers are getting bigger - ergo - the world is getting cooler.

 

Just saying the other side is wrong does not help your argument one bit. In fact only being able to find a minuscule number of growing glaciers in Canada is strong evidence that global warming does exist and I am pretty sure that some tree-huggers have sent thank-you notes for supporting their case.

 

group hug,

 

Tim

You still can not explain why some glaciers in the world are growing. As for your 10,000 comment...most of those are not studied so one can not say they are shrinking, growing or staying the same. Saying anything else is false fear mongering just like a typical global warming zealot.

 

The point you side stepped is if some glaciers are growing and some are shrinking it means that some areas are getting warmer and some are getting colder. Strange to have variabiliy and change in the weather and temperature patterns...isn't it. If you argue global warming then ALL glacier should be shrinking and NONE should be growing. Ergo then something else must be driving temperature patterns. Combine that with a natural temperature cycle which includes periods of greater warmth than we are experiencing now and cold never before been experienced...who knows what mother nature will throw at us. I would rather be in a warmer cycle than a colder cycle. Colder cycles should have worse storm events as characterized by the energy created when two air masses of different temperatures collide. The greater difference between the two the worse the storm. In a warming event the temperature range is reduced therefore less severe the storms.

 

As for CO2...man made, volcano made, forest fire generated, natural methane release, general excessive farting aside, there is absolutely no proof that this is directly linked. CO2 levels have fluctuated over time also and this is not the high point by any means.

 

The only benefit we are possibly going to see from billions spent on global warming is maybe some reduction on actual toxic emmisions (which is great to see). Otherwise the billions/trillions spent is a huge waste as millions of lives could of been saved with improved health care, food and clean water in the third world.

 

I absolutely will not be one of the lemmings jumping off a cliff just because chicken little Gore has all the headless chickens doing his own special happy dance.

 

I would love to see a website set up that has each sides points and counter points followed by peer review discussions and threads. Only through open discussion can earth's temperature truly be understood for what it is....highly variable and dynamic...

 

Sun

[Nadurra]

No opinions never die.

 

It always in the best interest of debate and change to have an arguement survive no matter how much evidence is accumulated, however, if these opinions potentialy threaten the common good they should be met with serious rebuke.

 

A recent docuntary done by the fifth estate examined the debate of Global Warming. I would suggest that both the sceptics and believers on this board watch it as it should help both groups understand the debate a little better, and where there debate came from.

 

Here is a brief overview:

 

In the past few years, a firestorm has engulfed the debate about global warming. This issue has pitted science against spin, with inflammatory words from both sides. Former Vice-President Al Gore’s recent Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his work on global warming, only served to heighten the rhetoric on both sides of the debate.

 

 

Some scientists believe that global warming will not be devastating to the planet. How could scientific fact, which many believe could determine the very future of the planet, become a political battleground, left versus right, environmentalist versus climate change sceptic?

 

Global warming: potential costs?

A 2006 British report estimated that the projected costs of global warming to be as costly as both world wars and the Great Depression added together. Yet, with such consequences, some scientists still insist that climate change, if it is happening at all, could be a good thing.

 

The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of a group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big Tobacco, and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies.

 

Who is keeping the debate of global warming alive?

The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies.

 

Here is a link:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Who is keeping the debate of global warming alive?

The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies.

 

Ahhh yes. The old paranoia of "must believe in conjecture and guess work on fanciful and expensive yet unreliable computer generated models". If you do not believe there is huge money to be made by corporations over global warming then you have missed out on the greatest lie.

 

Oil companies care less about hiding any factual global warming information than you would think. Oil prices are supply and demand. Alway was and always will be. Oil supplies are dwindling while demand is increasing...hense $94 oil. If a tax is placed upon oil, gas, gasoline etc... that cost gets applied to the consumer and this increase in price does, to a degree curtail commodity usage but not significantly unless it is severe. Make a severe hit to prices and you not only destroy the economy for the world but also ruin families, increase poverty which causing increase infant mortality and domestic problems etc. Severely limiting resource exploration and extraction in the first world will not only drive commodity prices up but will also drive up the weathy in the middle east while severely hurting the economy of Canada especially. Oil and gas production will be ramped up to a degree in the third world to offset. End result changes nothing in the world.

 

There is no reliable argument that global warming harms or helps the oil patch. If there is any spin doctors working it is to disspell the myth that there is concrete proof.

 

Blaming cigarette manufacturers is fun cause cigarettes kill people. CO2 is a natural occuring gas that you are currently breathing in right now. Still alive I am sure and CO2 is what makes your garden grow and puts all your food on the table. Once the atmosphere was thick with higher concentrations of CO2 and the earth was a lush warm world. A far cry from now and also a further cry from the ice ages.

 

Improving technology on CO2 sequestration and consequent tax benefits could solve a lot of the concern of the global warming zealots.

[Weedy1]

I would suggest that both the sceptics and believers on this board watch it as it should help both groups understand the debate a little better, and where there debate came from.

 

Nadurra, you must have missed the show on the old FFA board. Most, if not all, of the people "debating" the issue on this board have a very good understanding of what the debate is about since they either participated or followed the thread on the FFA board. The FFA thread came to life with every IPCC report released. It was a lot of fun. This debate hasn't even scratched the surface.

Throw a few logs on the fire, see where it goes.

[highplainsdrifter]

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

 

 

Make sure you click on the list of signatories at the bottom of the

letter. Quite a few PhD's in this group of Deniers. Does any one

suggest they have all sold their credentials to Big Oil?

 

Speaking of the Denial Machine

Funny , that CBCPravda couldn't find these guys when they made that

Propaganda piece. All they could dig up was Fred Singer (Did some work for Big tobacco)

And Tim Ball. The Anti Americanism, Anti Conservative, Anti Business rhetoric was

Classic CBCPravda

 

I complained to the CBC ombudsman when I first saw the Denial Machine,

about it's Bias and lack of Balance. That was a year ago November. They

have repeated the program at least six times since then. That is how propaganda

is done. I pointed out the fact that it was the Clinton administration that decided

not to Ratify Kyoto. They replied that it was a republican dominated senate at the

time, but they ignore the fact that the vote was 100% against ratification.

 

Talk about Denial.

 

John

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

Make sure you click on the list of signatories at the bottom of the

letter. Quite a few PhD's in this group of Deniers. Does any one

suggest they have all sold their credentials to Big Oil?

 

Speaking of the Denial Machine

Funny , that CBCPravda couldn't find these guys when they made that

Propaganda piece. All they could dig up was Fred Singer (Did some work for Big tobacco)

And Tim Ball. The Anti Americanism, Anti Conservative, Anti Business rhetoric was

Classic CBCPravda

 

I complained to the CBC ombudsman when I first saw the Denial Machine,

about it's Bias and lack of Balance. That was a year ago November. They

have repeated the program at least six times since then. That is how propaganda

is done. I pointed out the fact that it was the Clinton administration that decided

not to Ratify Kyoto. They replied that it was a republican dominated senate at the

time, but they ignore the fact that the vote was 100% against ratification.

 

Talk about Denial.

 

John

 

Those PHD'ers are all making money off this issue do you not agree? Can't blame them after all since when a call goes out that there is money available to study global warming effect...they too have families to feed. Those that oppose get less money that those that agree. People go to the side that pays the best. Simple economics even in science. The media inturn fuel the fire and hype everything from common storms to hurricanes. This season was supposed to be the WORST hurricane season on record solely because of global warming... A whimper later and none of them are saying things are less bleak than expected are they. Funny how people can scream the sky is falling when stuff happens to support their case in the publics eye but narry a mention from them when things are not worse...the same but rather significantly better.

 

People now blame landslides on global warming and not logging and poor agricultural practice and poor geography. People blame ice storms on global warming rather than natural occurrences. Gezz I even remember a report on CNN about how some people were blaming the last big tsunami on global warming (like anyone rational can say it is now effecting plate tectonics.

 

Anyways, I will love to compare this list of PHD's to the one when they all start believing global cooling is occurring. I am sure it will be the exact same list.

[reevesr1]

Couldn't resist this. I think this clip may have been on the site before, but it is certainly appropriate for this long running discussion. I particularly like the end....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox8cQZ0ojn4

[highplainsdrifter]

Dishonest political tampering with the science on global warming

 

- December 05, 2007

 

Christopher Monckton, Denpasar, Bali

 

As a contributor to the IPCC's 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate's alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year's Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

 

Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

 

My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report's first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC's bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.

 

The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC's published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.

 

The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for their homes. The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.

 

Recently a High Court judge in the UK listed nine of the 35 major scientific errors in Gore's movie, saying they must be corrected before innocent schoolchildren can be exposed to the movie. Gore's exaggeration of sea-level rise was one.

 

Others being peddled at the Bali conference are that man-made "global warming" threatens polar bears and coral reefs, caused Hurricane Katrina, shrank Lake Chad, expanded the actually-shrinking Sahara, etc.

 

At the very heart of the IPCC's calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: "The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005)." Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

 

Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once.

 

The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth's surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the "surface forcing"), and the temperature will scarcely respond.

 

That is why all of the IPCC's computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere "hot-spot", the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.

 

For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, "The science is settled", remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC's computer predictions. The IPCC's entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist.

 

Even if the Gore/IPCC exaggerations were true, which they are not, the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.

 

The international community has galloped lemming-like over the cliff twice before. Twenty years ago the UN decided not to regard AIDS as a fatal infection. Carriers of the disease were not identified and isolated. Result: 25 million deaths in poor countries.

 

Thirty-five years ago the world decided to ban DDT, the only effective agent against malaria. Result: 40 million deaths in poor countries. The World Health Organization lifted the DDT ban on Sept. 15 last year. It now recommends the use of DDT to control malaria. Dr. Arata Kochi of the WHO said that politics could no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the science and the data. Amen to that.

 

If we take the heroically stupid decisions now on the table at Bali, it will once again be the world's poorest people who will die unheeded in their tens of millions, this time for lack of the heat and light and power and medical attention which we in the West have long been fortunate enough to take for granted.

 

If we deny them the fossil-fuelled growth we have enjoyed, they will remain poor and, paradoxically, their populations will continue to increase, making the world's carbon footprint very much larger in the long run.

 

As they die, and as global temperature continues to fail to rise in accordance with the IPCC's laughably-exaggerated predictions, the self-congratulatory rhetoric that is the hallmark of the now-useless, costly, corrupt UN will again be near-unanimously parroted by lazy, unthinking politicians and journalists who ought to have done their duty by the poor but are now - for the third time in three decades - failing to speak up for those who are about to die.

 

My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the world's poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter.

 

The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds. He is a former adviser to UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher and is presenter of the 90-minute climate movie Apocalypse? NO! He can be reached at monckton@mail.com

 

 

Link Here http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydet...0071205.!15

[reevesr1]

Here is a blurb about Mr. Moncton in Wikipedia. The source is in the Wikipedia list of references.

In 1987, Monckton founded a consultancy company, Christopher Monckton Ltd., where he served as a director until he retired because of ill health in 2006. In 1999, he created and published the Eternity puzzle, a geometric puzzle which involved tiling a dodecagon with 209 irregularly shaped polygons called Polydrafters. A £1m prize was won after 18 months by two Cambridge mathematicians.[6] By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize;[6] he later admitted he fabricated the story as a publicity stunt.[7] A second puzzle, Eternity II, was launched on 28 July 2007, with a prize of $2 million.

 

Monckton's critics charge that "[his] science is self-taught and his paper qualifications nonexistent"[16] and that "he is trying to take on the global scientific establishment on the strength of a classics degree from Cambridge."[24] For his part, Monckton takes the view that it is "a very modern notion that you need paper qualifications to pronounce on anything and it comes from the socialist idea that people need to be trained in the official, accepted, dogmatic truths."[16]

 

If you continue to read the Wikipedia article, you will also learn that he was a newspaper editor. Anyway, we have a man who committed fraud, trained in Classics, a member of the mainstream media, and a conservative political adviser calling other scientists findings into questions. Not that any of this necessarily makes him wrong, but it does put his speech above in a bit of context.

 

Edit: And I think that him calling himself a co-laureate could be a bit of sarcasm on his part. But I could be mistaken....

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Did anyone dispute any of his comments?