Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Frosty]

Amazing thread this, its got all the smart people involved.

[Yobarnacle]

Troy
Climate science isn't the SUPREME science. Actually, it's the newest and least understood, least developed of sciences.
None of the "sciences" is autonomous. There's no borders. Studying the atmosphere includes studying it's physics, chemistry, and meterology, to name a few obvious. Climate scientists don't drill ice cores. Geologists and Cryologists and Physicists do. Oceanographers and Marine Biologists study the oceans.
Seems to me, all most climate scientists do, is make over simplified computer models, and politically agitate for fear doom based scenarios.
Their most damning, self incriminating claims are:
The science is settled, and other fields of science can't credibly participate.
Don't BELIEVE em!
Hang em!


Hi Frosty

[Yobarnacle]

Cap and trade was between companies during acid rain. The money stayed here!

Carbon cap and trade is between nations. Are you SURE you want the USA paying trillions to other countries for the privelege of "poluting" with CO2? Which isn't a polutant.

I have read every post in this thread at least twice. The concerns I raise, some have been raised before. Debunked? Never have they been answered, except by accusations of they're shilling and chanting "CO2 is a green house gas". That's why I keep bringing them up.

If I were to accuse anybody and everyone who disagreed with me, of being a hired puppet and a blithering idiot! I would have just as much authority as anybody else amongst the warmers making this claim.
In effect, ZERO! LOL.
The fact someone disagrees with you doesn't discredit them!
Despite the claims of warmists that it does!

[Yobarnacle]

Troy
You accuse conservatives of becoming a party of fear and conspiracy mongers. You can't believe scientists have a fear agenda. Please read the following with an open mind.

Pdf here
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762v3

Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions?:

Richard S. Lindzen, 29 Nov. 2008.
American atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From Harvard, he received an A.B. in Physics in 1960, followed by an S.M. in Applied Mathematics in 1961 and then a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics.

"We have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation." - Richard Lindzen


"When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.

Science is primarily a successful mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority.

It is my impression that by the end of the 60's scientists, themselves, came to feel that the real basis for support was not gratitude (and the associated trust that support would bring further benefit) but fear: fear of the Soviet Union, fear of cancer, etc.

However, between the perceptions of gratitude and fear as the basis for support lies a world of difference in incentive structure. If one thinks the basis is gratitude, then one obviously will respond by contributions that will elicit more gratitude. The perpetuation of fear, on the other hand, militates against solving problems.

However, the end of the cold war, by eliminating a large part of the fear-base forced a reassessment of the situation. Most thinking has been devoted to the emphasis of other sources of fear: competitiveness, health, resource depletion and the environment.

The 60's saw the first major postwar funding cuts for science in the US. The budgetary pressures of the Vietnam War may have demanded savings someplace, but the fact that science was regarded as, to some extent, dispensable, came as a shock to many scientists. So did the massive increase in management structures and bureaucracy which took control of science out of the hands of working scientists.

Fear has several advantages over gratitude. Gratitude is intrinsically limited, if only by the finite creative capacity of the scientific community. Moreover, as pointed out by a colleague at MIT, appealing to people's gratitude and trust is usually less effective than pulling a gun. In other words, fear can motivate greater generosity.

Science since the sixties has been characterized by the large programs that this generosity encourages. Moreover, the fact that fear provides little incentive for scientists to do anything more than perpetuate problems, significantly reduces the dependence of the scientific enterprise on unique skills and talents.

One result of the above appears to have been the deemphasis of theory because of its intrinsic difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals.

In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.

This new paradigm for science and its dependence on fear-based support may not constitute corruption per se, but it does serve to make the system particularly vulnerable to corruption. Much of the remainder of this paper will illustrate the exploitation of this vulnerability in the area of climate research. The situation is particularly acute for a small weak field like climatology. As a field, it has traditionally been a subfield within such disciplines as meteorology, oceanography, geography, geochemistry, etc. These fields, themselves are small and immature. At the same time, these fields can be trivially associated with natural disasters. Finally, climate science has been targeted by a major political movement, environmentalism, as the focus of their efforts, wherein the natural disasters of the earth system, have come to be identified with man's activities - engendering fear as well as an agenda for societal reform and control.

The temptation to politicize science is overwhelming and longstanding. Public trust in science has always been high, and political organizations have long sought to improve their own credibility by associating their goals with 'science' - even if this involves misrepresenting the science.

Given the above, it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a large scale.

Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty, it is entirely possible, in today's scientific environment, that many scientists feel that it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of models. "

[Yobarnacle]

A warm-monger unwittingly confirming the points in previous post.

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

[Yobarnacle]

But SOME INDEED have evil intentions toward us.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
and Al Gores business partner.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, in French Programme des Nations Unies pour l'Environnement, PNUE) is an international organization that coordinates United Nations environmental activities, and assisting developing countries. It was founded as a result of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in June 1972 and has its headquarters in the Gigiri neighborhood of Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP also has six regional offices and various country offices.

The World Meteorological Organization and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
And elects the IPCC Bureau members. Mostly from their own UNEP membership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ment_Programme

Bureau members elected 2009

The composition of the newly elected TFB is as follows: Co-Chairs Krug and Hiraishi; Washington Zhakata (Zimbabwe); Emmanuel Mpeta (United Republic of Tanzania); Zhou Linxi (China); Sirinthotutep Towprayoon (Thailand); Leonidas Girardin (Argentina); Sergio Gonzalez Martineaux (Chile); Art Jaques (Canada); William Irving (USA); Robert Sturgiss (Australia) shared with Leonard Brown (New Zealand) in turn; Rizaldi Boer (Indonesia); Detelina Petrova (Bulgaria) shared with Sadeddin Khefran (Syria) in turn; and Jim Penman (UK).


http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12384e.html

William Irving, EPA

https://portal.acs.org/preview/appma...rl_var=region1

See any friendlies?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

Troy
Climate science isn't the SUPREME science. Actually, it's the newest and least understood, least developed of sciences.
None of the "sciences" is autonomous. There's no borders. Studying the atmosphere includes studying it's physics, chemistry, and meterology, to name a few obvious. Climate scientists don't drill ice cores. Geologists and Cryologists and Physicists do. Oceanographers and Marine Biologists study the oceans.
Seems to me, all most climate scientists do, is make over simplified computer models, and politically agitate for fear doom based scenarios.
Their most damning, self incriminating claims are:
The science is settled, and other fields of science can't credibly participate.
Don't BELIEVE em!
Hang em!


Hi Frosty

Seems to me you don't know much about what they do, then. In the first place, climate change only accounts for about 10% of what climatologists do....

Besides the study of climate change there are many aspects to the work of a climatologist, here are 20 examples…

• Assisting agriculturalists, hydrologists and the like to determine the best practices in order to grow sustainable crops and achieve maximum yields.

• Assisting the petrochemical industry in locating potential oil and gas fields.

• Advising architects, surveyors and engineers of the effects the climate will have on proposed structures – bridges, tall buildings, housing developments etc

• Working with manufacturers of a wide range of products that will be used in an outdoor environment, particularly those used in cold and wet locations

• Working with healthcare professionals and epidemiologists to identify, control and eradicate diseases and disease vectors

• Assisting local authorities in planning flood defences, recreational facilities and other public services

• Working with livestock farmers to determine the most suitable breeds given the location and topography

• Assisting aid agencies and disaster relief organisations in determining the most suitable course of action to mitigate against natural disasters and to cope with natural disasters when they happen

• Working with historians, Egyptologists and archaeologists to determine what the climate would have been like at a given location way back in time

• Researching the effects that different climates have on health, longevity, reproduction, skeletal growth, resistivity to infection etc

• Working with geographers, geologists, cartographers and others with an interest in the formation of natural land features

• Advising economists, bankers, investors, venture capitalists etc of the potential climatic impact of their financial proposals

• Working with forestry companies to determine the best locations to plant the requisite species of trees

• Advising the utility companies of the impact of climate on water, gas and electricity supplies and demand

• Researching environmental risks

• Working alongside atmospheric chemists and physicists in the study of the atmosphere

• Advising the police, fire service, military and other emergency organisations in the planning and co-ordination of civil emergencies

• Undertaking research as requested by private clients, this could include insurance companies, tour operators and airlines, casinos – pretty much anyone

• Assisting in the planning and undertaking of major expeditions from treks to the polar regions to launching space shuttles

• Advising the energy industry on a wide range of issues from the siting of nuclear power stations and wind farms to the viability of hydro-electric plants

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1184447AAZApZV

Nor have I seen any climatologists claim that the science is settled and other fields can't participate.

[Yobarnacle]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1184447AAZApZV

Climatologists, according to Trevor.

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by troy2000

But it's an inconvenient truth that most of the noisier climate change naysayers aren't even climatologists. They're scientists from other fields, who've decided to whore out their scientific credentials to the petroleum industry in return for paychecks.

So other scientists CAN have a valid opinion, after all?

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

This new paradigm for science and its dependence on fear-based support may not constitute corruption per se, but it does serve to make the system particularly vulnerable to corruption. Much of the remainder of this paper will illustrate the exploitation of this vulnerability in the area of climate research.

The situation is particularly acute for a small weak field like climatology. As a field, it has traditionally been a subfield within such disciplines as meteorology, oceanography, geography, geochemistry, etc. These fields, themselves are small and immature.

At the same time, these fields can be trivially associated with natural disasters.

Finally, climate science has been targeted by a major political movement, environmentalism, as the focus of their efforts, wherein the natural disasters of the earth system, have come to be identified with man's activities - engendering fear as well as an agenda for societal reform and control.

"

From Dr Richard S. Lindzen, MIT

[Boston]

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha now thats more like it, makes my morning actually, thanks GTO. Ever laugh so hard your face hurts ? Even spilled my coffee, yikes, can you draw any funny pictures to go with that ice melt thing ??????

actually the graph I posted doesn't show very clearly whats going on since the dawn of man, it does however show that we are at the "average" top of the cycle and would "most likely" be entering a cooling phase had not mankind dumped billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Doesn't quite seem to match up to your previous assertion. "Average" and "most likely" leaves a bit of slop in the system. Again, the chart YOU posted shows a definite warming trend over the last million years. Given that over time, the cold (ice) sink is being depeleted, it is VERY reasonable to assume that the warming trend would accelerate as the warming forces begin to dominate Earth's climate.


And thats the kinda stuff that just makes my morning, actually thinks that ice melt drives temp ahahhahhahahaahhahah, holly molly my guts hurt. Damn near fell out of my chair

If you knew anything about reading graphs you'd be able to recognize what I'm talking about. The timing of the Milankovitch cycles and the CO2, Temp trend make it really obvious where we are in the cycle. Shall we look at it for a third time



I suppose I could waste some time and draw in a best peak linear fit of just one parameter, temp, for you but its not like your going to learn what you don't want to know now is it ? Also you might notice, ( big benefit of the doubt there ) that I even blew off the arbitrary 1960~90 baseline temp since it shows an even lower temp than the average peak of the last 800,000 years.



so if you just look at temp in this graph we are just barely bellow the peak average. But then again, the resolution of the graph gets in the way, also temp is just one aspect of the climate system so lets look at a few other parameters. Which in order to see effectively we're going to need to look at a higher resolution graph, just as I suggested



And the picture becomes much more clear, we are at the average peak of the temp cycles. Period. We are also long overdue for a drop in temps assuming we were dealing with an undisturbed system, but apparently dumping billions of tons of CO2 as well as a few other things seems to have set the system on its end. which is what 98% of climate scientists are agreeing on.

but then again, I'm talking to the guy who thinks ice melt is a forcing



We could go over graphs that depict the human era, although most people are more interested in being right in whatever they believe rather than what they believe being right. Personally I can't imagine how anyone gains an education at all by insisting there long held beliefs have to be correct. Admitting one is wrong is the first step in getting it right.

Totally ridiculous (stupid) reply and more thinly veiled insults.

Ouch, and from the guy who thinks

pure genius, so ice melts and warms things up Ahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahhahhahahahhahahahah

I don't "believe" in anything related to the climate. YOUR chart clearly shows a warming trend over the last ONE MILLION YEARS. SCIENTISTS have determined that the Arctic Ocean has been open nearly 2 DOZEN TIMES in the last TWO MILLION YEARS. Yet to you that is merely "irrelevant".

and now the northern passage is the measure of climate change, Ahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahhahah damn you are awesome reading first thing in the morning, could you please include some little stick figures or something ??????

To sum up my position on global warming, I actually don't care about it. The entire world runs on burning petro fuels and that isn't going to change no matter what in the forseeable future. So I actually don't lose any sleep over it at all.

OK I've had about as much fun as anyone desearves in one morning, I gotta get some work done, but thanks and cheers, fantastic stuff, should keep a grin on my face all day. Can't wait to tell some of the guys about the thinks melting ice drives climate change idear

Ahahahahhahahhaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahaahahhahahhhhahah

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

From Dr Richard S. Lindzen, MIT

One opinion piece claiming climatology may be vulnerable to corruption is hardly a credible indictment of the field, or those who work in it.

Let's get back to my original premise: your belief that climate change is a fraud doesn't hold up, unless the vast majority of scientists worldwide (not just climatologists) are fools, dupes or conspirators.

I don't buy it.

[Boston]

ahahahhahaahahahahahahahahahah

Lindzen takes huge amounts of money from the oil and gas industry to write pro petroleum articles

but that can't top

thinks ice melting drives temps.

Holly molly that's going to carry me through the whole day ;-)

Ice melting is a feedback change in albedo, it melts "because" temp increased its kinda like suggesting that water vapor drives temp. once again its the complete lack of comprehension thats so damn funny, how do people pretend to believe or not believe in something they don't even remotely understand ?

oh well have a great day peeps
cheers
B

[Yobarnacle]

Boston

PROVE Lindzin takes petrol money. Not just quote a bunch of sites that CLAIM he does. He says he doesn't. PROVE IT, or wash your mouth out with soap.

If we threw in a dungeon, every warm monger scientist that takes money from the ecology nut lobbyists, there wouldn't be any left on the GW side. They ALL take money.

The greens dole out 78 billion in prizes to their darlings. Your daddy HANSEN got over a million himself!

Before you throw rocks, check out the glass house YOU live in!

As to who doesn't understand the science? YOU don't!

[Yobarnacle]

Boston
What's YOUR degree in?
Do you have a degree?