Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[Hokie]

... the Met Office, ..., reckons we're killing the planet, but even the scientists can't agree.

 

Which scientists can't agree? Simple question? Where are they? The scientific community is clear. If you choose to not believe the scientific community, that's your choice. But don't present it as a community in dispute.

 

All we know is that our fuel bills and tax are going up. When you're down the pub, with your drunken mate, have another beer and talk about football, because this thread is seriously affecting your mental health...

 

I don't believe the increase in fuel bills and taxes are due to fear-mongering over global warming. A slightly better argument could be made for the former, but the later? Granted a sensible program for modulating effects of climate change may increase both, but surely well-intended persons are trying to reduce long-term costs. I'd like my taxes and fuel costs to be as low as possible, but not at the expense of drastic costs down the road for myself.

 

My mental health? So in addition to being better than 90% of the world's authorities on climate science, your now a licensed therapist? I'm impressed!

 

And believe me, the human race is not destroying the planet. We are no where near important or powerful enough...now go and have a lie down.

 

Rather than destroying the planet, I'd say its more likely to increasingly cost lives, flood cities, hurt economies, and yes, raise taxes. You say humans can't effect climate? I do hope you are right. But, surely you recognize those with more knowledge in that area than you (or I) say otherwise.

[Hamilton Saint]

Reminds me of the words of Robert Fripp's guru, J. G. Bennett (given as the Inaugural Address for the International Academy for Contininuous Education at Sherborne House) in 1971:

 

"From the scientist's study it seems likely that we should soon begin to have a discreet change in the earth's climate so people will not be able to live where they have, and the oceans will rise, and many cities will be flooded, like London, and Calcutta, and so on. These things, they say, will happen, according to scientific theories, in about forty years at the most, but maybe even quicker."

 

On Fripp's superb solo LP Exposure we hear this excerpt from the taped lecture at the beginning of the track that segues into "Here Comes the Flood".

 

"Lord, here comes the flood

We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood

If again the seas are silent

in any still alive

It'll be those who gave their island to survive

Drink up, dreamers, you're running dry."

 

The song is by Peter Gabriel and he provides the vocal on Fripp's album.

[bridge too far]

This is a useful illustration of how things are progressing in the UK

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/oct/05/greenometer-interactive-greenest-government?CMP=fb_gu

[Guided Missile]

This is a useful illustration of how things are progressing in the UK

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/oct/05/greenometer-interactive-greenest-government?CMP=fb_gu

Looks like the PM has been following my posts....

 

....let's hope he cuts the green levy ASAP!

[Lord Duckhunter]

This is a useful illustration of how things are progressing in the UK

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/oct/05/greenometer-interactive-greenest-government?CMP=fb_gu

 

We could do with a useful illustration of how things are progressing in Germany. Energy bills huge, BASF threatening to relocate because of energy costs.

[Guided Missile]

In the war of credibility between the Royal Society, NASA and NOAA plus dozens more on one side versus GM on the other - you have sided with GM. Oh dear Whitey.

 

Read this d!ckwad...you might learn something.

[OldNick]

All the global warming theorists on here, are you abstyaining from going on holiday by aircraft, walking to work, not watching or doing motor sports etc etc etc

[Sheaf Saint]

Read this d!ckwad...you might learn something.

 

Andrew Montford

Andrew Montford is the author of ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science’ (2010) and of the GWPF reports ‘The Climategate Inquiries’ (2010) and ‘Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change’ (2012). He writes a blog specialising in climate change issues at http://www.bishop-hill.net and made many media appearances discussing global warming from a sceptic perspective.

 

So the author of this document is completely unbiased on the issue then

 

Let's completely ignore the Cook et. al. article of which Mr Montford so clearly disapproves (although he does acknowledge that there is a scientific consensus regarding the ability of human-induced emissions to warm the atmosphere), and look at this instead...

 

http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

 

I searched the Web of Science, an online science publication tool, for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles.... By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.

 

This isn't for the purposes of an article of any kind. This was just one guy who was interested to see for himself. The 13,950 papers he refers to are publicly available if you want to repeat the search yourself.

[Guided Missile]

This isn't for the purposes of an article of any kind. This was just one guy who was interested to see for himself. The 13,950 papers he refers to are publicly available if you want to repeat the search yourself.

All of which brings me back to my theory that if you p!$$ in the sea at Weston Shore, it will contribute to a rise in the sea level. I think the majority of scientists would agree with my theory...

[Sheaf Saint]

All of which brings me back to my theory that if you p!$$ in the sea at Weston Shore, it will contribute to a rise in the sea level. I think the majority of scientists would agree with my theory...

 

Then might I suggest you learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis

[Guided Missile]

I would like people to consider who is on my side in this debate. Please look at this site and ignore the amateur, bed wetting, alarmists on this thread. Amongst the scientists who signed the petition are Edward Teller, ​Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen

Global Warming Petition Project, a petition urging the United States government to reject the Kyoto Protocol, a petition which also reads in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse [gases] is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

 

For those that don't know who these scientists are, google them. They are even smarter than me...

[badgerx16]

 

For those that don't know who these scientists are, google them. They are even smarter than me...

 

One other thing they have in common is they are all dead;

Teller died in 2003, Beckman and Abelson in 2004, Nierenberg in 2000, and Kamen in 2002. So they are really up to date with the latest developments.

[Guided Missile]

So they are really up to date with the latest developments.

Einstein's dead, so I guess there goes the Theory of Relativity.

 

You really are a muppet....

 

....and latest developments??? Give me a break.

 

You obviously didn't read this paper, since which, nothing of note has happened, apart from billions of tax dollars being p! $$ed away on meaningless research.

 

Still, I have a feeling that you have made your mind up on this issue, so you carry on and keep worrying. Luckily the penny has dropped at number 10.

[aintforever]

One other thing they have in common is they are all dead;

Teller died in 2003, Beckman and Abelson in 2004, Nierenberg in 2000, and Kamen in 2002. So they are really up to date with the latest developments.

 

:lol:

[badgerx16]

 

You obviously didn't read this paper, since which, nothing of note has happened, apart from billions of tax dollars being p! $$ed away on meaningless research.

 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2008/07/25/michael-maccracken%E2%80%99s-analysis-of-errors-in-robinson-robinson-and-soon-2007-contrarian-article/

"Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute, in an analysis posted here for the first time, identifies dozens of scientific errors and misleading statements in a 2007 paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon entitled “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide” – a contrarian effort that exemplifies the sort of work that provides fodder for the global warming disinformation campaign."

 

You say po-tar-toe and I say po-tay-toe.......

Edited 22 November, 2013 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

So the author of this document is completely unbiased on the issue then

 

Let's completely ignore the Cook et. al. article of which Mr Montford so clearly disapproves (although he does acknowledge that there is a scientific consensus regarding the ability of human-induced emissions to warm the atmosphere), and look at this instead...

 

http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

 

 

 

This isn't for the purposes of an article of any kind. This was just one guy who was interested to see for himself. The 13,950 papers he refers to are publicly available if you want to repeat the search yourself.

 

You didn't quote the part: 'Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming'

 

Every author is biased, whether they know it or not.

[Whitey Grandad]

Aren't there infractions on here for heavy sarcasm?

 

I never use sarcasm. That would be beneath me

[buctootim]

Read this d!ckwad...you might learn something.

 

The report by Andrew Montford? The Andrew Montford whose credentials for challenging a near global scientific consensus on climate change extends to a bachelor's degree in Chemistry and working as an accountant? Righto.

 

In the magazine 'Chemistry World' Professor Nick Hewitt wrote this about Montford's book 'THe Hockey Stick Illusion' - "Here, one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming is examined in tedious detail... but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system. Andrew Montford declares he studied chemistry - with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better. Readers of Chemistry World will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book." I think thats pretty clear.

 

GM so far you've got a guy with a BSc 25 years ago and some dead guys, the leading light of which was 96 when he pegged out and had been retired from his research on solid state materials (ie nothing to do with climate change) for 30 years. His main claims to fame were being an ardent supporter of the Vietnam war and arguing vigorously against the scientific consensus that smoking was damaging to health. Remind me, who was right in that debate? Got anybody alive and knowledgable?

Edited 22 November, 2013 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

The report by Andrew Montford? The Andrew Montford whose credentials for challenging a near global scientific consensus on climate change extends to a bachelor's degree in Chemistry and working as an accountant? Righto.

 

In the magazine 'Chemistry World' Professor Nick Hewitt wrote this about Montford's book 'THe Hockey Stick Illusion' - "Here, one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming is examined in tedious detail... but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system. Andrew Montford declares he studied chemistry - with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better. Readers of Chemistry World will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book." I think thats pretty clear.

 

GM so far you've got a guy with a bachelors degree in chemistry 25 years ago and some dead guys, the leading light of which was 95 when he pegged out and had been retired from his research on solid state materials (ie nothing to do with climate change) for 30 years. Got anybody alive and knowledgable?

 

...and you've got this nutter:

 

 

No wonder you deleted references to him from your post.

 

"Chemistry World?" You really are an intellectual pygmy, who prefers this guys opinion to Edward Teller, a scientist whose arse you're not fit to wipe...

[badgerx16]

GM, calling people d!ckwad, muppet, or nutter is probably not the best way of demonstrating that you are capable of reasoned debate.

[buctootim]

" You really are an intellectual pygmy, who prefers this guys opinion to Edward Teller, a scientist whose arse you're not fit to wipe...

 

Edward Teller was an eminent physicist who was 95 when he died in 2003. In 1997 he wrote "the jury is still out on man made climate change". He was right, it was then - it isnt any more. I'm sure if he was alive now he would have changed his mind when the facts changed. Unlike you.

[aintforever]

I love the way the sceptics label scientists as useless, hysterical and agenda driven, then as soon as they find one guy with a degree in chemistry that agrees with them his word is gospel.

[Guided Missile]

The Cooling World

 

Newsweek

, April 28, 1975

---

T

here are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A

survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

M

eteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

—

PETER GWYNNE with bureau report

:lol:

:lol:

[Guided Missile]

GM, calling people d!ckwad, muppet, or nutter is probably not the best way of demonstrating that you are capable of reasoned debate.

I assume "intellectual pygmy" is OK...

[Guided Missile]

I'm sure if he was alive now he would have changed his mind when the facts changed.

That's about as factual as everything else you've quoted. Professor Nick Hewitt? Premier League? You're having a laugh...

[buctootim]

You been asleep for 38 years? did you miss this part of the 1975 article - "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

 

Try and keep up GM, time moves on. You need help with the video recorder?

Edited 22 November, 2013 by buctootim

[buctootim]

That's about as factual as everything else you've quoted. Professor Nick Hewitt? Premier League? You're having a laugh...

 

Did I say Premier League? I simply quoted the words of a Professor in climate change with a Phd on Atmospheric Biology reviewing a climate change book by a certified acccountant.

[saintbletch]

I assume "intellectual pygmy" is OK...

 

I see your "intellectual pygmy" and raise you "Joe Cocker".

 

Good debate lads.

 

Guided Missile, do you remain open minded on the issue, or have you reached a firm conclusion?

 

Genuine question.

[Guided Missile]

Did I say Premier League? I simply quoted the words of a Professor in climate change with a Phd on Atmospheric Biology reviewing a climate change book by a certified acccountant.

A certified accountant with a degree in chemistry from St. Andrews versus a certified crackpot with a degree in healthy eating advice from the University of Youtube....

[badgerx16]

I see your "intellectual pygmy" and raise you "Joe Cocker".

 

[Guided Missile]

Guided Missile, do you remain open minded on the issue, or have you reached a firm conclusion?

 

Genuine question.

 

Ask me in another 2-300 years, when there may be enough evidence to prove that the slight increase in the earth's temperature is due to an increase in anthropogenic CO² or a natural variation in solar radiation. I would put a million pound on the latter, but then, I have only got a degree in chemistry, so what the f*** do I know. To be honest, I'm still laughing about that Youtube clip...

[buctootim]

Ask me in another 2-300 years, when there may be enough evidence to prove that the slight increase in the earth's temperature is due to an increase in anthropogenic CO² or a natural variation in solar radiation. I would put a million pound on the latter, but then, I have only got a degree in chemistry, so what the f*** do I know. To be honest, I'm still laughing about that Youtube clip...

 

Ooh, a degree in chemistry, from like a university and stuff? You must be an expert and all. Imagine how much those guys with even more books know, like with a Phd in a more specialised subject and 30 years working in the field - not stirring bulk chemicals with a stick.

[Guided Missile]

Imagine how much those guys with even more books know, like with a Phd in a more specialised subject and 30 years working in the field - not stirring bulk chemicals with a stick.

Funny you should say that. I have a few PhD chemists working for me at the moment. I must admit, they're sh !t hot at "stirring bulk chemicals with a stick".

[buctootim]

Funny you should say that. I have a few PhD chemists working for me at the moment. I must admit, they're sh !t hot at "stirring bulk chemicals with a stick".

 

Well you're sorted then. Get them to give you a primer on climate science.

[saintbletch]

Ask me in another 2-300 years , when there may be enough evidence to prove that the slight increase in the earth's temperature is due to an increase in anthropogenic CO² or a natural variation in solar radiation. I would put a million pound on the latter, but then, I have only got a degree in chemistry, so what the f*** do I know. To be honest, I'm still laughing about that Youtube clip...

 

OK will do.

 

Can I just check that I understand your position?

 

You acknowledge that those supportive of a human cause for global warming may well be right.

 

But at the same time you don't believe that the evidence exists right now.

 

And either way you feel that the increase is not significant enough to cause the human race economic or social problems.

 

Is that right so far?

 

If that IS your view, what sort of degree of certainty would attach to your position?

 

You debate, if that is the right word, like you'd attach a 100% figure to that question, but above you seem to acknowledge that you're undecided.

 

Like you, I'd say I'm undecided too.

 

But I think I lack your conviction / zeal and I guess I'm one of the sheep that would rather be safe than...hot.

 

I'm not a chemist or an accountant (although I do have an AAT qualification but climate change wasn't part of my course), so as I feel that the subject is really too complex for me to comprehend, I pretty much feel that I have to defer to the consensus.

[Guided Missile]

Well you're sorted then. Get them to give you a primer on climate science.

Why? I'm a f*** sight smarter than them.

[Guided Missile]

• I acknowledge that there is an extremely small contribution by the human race to climate change. 100%
  
• I believe that the evidence exists right now. 100%
  
• I believe that the contribution now and in the foreseeable future is insignificant and will thus not adversely affect our climate. 100%
  
• I believe that the response to this insignificant contribution, caused by the environmental lobby, if taken seriously by government will cause the human race economic and social problems. 100%
  
• I believe that the world governments will unwind the burden imposed on the electorate, by this unelected faction, starting with Japan, then the UK, then the rest of the world. (China and Russia never really bought into it) 100%
  
• I hope Russia will jail the rest of Greenpeace and then start on Friends of the Earth. 100%
  

[Minty]

[*]I hope Russia will jail the rest of Greenpeace and then start on Friends of the Earth. 100%

 

Go on then, I'll bite... why?

[badgerx16]

• I acknowledge that there is an extremely small contribution by the human race to climate change. 100%
  
• I believe that the evidence exists right now. 100%
  
• I believe that the contribution now and in the foreseeable future is insignificant and will thus not adversely affect our climate. 100%
  
• I believe that the response to this insignificant contribution, caused by the environmental lobby, if taken seriously by government will cause the human race economic and social problems. 100%
  
• I believe that the world governments will unwind the burden imposed on the electorate, by this unelected faction, starting with Japan, then the UK, then the rest of the world. (China and Russia never really bought into it) 100%
  
• I hope Russia will jail the rest of Greenpeace and then start on Friends of the Earth. 100%
  

 

So if you accept that there is a warming climate, do you accept that the ice caps, ice sheets, and glaciers are receding and generating a rise in sea levels - through an entirely natural / geological influence ? Do you not think that Governments, globally, should be finding solutions to such, entirely natural, risks and challenges ?

[Verbal]

Why? I'm a f*** sight smarter than them.

 

Is there a source for this improbable claim? Because I can find no evidence of anything remotely like it on this thread.

[Whitey Grandad]

So if you accept that there is a warming climate, do you accept that the ice caps, ice sheets, and glaciers are receding and generating a rise in sea levels - through an entirely natural / geological influence ? Do you not think that Governments, globally, should be finding solutions to such, entirely natural, risks and challenges ?

 

http://www.lomborg.com/

[Whitey Grandad]

Is there a source for this improbable claim? Because I can find no evidence of anything remotely like it on this thread.

 

Have 'them' posted? If not, then there is no evidence either way.

[Hokie]

You obviously didn't read this paper, since which, nothing of note has happened, apart from billions of tax dollars being p! $$ed away on meaningless research.

 

Back to this. When I saw the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, alarm bells went off. A typical test of scientific quality is, ask "Where are the persons publishing?" A trick often used is to send an article to a journal that is not able to fully review the work. I thought, why would a journal devoted to physicians and surgeons publish this?

 

So I googled (desperately, I know GM) to try and understand,and it was worse than that. The first hit, was the wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

 

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."[1][2] The group was reported to have approximately 4,000 members in 2005, and 3,000 in 2011.[1][3] Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey;[4] the executive director is Jane Orient, a member of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

 

The AAPS motto, "omnia pro aegroto" is Latin for "all for the patient."[5] AAPS also publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (formerly known as the Medical Sentinel). The Journal is not indexed by mainstream scientific databases such as the Web of Science or MEDLINE.[6] The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the Journal has been criticized by others. Many of the political and scientific viewpoints advocated by AAPS are considered extreme or dubious by other medical groups.[1]

 

Keep going, GM. I want to hear more about how you're smarter than all the PhDs working for you.

[Whitey Grandad]

Keep going, GM. I want to hear more about how you're smarter than all the PhDs working for you.

 

A PhD is neither an indication of smartness nor intelligence. You don't need one to know that.

[buctootim]

http://www.lomborg.com/

 

Lomborg is a political scientist - he is primarily interested in global problems like health and nutrition. I think you may have misunderstood what he believes. Lomborg says "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem we need to fix". His concern is that climate change policies will penalise the poor. Its basically an argument about how you use resources to fix immediate problems now, as opposed to growing problems for the future - like climate change. Its fundamentally socialist - that the rich energy intense countries should use the money spent on climate change on the developing world's poor instead. He says climate change doesn't matter if you're dead - which is a fair point. Do you agree the west should be spending more on foreign aid Whitey?

Edited 22 November, 2013 by buctootim

[Hokie]

A PhD is neither an indication of smartness nor intelligence. You don't need one to know that.

 

Oh, I do agree, although I may have a personal bias to see it otherwise. Anyhow, my comment (regarding the claim of A > B) was based more on my observations here of A, than any assessment of B, bar that they have PhDs. Plus the owner of A brought it up, so it is open to discussion, as it were. One could also claim that gullibility and obstinance is not always a sign of lack of intelligence, and sometimes they walk hand-in-hand. Edward Teller who was brought up here comes to mind for me, although that is a discussion for another day.

 

Cheers WG also for the link to Bjorn Lomborg. It looks intelligent and challenging.

[Whitey Grandad]

Lomborg is a political scientist - he is primarily interested in global problems like health and nutrition. I think you may have misunderstood what he believes. Lomborg says "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem we need to fix". His concern is that climate change policies will penalise the poor. Its basically an argument about how you use resources to fix immediate problems now, as opposed to growing problems for the future - like climate change. Its fundamentally socialist - that the rich energy intense countries should use the money spent on climate change on the developing world's poor instead. He says climate change doesn't matter if you're dead - which is a fair point. Do you agree the west should be spending more on foreign aid Whitey?

 

It's been some time since I looked at his ramblings but as I understood his position it was that we would all be better off spending even a fraction of the money that we are now throwing at 'green' policies at mitigating and providing for the effects of the inevitable changes in global climate.

 

Spending more on foreign aid? I would prefer to see that what we spend now is better targeted at shat are undoubtedly serious problems.

[Sheaf Saint]

Go on then, I'll bite... why?

 

I assume because he is labouring under the false belief that their protest against Gazprom's drilling in the Arctic is primarily based on concern over CO2 emissions, rather than their (extremely valid, I might add) concerns about the potentially disastrous effects of a major oil spill in such a remote and inhospitable region of the planet.

[Guided Missile]

Back to this. When I saw the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, alarm bells went off. A typical test of scientific quality is, ask "Where are the persons publishing?" A trick often used is to send an article to a journal that is not able to fully review the work. I thought, why would a journal devoted to physicians and surgeons publish this?

 

Keep going, GM. I want to hear more about how you're smarter than all the PhDs working for you.

Not only am I a f*** sight smarter than the PhD's working for me, I am also a f*** sight smarter than you, Hokie Kokie.

 

You see, this isn't a f***ing peer reviewed paper, publishing research findings, but a review of peer reviewed papers, publishing research findings. As such, you could publish it in Popular Mechanics and it would be just as credible, because it depends on the quality of the research papers it is reviewing. These happen to be the research papers reviewed:

 

1. Robinson, A. B.,Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999 Journal of American Phy-sicians and Surgeons 3, 171-178.

2. Soon, W.,Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999) Cli mate Res. 13, 149-164.

3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Sci ence 274, 1504-1508. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_au thor/keigwin1996/ 4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Sci ence 308, 675-677. 5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H.

F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Bound ary-Layer Me te o rol ogy 92, 3-26.

6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geo phys i cal Res. 106, 31717-31727. 7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Re gional, and National CO2 Emis- sions. In Trends:A Com pendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dio ide Information Analysis Center,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm 8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.

9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.

10. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html and NASA GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt.

11. Soon, W.,Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003)Energy & Env. 14, 233-296.

12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.

13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769.

14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253.

15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085.

16. Newton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) 33, 2006GL027234.

17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) In ternational Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/high lights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_re cov er ing_from_LIA_R.pdf

18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18.

19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication.

20. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cli mate/re search/cag3/na.html

21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.

22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1697-1700.

23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Sci ence 293, 474-479.

24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geo physical Res. 111, 2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/au thor_ar chive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/

25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Ma rine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94. http://sealevel.col o rado.edu/

26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, History, and the Modern World, Methuen, New York.

27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equi lib rium Therm. 32, 1-27.

28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A., Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077.

29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112, 2005JD006881. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.

30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866.

31. Christy, J. R. (1995)Climatic Change 31, 455-474.

32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.

33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute.

34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700.

35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901.

36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001)Na ture 411, 290-293.

37. Jiang, H.,Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Ge ol ogy33, 73-76.

38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15.

39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C. A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857.

40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995)As tro phys i cal Jour nal 438, 269-287.

41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Na ture 446, 646-649.

42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831. 43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T. (2006)Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.

44. Hammel, H. B., andLock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.

45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1999 Nature 393, 765-767.

46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003)Nature 424, 165-168.

47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003)Nature 424, 168-170.

48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007)Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13.

49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207.

50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) 33, 2006GL027142.

[Guided Missile]

51. Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 3-4; Goodridge, J. D. (1999 private comm.

52. Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atm. Envirn. 29, 1957-1961.

53. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1987) J. Geophysical Res. 92, 13345-13372.

54. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1989 Geophysical Research Letters 15, 323-326.

55. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., and Sato, M. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1665-1668; http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/ 56. Schimel, D. S. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 77-91.

57. Houghton, R. A. (2007) Annual Review of Earth and Plan etary Sciences 35, 313-347.

58. Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T. V., and Ono, N. (1992) Science of the Total Environ.114, 227-284.

59. Segalstad, T. V. (1999 Global Warming the Continuing Debate, Cambridge UK: European Science and En vironment Forum, ed. R. Bate, 184-218.

60. Berner, R. A. (1997) Science 276, 544-545. 61. Retallack, G. J. (2001) Na ture 411, 287-290.

62. Rothman, D. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA99, 4167-4171.

63. Petit et. al., (1999)Nature 399, 429-436.

64. Siegenthaler, U., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1313-1317.

65. Spahni, R., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1317-1321.

66. Soon, W. (2007) Physical Geography, in press. 67. Dettinger, M. D. and Ghill, M. (1999 Tellus, 50B, 1-24.

68. Kuo, C., Lindberg, C. R., and Thornson, D. J. (1990) Na ture 343, 709-714.

69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.

70. Yama****a, E., Fujiwara, F., Liu, X., and Ohtaki, E. (1993) J. Ocean og ra phy 49, 559-569.

71. Keeling, C. D. and Whorf, T. P. (1997) Trends On line: A Compendium of Data on Global Change, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

72. Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057. 73. Ar cher, D. (2005) J. Geophysical Res. 110, 2004JC002625.

74. Faraday, M. (1860) The Chemical History of a Can dle, Christ mas Lec tures, Royal In sti tu tion, Lon don. 75. Serreze, M. C., Hol land, M. M., and Stroeve, J. (2007) Sci ence 315, 1533-1536.

76. Bentley, C. R. (1997) Sci ence 275, 1077-1078.

77. Nicholls, K. W. (1997) Na ture 388, 460-462.

78. Davis, C. H., Li, Y., McConnell, J. R., Frey, M. M., and Hanna, E. (2005) Sci ence 308, 1898-1901. 79. Monaghan, A. J., et. al. (2006) Sci ence 313, 827-831.

80. Kullman, L. (2007) Nordic Journal of Botany 24, 445-467.

81. Lindzen, R. S. (1994) Ann. Re view Fluid Mech. 26, 353-379. 82. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Work ing Group I Report (2007). 83. Kyoto Pro tocol to the United Na tions Framework Con vention on Climate Change (1997). 84. Sun, D. Z. and Lindzen, R. S. (1993) Ann. Geophysicae 11, 204-215.

85. Spencer, R. W. and Braswell, W. D. (1997) Bull. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78, 1097-1106.

86. Idso, S. B. (1999Cli mate Res. 10, 69-82.

87. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, S. B., Kondratyev, K. Ya., and Posmentier, E. S. (2001) Cli mate Res. 18, 259-275.

88. Lindzen, R. S. (1996) Cli mate Sen si tiv ity of Ra di a tive Per tur ba tions: Phys i cal Mech a nisms and Their Val i da tion, NATO ASI Series 134, ed. H. Le Treut, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 51-66. 89. Renno, N. O., Emanuel, K. A., and Stone, P. H. (1994) J. Geo phys i cal Res. 99, 14429-14441.

90. Soden, B. J. (2000) Journal of Climate 13, 538-549.

91. Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M., and Hou, A. Y. (2001) Bull. Amer. Meteorlogical Soc. 82, 417-432.

92. Spencer, R. W., Braswell, W. D., Christy, J. R., and Hnilo, J. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL029698. 93. Lindzen, R. S. (1995), per sonal communication. 94. Khalil, M. A. K., Butenhoff, C. L., and Ras mus sen, R. A. (2007) En vi ron men tal Sci ence and Tech nol ogy 41, 2131-2137. 95. An nual Energy Review, U.S. En ergy In formation Admin., Report No. DOE/EIA-0384 (2006). 96. Essex, C., Ilie, S., andCorless, R. M. (2007) J. Geo phys i cal Res., in press. 97. Gore, A. (2006)An In con ve nient Truth, Rodale, NY.

98. Pen ner, S S., Schneider, A. M., and Kennedy, E. M. (1984) Acta Astronautica 11, 345-348.

99. Crutzen, P. J. (2006) Cli ma tic Change 77, 211-219.

100. Idso, S. B. (1989)Carbon Di oxide and Global Change: Earth in Tran sition, IBR Press.

101. Lam, S. H. (2007) Log a rith mic Re sponse and Cli mate Sen si tiv ity of At mo spheric CO2, 1-15,

www.prince ton.edu/lam/doc u ments/LamAug07bs.pdf. 102. Lindzen, R. S. (2005) Proc. 34th Int. Sem. Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, ed. R. Raigaina,World Sci en tific Pub lish ing, Sin ga pore, 189-210. 103. Kimball, B. A. (1983) Agron. J. 75, 779-788.

104. Cure, J. D. and Acock, B. (1986) Agr. Forest Meteorol. 8, 127-145.

105. Mortensen, L. M. (1987) Sci. Hort. 33, 1-25.

106. Lawlor, D. W. and Mitch ell, R. A. C. (1991)Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 807-818.

107. Drake, B. G. and Leadley, P. W. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 853-860. 108. Gifford, R. M. (1992) Adv. Bioclim. 1, 24-58.

109. Poorter, H. (1993)Vegetatio 104-105, 77-97.

110. Graybill, D. A. and Idso, S. B. (1993) Global Biogeochem. Cyc. 7, 81-95.

111. Waddell, K. L., Oswald, D. D., and Powell D. S. (1987) Forest Sta tistics of the United States, U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture. 112. Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D., Vissage, J. S., and Pugh, S. A. (2002) Forest Re sources of the United States, U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture. 113. Grace, J., Lloyd, J., McIntyre, J., Miranda, A. C., Meir, P., Miranda, H. S., Nobre, C., Moncrieff,

J., Massheder, J., Malhi, Y., Wright, I., and Gash, J. (1995) Sci ence 270, 778-780.

114. Idso, K. E. and Idso, S. (1974) Agr. For est Meteor. 69, 153-203. 115. Kimball, B.A., Pinter Jr., P. J., Hunsaker, D. J., Wall, G. W. G., LaMorte, R. L., Wechsung, G., Wechsung, F., and Kartschall, T. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 429-442. 116. Pinter, J. P., Kimball, B. A., Garcia, R. L., Wall, G. W., Hunsaker, D. J., and LaMorte, R. L.

(1996) Car bon Di ox ide and Ter res trial Eco sys tems 215-250, Koch and Moo ney, Acad. Press. 117. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1991) Agr. For est Meteor. 55, 345-349.

118. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1994) J. Exper. Bot any 45, 1669-1692.

119. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A., (1997) Global Change Biol. 3, 89-96.

120. McNaughton, S. J., Oesterhold, M., Frank. D. A., and Wil liams, K. J. (1989)Na ture 341, 142-144.

121. Cyr, H. and Pace, M. L. (1993) Nature 361, 148-150.

122. Scheiner, S. M. and Rey-Benayas, J. M. (1994) Evol. Ecol. 8, 331-347.

123. Gore, A., Pelosi, N., and Reid, H. (June 29, 2007) The Seven Point Live Earth Pledge. Speaker of the House Website, www.speaker.gov. and www.liveearth.org. 124. Beck mann, P. (1985) The Health Hazards of NOT Go ing Nu clear, Go lem, Boul der, Col o rado.

125. American Nuclear Society, Nuclear News (2007) March, 46-48. 126. McNamara, B. (2006) Lea brook Computing, Bournemouth, Eng land. 127.Pro jected Costs of Gen er at ing Elec tric ity: 2005 Up date (2005), Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency,OECD Publication No. 53955 2005, Paris.

128. Penner, S. S. (1999 Energy 23, 71-78.

129. Posma, B. (2007) Liquid Coal, Fort Myers, Fl, www.liquidcoal.com. 130. Ausubel,. J. H. (2007)Int. J. Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology 1, 229-243.

131. Penner, S. S. (2006) Energy 31, 33-43.

132. Simon, J. L. (1996) The Ultimate Resource 2, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey

 

Happy googling Hokie...