Big setback for the Global warming folks

[bocadad]

Wouldn't that be like ignoring anything a Republican has to say because of Pat Robertson? Or Tom Delay

Perhaps the conspiracy part is when Politics are drawn in. ALways seems to go that way with the GW's.

Wouldn't that be like ignoring anything a Republican has to say because of Pat Robertson? Or Tom Delay? Scientists are normally very non ideological by nature.
Wonder what party you support with a statement like this

Scientists are normally very non ideological by nature.

Really that is news to me. Evolution ring a bell

You talk of an agenda like old time cold warriers spoke about the communist conspiracy.

Wow - You don't believe there was communism or that they wanted to talk over the world yet you want me to buy The GW bit from Scientist who were learned in one of our many fine mostly Liberal based colleges with mostly Liberal teaching professors.

You're gonna have to do better than this.

Evolution is not an ideology. Nor does it have anything to do with this debate. Your circular reasoning: scientists who believe in global warming are liberals taught in liberal schools. Liberal is bad therefore scientists who are liberal are bad is just chasing your tail. Have fun with that.
Regarding communism, what I meant was the tendency among some to see a monolithic communist conspiracy without regard to nationalistic tendencies, for example China and Russia acting as one.
However, I can see that you are intent on finding monsters under the bed so I will leave you to your fun!

[Regit]

This is amazing. I've never seen a group of weather nuts so opposed to global warming. Usually in any group of weather enthusiasts who have a basic understanding of the science, there aren't this many people opposed to the idea.

But I am curious how many people here who are opposed have actually read scholarly articles on the subject.

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

I do not doubt for one minute that we are effecting things. What I always hate is how everybody from the GW side always points toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 plus years. Or how we have caused the ozone hole.

You start out your long post with something that is completely untrue. In a single sentence you use THREE words that should rarely be used in debate (everybody, always, all).

I'll reword your sentence to make it true:

"Very, very few people from the GW side occassionally point toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 years plus."

You could also say:

"Many of people from the GW side frequently point toward us contributing to the warmth during the past 50 years plus."

[Stormavoider]

This is amazing. I've never seen a group of weather nuts so opposed to global warming. Usually in any group of weather enthusiasts who have a basic understanding of the science, there aren't this many people opposed to the idea.

But I am curious how many people here who are opposed have actually read scholarly articles on the subject.

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

I do not doubt for one minute that we are effecting things. What I always hate is how everybody from the GW side always points toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 plus years. Or how we have caused the ozone hole.

You start out your long post with something that is completely untrue. In a single sentence you use THREE words that should rarely be used in debate (everybody, always, all).

I'll reword your sentence to make it true:

"Very, very few people from the GW side occassionally point toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 years plus."

You could also say:

"Many of people from the GW side frequently point toward us contributing to the warmth during the past 50 years plus."

If you are not pointing fingers, than what is your activist point?

[temujin]

Look,

One light season doesn't prove that global warming doesn't exist, any more than a rough season proves that it does. You have to look at trends all across the globe, and compare that to a baseline.

I've never heard a really good argument either way. I mean, I hear the guys on NPR talk about glaciers melting, or the guys from the Cato Institute flap their jaws, but all of them seem to focus on just a couple particulars instead of all the data.

Since I'm not a climatologist who has all the data, or even knows how to make sense of all the data, I just say I don't know.

But what I do know is that pollution is bad, and that SUV's pollute more than small cars. On the other hand, I know that China has serious pollution problems and things like the Kyoto Treaty don't even address that problem.

In the end, it's a over complex issue, overlaid with a big, confused web of politics and international diplomacy. I don't know the answer, and I don't think we're going to settle it here.

I think we should drop the politics, per the rules, and just enjoy the storms.

[Regit]

If you are not pointing fingers, than what is your activist point?

What?

[Stormavoider]

Before we go on, What is the "Global warming side"?

[Stormavoider]

And what is "being apposed to global warming"?

[curtadams]

I do not doubt for one minute that we are effecting things. What I always hate is how everybody from the GW side always points toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 plus years.

Now that's a strawman. I'm calling you out on that. NOBODY says that - never mind everybody. You find one peer-reviewed publication that says all warming in the past 50 years is due to us alone. Or admit that's not even faintly true.

Or how we have caused the ozone hole.

Tell me how the record breaking ozone holes that occurred throughout the early to mid 90's, at the north pole, basically turned consistently around within 13 years, if GW was the main contributor to this ? The 05-06 winter ozone hole shrank in record time and it beat out the quick timing of the 03-04 winter?

Um, Jim, the ozone hole is caused by chlorine chemistry. GW is secondary, and only an accelerant of the chlorine (very little effect on its own). It's improving because we're pumping less CFCs into the atmosphere. This is VERY settled science, and has been for over 20 years.

[caneman]

Wouldn't that be like ignoring anything a Republican has to say because of Pat Robertson? Or Tom Delay

Perhaps the conspiracy part is when Politics are drawn in. ALways seems to go that way with the GW's.

Wouldn't that be like ignoring anything a Republican has to say because of Pat Robertson? Or Tom Delay? Scientists are normally very non ideological by nature.
Wonder what party you support with a statement like this

Scientists are normally very non ideological by nature.

Really that is news to me. Evolution ring a bell

You talk of an agenda like old time cold warriers spoke about the communist conspiracy.

Wow - You don't believe there was communism or that they wanted to talk over the world yet you want me to buy The GW bit from Scientist who were learned in one of our many fine mostly Liberal based colleges with mostly Liberal teaching professors.

You're gonna have to do better than this.

Evolution is not an ideology. Nor does it have anything to do with this debate. Your circular reasoning: scientists who believe in global warming are liberals taught in liberal schools. Liberal is bad therefore scientists who are liberal are bad is just chasing your tail. Have fun with that.
Regarding communism, what I meant was the tendency among some to see a monolithic communist conspiracy without regard to nationalistic tendencies, for example China and Russia acting as one.
However, I can see that you are intent on finding monsters under the bed so I will leave you to your fun!

Courtesy of Wikipedia

"Organisations that strive for power will try to influence the ideology of a society to become closer to what they want it to be. Political organisations (governments included) and other groups (e.g. lobbyists) try to influence people by broadcasting their opinions."

And you claim Scientists can't be ideologs.

Your circular reasoning: scientists who believe in global warming are liberals taught in liberal schools. Liberal is bad therefore scientists who are liberal are bad is just chasing your tail. Have fun with that

Not chasing my tail. Pointing out a pretty widely known fact. You know what they say - garbage in - Garbage out!

Regarding communism, what I meant was the tendency among some to see a monolithic communist conspiracy without regard to nationalistic tendencies, for example China and Russia acting as one.
However, I can see that you are intent on finding monsters under the bed so I will leave you to your fun![/quote

Hmmm. big words, accusations, fear mongering here such as conspiracy theories, monsters under the bed........ Keep going you're really showing your party affiliation. Ever consider you might just be talking in a mirror? Mom and Dad always told me that when you have a finger pointing at someone else you have 4 pointing back at yourself. And you wonder why common people have a hard time trusting this party and their ideals.

[southerngale]

I haven't read the whole thread and can't right now because my eyes won't stay open any longer, but I just received a PM about a few political comments in this thread. I'll read the thread tomorrow, but remember:

NO POLITICAL COMMENTS ALLOWED!

If you can't follow this rule, then simply don't post in this thread. If there's any further political comments, warnings and/or suspensions will be handed out.

Thanks!

[Jim Hughes]

This is amazing. I've never seen a group of weather nuts so opposed to global warming. Usually in any group of weather enthusiasts who have a basic understanding of the science, there aren't this many people opposed to the idea.

But I am curious how many people here who are opposed have actually read scholarly articles on the subject.

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

I do not doubt for one minute that we are effecting things. What I always hate is how everybody from the GW side always points toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 plus years. Or how we have caused the ozone hole.

You start out your long post with something that is completely untrue. In a single sentence you use THREE words that should rarely be used in debate (everybody, always, all).

I'll reword your sentence to make it true:

"Very, very few people from the GW side occassionally point toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 years plus."

You could also say:

"Many of people from the GW side frequently point toward us contributing to the warmth during the past 50 years plus."

Okay so I mispoke about the group as whole. I am sorry. So where does that leave us now?

[Jim Hughes]

I do not doubt for one minute that we are effecting things. What I always hate is how everybody from the GW side always points toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 plus years.

Now that's a strawman. I'm calling you out on that. NOBODY says that - never mind everybody. You find one peer-reviewed publication that says all warming in the past 50 years is due to us alone. Or admit that's not even faintly true.

Or how we have caused the ozone hole.

Tell me how the record breaking ozone holes that occurred throughout the early to mid 90's, at the north pole, basically turned consistently around within 13 years, if GW was the main contributor to this ? The 05-06 winter ozone hole shrank in record time and it beat out the quick timing of the 03-04 winter?

Um, Jim, the ozone hole is caused by chlorine chemistry. GW is secondary, and only an accelerant of the chlorine (very little effect on its own). It's improving because we're pumping less CFCs into the atmosphere. This is VERY settled science, and has been for over 20 years.

The size of the ozone hole , that rapidly grew in the 90's , was not caused by chlorine chemistry "alone". Space weather seems to have played a large part. And it will grow again during the next PET Cycle.


Are you going to say it increased again when some have been saying that we have gotten a handle on CFC's. (Explaining why the ozone levels have risenat the NP )

And what are you going to say 20 years from now when the ozone levels rise and the hole shrinks again?

This flutuation is caused by space weather. Please read up on what I found. Could I be wrong ? I guess I could but someone needs to point out why the data is wrong and why this theory is flawed.

[kenl01]

All I know is, I no longer pay attention to these GW people anymore !
No matter where it comes from or who it is, I totally ignore those people.
Nothing they say or do surprises me anymore.......they have lost complete credibility with me.

What's next on their agenda ? Are humans causing less hurricanes to form now because we are causing an El-Nino because of our SUV's ?? Will that be their next excuse I wonder ?? Hmmmm........

I just know they will make something up again. Be ready !

That sounds like an intelligent plan.

Wouldn't that be like ignoring anything a Republican has to say because of Pat Robertson? Or Tom Delay? Scientists are normally very non ideological by nature. You talk of an agenda like old time cold warriers spoke about the communist conspiracy. What agenda are you referring to and if it is a conspiracy why have I been left out? And who are they, anyway, or this an Abbot and Costello routine?

Anybody not knowing by now that man made GW is a bunch of hogwash and politics has been relying too much on either the newspapers, televison, government schools, or TWC. There was even a recent survey some time ago that suggests that people are not warming up to Al Gore. The entire media in the US is agenda driven about GW - and allot of it comes from the national environmental trust fund along with the cooperation of the media. (I think one of them was Paul Erlick from the early 70's).

With recent snow storms in the Sahara Desert of Africa in the last two winters and temps down to -50F below zero in Germany in March 2005 (highly uncommon), winter snowfall increasing substantially in the last 7 years in the northern Hemisphere, snowfall rates having doubled in Siberia since 1940, substantial cooling in Antarctica in the last 25 years and thickening of ice sheets in many (if not most) locations ?? Just recently, South Africa has experienced a harsh winter, with its second snowstorm during the month of August, also record cold and snow in New Zealand and Australia (by the way, Perth, Australia, had its first ever freeze of 32 F.)
In addition, all these patterns of warm and cool waters (and their variation) in the oceans is a typical cycle driven by currents, precipitation, cloud cover, winds above the ocean surface, and possible solar/volcanic activity.

Man made GW was the greatest hoax ever devised. It's all about money, politics, and agenda. If I catch any of these GW articles in my home, I immediately trash it.

End of story..............

[KWT]

Ken, you simply can't single out events to bac up your claims, yes of course there are always going to be record breaking lows in places, just because we have GW that isn't going to stop but if you took al lthe records that have been recorded I bet far more wil lbe warm rather then cold.

In the end what really matters is how the global temperatures are and I believe 8 out of the top 10 warmest years ever globally have come in the last 15 years which sorts of sums up that GW is happening...it's fact, thats the end of it, whether its manmade or not is still up for debate but that will probably be answered in the next 20-30 years.

[kenl01]

Ken, you simply can't single out events to bac up your claims, yes of course there are always going to be record breaking lows in places, just because we have GW that isn't going to stop but if you took al lthe records that have been recorded I bet far more wil lbe warm rather then cold.

In the end what really matters is how the global temperatures are and I believe 8 out of the top 10 warmest years ever globally have come in the last 15 years which sorts of sums up that GW is happening...it's fact, thats the end of it, whether its manmade or not is still up for debate but that will probably be answered in the next 20-30 years.

Not really.
There is NO consensus on GW. This comes directly from many respected people in the filed, including Fred Singer and also Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at M.I.T. Other sites, even those from John daly (NASA maintained stations), suggests an overall COOLING trend in over 50 % of land stations observed in the long term, especially since 1940. Another excellent site comes from Zbigniew Jaworowski, at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/A ... arming.pdf

He makes it clear that satellites have shown a cooling of about -.14C per decade from 1979 to 1998. Plus a study in an England University found a slight cooling since 1998 to 2005 also. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... world.html

The other claims suggesting the opposite are just rediculous and are not even worth looking into........

I will not say it again, GW is the greatest hoax EVER devised.......

Have a nice day........

[curtadams]

I do not doubt for one minute that we are effecting things. What I always hate is how everybody from the GW side always points toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 plus years.

Now that's a strawman. I'm calling you out on that. NOBODY says that - never mind everybody. You find one peer-reviewed publication that says all warming in the past 50 years is due to us alone. Or admit that's not even faintly true.

Or how we have caused the ozone hole.

Tell me how the record breaking ozone holes that occurred throughout the early to mid 90's, at the north pole, basically turned consistently around within 13 years, if GW was the main contributor to this ? The 05-06 winter ozone hole shrank in record time and it beat out the quick timing of the 03-04 winter?

Um, Jim, the ozone hole is caused by chlorine chemistry. GW is secondary, and only an accelerant of the chlorine (very little effect on its own). It's improving because we're pumping less CFCs into the atmosphere. This is VERY settled science, and has been for over 20 years.

The size of the ozone hole , that rapidly grew in the 90's , was not caused by chlorine chemistry "alone". Space weather seems to have played a large part. And it will grow again during the next PET Cycle.

"Seems" is incredibly weak by scientific standards. For science you want statistics, mechanisms, and predictions, like GW has. What solar variable are you claiming associates with the ozone hole? What's the p value? What method are you using for a Bonferroni-esque correction for the extremely large number of solar variables you could correlate with? What's the mechanism? What predictions have you made differential to the standard models? Two things happening at the same time are just post hoc, propter hoc.

I'm still waiting for the concession on the insanely overblown claim.

[KWT]

Ken, about your second study from a UK uni, please remember that 1998 was an ultra strong El Nino year, the fact that we haven't yet beaten that year is what you'd expect. I'll be willing to bet the next strong El nino we get we'll see the 1998 record being smashed. Heck even last year globally temps weren't that far off from 1998 values and that was a nuetral year!

As some people say, the trend is your freind and that trend is upwards.

[kenl01]

Ken, about your second study from a UK uni, please remember that 1998 was an ultra strong El Nino year, the fact that we haven't yet beaten that year is what you'd expect. I'll be willing to bet the next strong El nino we get we'll see the 1998 record being smashed. Heck even last year globally temps weren't that far off from 1998 values and that was a nuetral year!

As some people say, the trend is your freind and that trend is upwards.

KWT, what ever happened to all the catastrophic cat 5 hurricanes this year, which are supposed to be killing Americans this August left and right, and ALL caused by this terrible man made Global warming resulting from our American SUV's ????

Ha ha ha ha ha !!!

[James]

As KWT said, the trends certainly are pointing upwards. The 5 hottest recorded years in the Northern Hemisphere since reliable records began in the 1800's go as thus:

1) 2005
2) 1998
3) 2002
4) 2003
5) 2004

[Jim Hughes]

I do not doubt for one minute that we are effecting things. What I always hate is how everybody from the GW side always points toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 plus years.

Now that's a strawman. I'm calling you out on that. NOBODY says that - never mind everybody. You find one peer-reviewed publication that says all warming in the past 50 years is due to us alone. Or admit that's not even faintly true.

Or how we have caused the ozone hole.

Tell me how the record breaking ozone holes that occurred throughout the early to mid 90's, at the north pole, basically turned consistently around within 13 years, if GW was the main contributor to this ? The 05-06 winter ozone hole shrank in record time and it beat out the quick timing of the 03-04 winter?

Um, Jim, the ozone hole is caused by chlorine chemistry. GW is secondary, and only an accelerant of the chlorine (very little effect on its own). It's improving because we're pumping less CFCs into the atmosphere. This is VERY settled science, and has been for over 20 years.

The size of the ozone hole , that rapidly grew in the 90's , was not caused by chlorine chemistry "alone". Space weather seems to have played a large part. And it will grow again during the next PET Cycle.

"Seems" is incredibly weak by scientific standards. For science you want statistics, mechanisms, and predictions, like GW has. What solar variable are you claiming associates with the ozone hole? What's the p value? What method are you using for a Bonferroni-esque correction for the extremely large number of solar variables you could correlate with? What's the mechanism? What predictions have you made differential to the standard models? Two things happening at the same time are just post hoc, propter hoc.

I'm still waiting for the concession on the insanely overblown claim.

I properly use the word seems because the paper has not been peer-reviewed. But I am assuming that you have not actually read the paper because this is not some insane claim. And if you understood space weather and how it can effect the atmsophere. You would know that this has some foundation to it.

I could pull up several research papers that talk about ozone destruction by way of increased energetic particles. GCR levels have also been linked to this.

The theory is based on the level of GCR's and the polarity of the solar cycle and how this kick starts the PET Cycle. These variables seem to have an effect upon how the earth's environment receives these energetic particles. This all adds up if you consider the approximate 20 year cycle that we see in some parts of the world's climate history.

As far as predictions. I have made numerous ones over the years and I have indirectly used this methodology. These were ENSO forecasts, snowstorms, droughts etc...They were ALL in writing and they were received by numerous people within the field. Some ended up in newsprint and some were read over the radio air waves prior to their occurrence.