What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Landlubber]

Pericles,

Please do not confuse the arguement with facts.

It was such a good story..........now you go and spoil everything.

I am off to tell the King!

[Jimbo1490]

Perry,

I know the facts by themselves cannot persuade anyone from a faith-based belief. But often people have beliefs which they sincerely believe are based on fact, but are not. Often such beliefs are in fact irrational fears, which are sometimes referred to as phobias.

A person who exhibits a phobia of spiders, for instance, will often build up a set of supporting beliefs about spiders, (they are aggressive, poisonous, creepy, etc.)which the person uses to placate his rational self, which insists that he have no irrational fears, but only legitimate ones based on a rational assessment of the risk associated with the object of the fear.

An important first step in overcoming a phobia, of spiders in this example, is to 'debunk' that set of supporting beliefs so that the person will at some point recognize the fear for its true nature: irrational, phobic and therefore debilitating. This will not in and of itself dispel the phobia; that still requires a further set of conscious efforts. But debunking the phony supporting, rationalizing beliefs is a necessary first step.

Jimbo

[plebusmaximus]

http://www.ipa.org.au/library/Review...%20present.pdf

[Guillermo]

I have just received today the last book from Ian Plimer, personally signed by Plimer himself:

"Heaven + Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science"
http://connorcourt.com/catalog1/

I'm not reading it, but 'devouring' it

Cheers.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

"Heaven + Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science"
http://connorcourt.com/catalog1/

From the publishers internet page:
quote:
A PUB LISHER D EDICATED TO C ULTURE
quote end.

If this book has been subjected to the same amount of corrections/ reading as their internet site has, i'd expext some errors....

(I know what a "pub" is, I do not know what "lisher" is nor do I know of "ulture"..., "edicated" I are).

[plebusmaximus]

Personally, I think we have little control. We need a cause.
Media create the debate, for obvious reasons. It suits politics.
The end point is, we need new means of energy. Something that is not infinite.
Something that needs research, right now.
It effects our economies. Right now, we are prolonging fossil fuel supply, to ring that last dollar.

[rasorinc]

Just heard on Fox news today 6:40 Eastern S.T. The US government will no longer be considering Global Warming as the vast evidence shows the Earth to be cooling over the last decade. Also will be changing many terminologies.
No more Green jobs for instance. If any one finds more info re: this, please post it.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Knut Sand

If this book has been subjected to the same amount of corrections/ reading....

I have found some typos up till now...but it is in its fourth edition, which is outstanding taking into account official presentation was a merely two days ago...!

From the book:
"Climate has always changed. It always has and always will. Sea level has always changed. Ice sheets come and go. Life always changes. Extinctions of life are normal. Planet Earth is dynamic and evolving. Climate changes are cyclical and random.
...........
If we look at the history of CO2 over time, we see the athmospheric CO2 content has been far higher than at present for most of time.
...........
If we humans are warming the planet now, how do we explain alternating cool and warm periods during the current post-glacial warming?
...........
The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of the crust, the close and opening of seaways, changes in the earth's orbit, changes in solar energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation, ocean currents and the chemistry of air.
...........
The Earth's climate has always changed with cycles of warming and cooling long before humans appeared on Earth.
...........
Climate science lacks scientific discipline. Studies of the Earth's athmosphere tell us nothing about future climate. An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, peleontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaelogy and history. This what is attempted in this book.
..........
Both the rate and magnitude of climate change are less than changes over the last 1000, 10000 or 100000 years. Global warming has brought excesses of food and wealth, social stability and rapid diversification of life on earth.
History and archaeology show us that global cooling results in droughts, social disruption, climate refugees, famine, disease, war, depopulation, collapse of civilizations and extinctions of plants and animals. We live in the best times that humans have ever had on planet earth.
We are the only generation of humans to fear warm times! Global warming makes us richer and healthier."

I strongly recommend you its reading and calm down your warming fears, my dear snow man....
Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by plebusmaximus

Personally, I think we have little control. We need a cause.
Media create the debate, for obvious reasons. It suits politics.
The end point is, we need new means of energy. Something that is not infinite.
Something that needs research, right now.
It effects our economies. Right now, we are prolonging fossil fuel supply, to ring that last dollar.

What we need to do is stop wasting fossil fuels to generate electricity and start a crash program building nuclear plants. Of course we have to stop delaying type litigation first. No chance of that with Il Duce in power in Washington. But if France can generate 85% of their electricity with nuclear, and they don't do anything right, we certainly can do the same. Then we need to have a program to convert homes in the frost belt from oil, coal or wood heat to electric, again with expanded nuclear capacity as nuclear power without the litigation costs, is cheap once the plant is built.

Once all the left wingers wipe the foam from their mouths, I'm sure I'll be villlified and hoisted on a pike. But hey, that's how I see it.

[Guillermo]

Two views of the North Pole: 05-18-1987 and the Catlin Arctic Expedition today...

Cheers.

[Landlubber]

Hey if that is Santas little helper, no wonder the bastard only works one day a year, too busy "playing" the rest of the time.

Wish I could get a job like that!

[Jimbo1490]

More relevant stuff:

"Profits of Doom - An Introduction to the Science of Global Warming"

Excerpted:

"When the popular media refer to “Global Warming”, or more recently “Climate Change”, both with Capitals, so You Know How Important It Is, they mean a combination of three related theories. These are:

• The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
• This is happening because of human activity.
• This is a bad thing.

None of these things can be shown to be true.


Now before you throw up your hands in horror that someone who isn’t even a politician or a movie star could question the worldwide consensus of scientists on this issue, let me make another outrageous claim:

There is no consensus.

A report released by the US Senate on December 20th 2007 (available online here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport) gives details of the work of over four hundred scientists working in the areas of oceanography, geology, climatology and meteorology who have published studies which call into question the evidence, methods and predictions of the IPCC and other global warming groups."

Jimbo

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

More relevant stuff:

"Profits of Doom - An Introduction to the Science of Global Warming"

Excerpted:

"When the popular media refer to “Global Warming”, or more recently “Climate Change”, both with Capitals, so You Know How Important It Is, they mean a combination of three related theories. These are:

• The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
• This is happening because of human activity.
• This is a bad thing.

None of these things can be shown to be true.


Now before you throw up your hands in horror that someone who isn’t even a politician or a movie star could question the worldwide consensus of scientists on this issue, let me make another outrageous claim:

There is no consensus.

A report released by the US Senate on December 20th 2007 (available online here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport) gives details of the work of over four hundred scientists working in the areas of oceanography, geology, climatology and meteorology who have published studies which call into question the evidence, methods and predictions of the IPCC and other global warming groups."

Jimbo

I read in one of the other links earlier that there is a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists that also dispute this so called concensus. Concensus is silly when talking about science anyhow. What is telling though is that the IPCC is sort of revered as a sacred idol of reasearch and the scientific method yet many of its members are little more than political hacks appointed by their respective governments, several hundred have no scientific credentials or training at all. When a number of members revolted after the original report, it took years for their names to be removed from association with the IPCC.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

A report released by the US Senate on December 20th 2007 (available online here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport) gives details of the work of over four hundred scientists working in the areas of oceanography, geology, climatology and meteorology who have published studies which call into question the evidence, methods and predictions of the IPCC and other global warming groups."

Jimbo

You are outdated, Jim. Presently there are more than 700

What is absolutely atonishing is how the IPCC didn't take into account the previous thousands of scientific papers about the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age and followed the infamous and unscientific Mann's work.

Cheers

[Guillermo]

Spring '09 release of Anthony Watt's report on USA's surface stations, with more than 70% of them already surveyed:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...t_spring09.pdf

From there:

Policy Implications and Recommendations
This report reveals a serious deterioration in the reliability of the U.S. temperature record due to siting decisions that
violate NOAA’s own rules. With only 11 percent of surveyed stations being of acceptable quality, the raw temperature
data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public
policy decisions. Adjustments to the data by NOAA/NCDC and NASA add significant additional warming biases, which
compound the errors present from localized site biases. With 89 percent of the stations in the USHCN network having
been shown not to meet NOAA’s own criteria, the use of data from adjacent stations to infill, adjust, or homogenize data
likely results in a greater distribution of error through the network.

These findings have significant implications for the scientific and policymaking communities in the U.S. and around the
world. The USHCN data are widely used and cited by many major scientific centers for climate analysis. These include
but are not limited to:
• NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) managed by Dr. James Hansen
• Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge Laboratory
• Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK managed by Dr. Phil Jones
• National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) managed by Mr. Thomas Karl
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a joint project of the World Meteorological Organization
and the United Nations Environment Program

The findings and recommendations of these highly respected and influential scientific and political organizations are now
in doubt. The data currently used to claim that the twentieth century witnessed a statistically significant warming trend are
unreliable. The truth of that claim can be established only with new and more-reliable data. Since the U.S. temperature
record is widely regarded as being the most reliable of the international databases, it follows that data used to estimate the
change in global temperatures over the past century must also be revisited.

These findings lead me to make the following suggestions to NOAA/NCDC:
• An independently managed and comprehensive quality-control program should be implemented by NOAA/NWS to
determine the best stations in the network.
• A pristine dataset should be produced from the best stations and then compared to the remainder of the USHCN
network to quantify the total magnitude of bias.
• Users of the current USHCN data should be advised of the quality-control issues so that they may reexamine results
derived from such data.
• NOAA should undertake a comprehensive effort to improve the siting of the stations and correct the temperature
record for contamination that has been observed to occur during the past two decades.