Quoting di55ec7ion,

reply 15

Actually if you look closely into the statistical data you can obviously see that global warming is a direct effect of the shrinking number of Pirates. In fact it is the Flying Spagetthi Monster that is behind all this.

 

hah! you read dawkins as well? ^^.

 

the global warming is a fact. its not like you could not see it or know it by yourself. everyone knows that its real.

but the reason for that is not "Co2"... that only a marketing-slogan.

the reason is that we still are in a cold period of this planet, in something about the 14.000. year of this cold period which should already have ended for hundreds of years. now its slowly turning into the warmer periode... that is what i know about it. im not a geological but one of those (hes studing) tried to explain it for me so i would understand it as well as a novice...

First off the article you reference starts out with the following preface.

"Climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Within this general agreement, some individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that most of this warming is attributable to human activities."

So even the source you quote with the intention to "prove" that there is disagreement among climatologists as to the existence and cause of global warming admits the general consensus of said climatologists is that global warming does exist and is the result of human activity. In other words by it's own admission this is a list of the *exceptions* rather than the rule. Not really a good start to your so-called "proof".

Secondly you need to look at the various categories of disagreement. Let's start with the 3 names listed that believe that global warming is not occurring or has ceased. To me 3 people saying anything is not enough to warrant spending my time and effort trying to dispute but what the heck. Take the first name Timothy F. Ball. If you bothered to follow the link provided you'll find far more credible criticism of his credentials than support of his opinion. The second name on this particular list is Robert M. Carter. In this case there's not much criticism of his credentials but it is pointed out that he is a member of and advisor to, institutions that receive funding from oil and tobacco companies. The final name in this category is Vincent R. Gray and the fact that his occupation is listed as "coal chemist" should be sufficient to indicate to any reasonable person what his ulterior motivations really are.

Next are the two people that believe the accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate to make any conclusions whatsoever. Well if 3 people are really not worth my time to chase down then 2 are definitely not.

The next group is those that believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. There are 22 names in this category which are far too many to debunk on a one by one basis but at the minimum at least this group of folks don't deny that global warming *exists*. In any case a partial list of the credentials of these folks is rather telling in that either their credentials aren't directly related to climatology or if they are related they indicate a real potential source of conflict i.e. mining and petroleum industry prejudices. Certainly there are also those with both legitimate credentials and without (obvious) conflict of interests but how many of these are there versus those that support the "scientific consensus"?

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering
David Douglass, solid-state physicist
Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist

Also among the folks listed as climatologists or meteorologist is William Kininmonth and if you follow that link you'll find that his only listed qualification is "Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute" [1], but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for "Kininmonth, William Robert", and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. [2]. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth.

Hardly someone whose opinion is scientifically credible.

From here in a similar manner is a list of 9 names that believe cause of global warming is simply unknown and a final group of 3 folks that believe that global warming exists and is caused by human activity but believe that global warming will benefit human society.

So all told this article lists 39 names of people that disagree with some or part of the scientific consensus. As I pointed out many of these names have dubious credentials or obvious ulterior motives for their "opinions".

On the other side of the argument why don't *you* take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change article where the following source of the scientific consensus is cited.

"People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.[47]

Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments.[48]"

OK, so who should I believe, 39 people some of who have known prejudices (and the others whose prejudices are merely unknown) or "2500 scientific expert reviewers"?

This is hardly indicative of any real "controversy".

Finally in conclusion, if you wish to "prove" a point then don't simply use a single sentence to reference some random article on the net leaving all the burden of disproof to those that disagree with you. If you want to prove something then do your own work because I won't waste any more of my time chasing down every crackpot one can find on the net with a single google search.

We are now getting very close to  an area where I have expertise, because I did some study on computer models for historic long term temperatures when I was in university. I didn't do it for climate change, but post-glacial rebound. Basically, you are correct. This is exactly where our current knowledge does not provide a full answer yet. Fact is, we are in a long time rising trend of the temperature. Long term temperature trends show higher temperature ranges than we have measured over the last century.

However, the long term upward trend takes something like 15000 years and cannot explain the sharp rise in temperature over the last century. E.g. we see temperature increases in 50 years that would need to take at least 1000 years. In other words, the short term trend does not fit at all in the picture of the long term expectations. It has been reasonably well explained by the rise in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, with the remark that climate and ocean models and measurements are not perfect enough yet to model the exact effect we are seeing.

Everyone decide what to believe and what not to believe based on personal expericence and judgement. But it is kind of naive to belive straight out what government and major media says.

Sorry for the double post, but I need to clarify: its MY analysis.  Disprove it if you feel up to it.

And Spartan, TED.com is a great site.  I too have lost countless hours there.  Al Gore and Brian Cox both have some interesting speeches on that site.  And there is this one deaf Scottish percussionist whose name escapes me right now, but in any case her speech and performance is very inspirational and pleasurable.

Except that the Bush administration spent 7 years denying global warming and doing everything possible to undermine it then suddenly in January of 2007 it appeared like he might have changed his mind, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/14/usnews.climatechange. However as it turns out, while there was definitely a change in the adminstrations stance it really didn't amount to much, see http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/01/mooney_on_bushs_state_of_the_u.php.

130 countries
2500 scientific expert reviewers
800 contributing authors
450 lead authors

This is what I'm believing in. What is the basis for the opponents of global warming? So far I've only seen evidence of 39 folks most of which have either questionable credentials or obvious conflict of interest or both.

*Who's* being naive here?

I'm fine as long as people think themselves and decide what and what not to believe.

The only truly genuine fact is that we know that they have made that claim.

My stance is I hope IPCC is not trying to fool us. Do we really know people working at UN and what interest group they are part of? Me, at least, I have no clue. Government and media lies or dramatisize. Why not other organizations?

This is my beleife: People are greedy and irresponsible but somehow controrable. Thats why they try to control us using information (and restricting information), in this case.

I believe they are doing evil for greater wellness for later.(Not fair for all human though)(plus who's wellness?)

We can only search, think and do what seems to be fair and good for all human being.(Which is pretty abstract)

aditionally i want to come up with another illusion of "environmental friendly".

you all know those wind-generators with the large rotors generating energy without "any recources and emision".

but they need to be constructed. and that process of construction consumes so many power... one of these wind generators would be worthy that energy after 20 years of running perfectly... i dont realy think that those generators are wothy as long as no better ways of winning energy from wind power are developed. (on other planets they could generate a these ammount of energy in only 3 years because the average wind speed is there many times higher... but on earth there are only a few places where they maybe are worhty).

but sunpower is something which could be the energy supply of the future. maybe if we build up a gigantic solar field in several deserts like sahara or in the desert of nevada... but they are so easy to destroy that they would be a great target for terorism if whe count on them like we do with the nuclear power today...

While I do not believe in wind turbines mainly because of their network stabilization problems, this is not true. It is estimated that a wind turbine needs to run for about 3-6 months to win back the energy needed to construct it. Last year, wind energy was cheaper than energy from oil, gas or coal, due to the higher prices, which means, like it or not, they will pop up everywhere.

So, is anyone else who's following this thread wondering why the "middle child" of the OP's title is getting all the attention when there's no hope of responding to global warming problems without addressing the underlying facts that we have a world economy with too many people in it?

I'm quite willing to duck questions about the role of human industry in global warming if only we'll start talking more about getting some balance between free movement of capital and human rights and doing something to help us avoid suffocating under a pile of our own children.

If your nation's money moves freely, so should its labor force, whether or not they're "native." And if your nation takes future wealth seriously, it should deliberately encourage population *reduction* across at least several generations. One woman, one child, until we're under one billion world-wide--but, please, no armed cadres or overfed lawyers enforcing the goal.

"Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote in an April 23, 2006 letter to the editor of the The Calgary Herald in reply to an editorial by Dr. Ball: "... he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming". The newspaper had credited Ball as "the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years."[10]. His biography for the George C. Marshall Institute also cites his being "a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years".[11], and he has repeated "the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology" [12]
Ball could not have been a professor before receiving his PhD in 1983, only 23 years before the article.
Ball has also stated that "for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."[12]
Ball's resume shows that at the University of Winnipeg he was Associate Professor from 1984 to 1988, then Professor from 1988 to 1996, a total of 8 years.[13]
Ball was not "the first climatology PhD in Canada", but was in fact preceded by many well known Canadian PhD climatologists: e.g. Dr. Kenneth Hare, PhD in arctic climatology, 1950 [14], Dr. André Robert, PhD, 1965, [15], or Dr. Timothy Oke, PhD 1967 [16].
In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.[17]. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that

“The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit."

The article essentially points out that Ball has made a substanstial income solely on the basis of his opposition to global warming. Again conflict of interests rears it's ugly head.

As to your reference to the U.S. Senate Minority Report (i.e. Republican, i.e. political agenda) I can easily quote an equally rabid left wing source to refute everything in it.

Excerpt from Inhofe Plays while the Boxer's Away.

"It must be that time of year again. Just like last year, the Minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Commitee (read James Inhofe (R-Exxon)) has just released another "report" somehow proving that the globe isn't warming or, if that fails, that humanity has nothing to do with the warming or, if that fails, that it really doesn't matter or, if that fails, that we can't do anything about it anyway. 

Let's make some things clear, we should be outraged about this report. But, perversely, Inhofe and sidekick Marc Morano merit credit for using their positions of power quite effectively to do great damage to our abilities to move toward sensible policies that might actual provide a prosperous and secure future for Americans.

I am outraged:

As a taxpayer, that my taxes are used to support such truthiness and distortions.

As a human being, that such deniers (Roadblock Republicans) are able to stand in the way toward moving the nation and the Globe toward a more sensible energy future.

And, as an analyst, that such mediocrity and mendacity is allowed to be pedaled as a "report" with the imprimatur of the US government and a US Senate Committee behind it.

Giving credit where credit is due is, to me, normally a quite pleasurable task in most cases.  Lou Grinzo's Inhofe Scale captures the delusional nature of the Senator from Exxon."

Like I originally said, it doesn't bother me one way or another how this really turns out. I and everyone I care about will be dead long before anything dire will happen. Continue deluding yourself as much as you wish, however your lies are so transparent that only those with a desperate political agenda will claim to believe them even though they themselves know it for what it is, however enough money *can* buy pretty much any opinion it wants.

[edit] Extra credit for anyone that looks up the co-author of the http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/719 article. The Wiki quotes four different Tom Harris's one of which is a lobbyist for both the Canadian Electricity Association *and* the Canadian Gas Association. Can anyone guess which Tom Harris co-authored the referenced article. Sorry no karma for correct responses, the question is really *way* too easy. [/edit]

Woof!  Moooooo...  Chirp.  Meow?  Heehaw!

Is that more in line with your level of communication?

Maybe if people weren't behaving like dumb animals and listening to a bunch of idiots just because they have degrees, I wouldn't have bothered to post in a thread that wouldn't have existed.  You could then go on with your existence unimpugned by my marginal grasp of history.

Assuming we really can alter the climate to our wishful thinking, the question isn't how to stop it.  It's how can we make it happen faster.  Polar bears are irrelevant, they're also at record highs for population levels.  Minor detail the news keeps leaving out, the natives haven't been killing them so as a species with no natural enemy besides over population...

If the Earth really did warm up ten degrees, we'd double the sustainable population in return for a few swamps and sandbars being under water.  When you turn a ten week growing season into a twenty week growing season, you take a climate from barely livable to really bloody useful.  I fail to see the problem with that, and I'm walking around town in shorts during winter in Anchorage, Alaska.  It's a nice and cozy -9 right about now.

The proof for global warming is about as relevant to the state of our existence as my underarms are to the spring breeze.  The earth was significantly warmer than it is now just a few hundred years ago.  The earth was so much warmer at various points in history that they had oak trees where permafrost now resides.  We have geological records showing a continuous cycle with several repetitions now, those repetitions being brief warming periods in between ice ages.  Hence the doom and gloom 40 years ago about our impending death by ice age, which, unlike global warming, actually will kill a good percentage of the population at some point in the future.  The Earth is, for several years in a row now, cooling off.  Being stupid and educated just makes a moron more dangerous to himself and others.

Basically, you're an idiot with a civil tongue that has more in common with the domesticated sheep than you'll ever admit to.  Baaaah!

As an aside, yes, this insulting post really does have no swear words in it.  Oddly enough, I didn't even have to delete any.  Perhaps the Mumbler is one third of the way to sainthood?

Have a nice day.