What Do We Think About Climate Change

[nordvindcrew]

how is global temperature measured and how sure are we of the accuracy ?

[Boston]

got board so I read another one of your posts
wow
wrong again on all counts


ok but 97% of climate research scientists disagree with him
its called a consensus
not a unanimous but a consensus
and its probably the largest consensus of any theory

as for this laughable petition the following came out in response to it clearly stating that at least on of its authors is in the employ of big oil and dirty coal


from http://www.desmogblog.com/new-oregon...bacco-industry

12 October 07
New Oregon Petition Promoter "Not Sufficiently Rational" to Advise Tobacco Industry
Tags: Arthur B. Robinson, fred seitz, oregon institute of science and medicine, Richard Littlemore

Early reports that a new "Oregon Petition" is now circulating are now confirmed. Attached to this post, you can find a copy of the pitch letter, the petition statement and the heavily manipulated "science" article on which it is all based.

This exercise is so flawed that it's hard to know what demands criticism the most. First, the whole exercise is being pushed by Arthur B. Robinson, the survivalist, Darwin skeptic and proprietor of something called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The "scientific" article on which the petition rests is authored by Robinson, his son Noah, and the American Petroleum Industry-funded Willie Soon, none of whom could hope to get their climate work published in a peer-reviewed science journal.

Apparently bent on meeting the same high standards as the last petition (which included "signatories" ranging from fictional TV character Perry Mason to Spice Girl, Geri Halliwell), the promoters have broadcast this version far and wide.

"It's pathetic that they're so desperate to show that any scientist supports their position that they're even contacting random graduate students in tangentially and unrelated fields." - Sean Lake, graduate student in the UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy.

But most offensive is the use, once again, of the 96-year-old Dr. Fred Seitz as the lead signatory. Seitz was once a widely respected scientist; he's a former President of the National Academy of Sciences and a one-time President of Rockefeller University. But he fell from grace in the 1970s when he signed on as chief scientist for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco company. He fell then further in 1989 when Alexander Holtzman at Philip Morris complained in an internal memo that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."

So, 18 years ago, Seitz was "not sufficiently rational" to meet the lenient scientific standards of the tobacco industry, but today, Art Robinson still feels it's ethical to send out a petition over Seitz's signature on one of the most pressing current scientific issues of the day.

Clearly, shame is a concept still unexplored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

sounds to me as it not only is there ample evidence of the petition being a crock bought and paid for by the energy industry but that its reliance on desperation tactics is known far and wide

9 October 07
Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition Alive and Well

Yesterday we came across this post on DailyKos about a University professor who recently received a package from a PO Box in La Jolla, CA, asking him to sign a petition denying global warming and condemning the Kyoto Protocol.

The package included an official looking research study titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Dr. Fred Seitz (a gentleman we know all too well here at DeSmogBlog).

It seems that either this Professor has not picked up his mail in a long while, or the infamous "Oregon Petition" effort has resurfaced.

Below is a quick background and some helpful links to the history of the Oregon Petition. If you've also received one of these packages, please let me know it would be great to get a hold of one.

Background on the Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself.

The Oregon Petition was initiated by an individual named Art Robinson in April 1998 under the auspices of Robinson's so-called "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine." [picture above] Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson and his Institute published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science . They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a notorious climate change denier (and former tobacco company scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.

The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Oregon petition and big tobacco
It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Oregon Petition and the Spice Girls
According to the May, '98 Associated Press article , the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were collected. The petition included the names of "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' " Of the fake names, Robinson is quoted as saying: "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."

oh
the Oregon institute is actually a tin storage shack



not much of an institute eh

as for funding the "institute" refuses to list its sources however
as of 2002 it was known that there little project received two shots in the arm of $10,000 each one in 98 and the other in 2000 from Exxon Mobile

1998
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

2000
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
project support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

[Boston]

Originally Posted by nordvindcrew

how is global temperature measured and how sure are we of the accuracy ?

thanks for asking

there are numerous methods of taking the earths temp and they are all checked against one another constantly to ensure the accuracy of each

first there is a large array of ground stations positioned all around the world
then there is a system of ocean buoy's
there is also a series of satellites and a balloon schedule
there is infrared photography and various other optical methods as well as digital methods all being used and constantly being checked against one another to verify accuracy

almost every area being measured has multiple measurement systems set up in order to obtain the most accurate readings possible

I believe the IPCC states that the confidence level concerning there collated data is around 95%

basically although the IPCC does not fund nor do any actually research itself it does collect data and collate it into various coherent forms in order to form a consensus of the information coming in
it then produces a report every few years on its findings

by virtue of the fact that they are considering data from countless independent sources and by comparing that data they are able to determine a probability of error within the data pool
from that they define there level of confidence
95% is pretty dam high and can only be achieved because they have so many sources of data and those sources all relatively agree with one another

hope that helps
B

[spearaddict]

Here is a study that found CO2 increase is actually harmful to forest ecosystems:

Long-Term Effects of Carbon Dioxide on Plants Studied by ARS

By Don Comis
December 7, 2009
Long-term, open-top chamber studies of how rising carbon dioxide (CO2) could affect crops, forests, and pastures reveal a wide range of impacts, according to Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists.

Plant physiologist Steve Prior at the ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory in Auburn, Ala., heads this research effort. He, plant pathologist Brett Runion, and other colleagues at the Auburn laboratory have found that fast-growing exotic weedy invasives such as Chinese privet, nutsedge and tropical spiderwort could become even more troublesome as CO2 levels increase to 550 parts per million as predicted by 2050.

For forest species such as longleaf pine, higher CO2 levels improve water use efficiency, which may improve drought tolerance, by causing leaf pores or stomates to stay partially closed longer.

In their studies, growth and survival of pine trees went up, while growth and survival of understory plants declined by half.

In addition to increased pine needle production under high CO2, the scientists also found some chemical changes in these needles that litter the forest floor, resulting in less nutritional content for millipedes and other bugs and microbes that feed on them. These changes may alter carbon and nutrient cycling in these natural systems.

And they found that higher CO2 can increase residues left from soybeans and other crops and affect the amount of nitrogen available to plants as microbes decompose the residue. Different soybean varieties may also have different effects on nitrogen availability in a high CO2 world.

In addition to weeds, Prior and Runion also saw effects on disease and insect pests, such as fusiform rust and the red headed pine sawfly.

The study supports the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s priority of responding to climate change.

Read more about this and other climate change research in the November-December 2009 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

ARS is USDA’s principal intramural scientific research agency.

Source: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2009/091207.htm

So that contradicts the statement by OISM claiming increased CO2 is beneficial. Also there is another study i know of, I just need to find it.

[Boston]

hey spear
did you know we're Nazi's in a coolaid club

[spearaddict]

Originally Posted by Boston

hey spear
did you know we're Nazi's in a coolaid club

Thats news to me. I wonder what the deniers who believe Oil company Execs are saints and angels call themselves....
It is funny that fasteddy keeps up with personal attacks and then asks us to not to do the same in regards to his idols.

[Boston]

or better yet complains to the moderator to get certain posts removed but then make references to the same kind of thing a few posts later

brilliant eh

The important thing here is to realize that if deniers cant convince anyone there next best tactic is to waist time and effort of those who are actively spreading the truth about Rapid GLobal Climate Change.
So do not waist to much time here but instead get out and talk to folks who do mater and who are open to wherever the data leads.
I did a lecture series not to long ago and have been looking for another venue ever since I left.
Im hoping the natural science museum or the new museum of History going up now will have the resources to support a series
Im also proposing a class at one of the smaller local universities and working on a few unrelated papers

the denialist scam is designed to delay meaningful change more than it is to convince ( its got nothing very convincing anyway )
thus preserving the profit of pollution for as long as possible

One reason they refuse to acknowledge anything when confronted with the reality of the data. The argument is got nothing to do with honestly discussing anything but instead its designed to delay and to confuse and that to them at least means to never actually allow a conclusion to there argument but instead skip to another.
if you read back through you can see that represented concerning almost every subject we have touched on here

its a classic tactic and a sure giveaway to the professional deniers in the squad
speaking of which various front groups will pay sites to host denialist threads like this one and then man them with there lackeys
its a whole bloody industry ( agnotology ) that is larger than you may think once you begin to look at the scope of it

[spearaddict]

This past week, a group of 25 students, myself included, helped a group from MIT put together solar collectors for use in powering part of our Marine Science labs. It won't be generating power till early 2011, but we assembled the collectors in 4 days and now they are out there for all to see. These collectors are 20-40% efficient at collecting the solar energy heating them. On a large scale application, the output is in Megawatts, and is intended to replace Coal or hydro-electric plants. Our application here is a prototype design, the production units will be sent to Africa to provide clean power AND hot water to villages too far removed to get power sent through power lines.
And yet, deniers still claim we want to lower everyones standard of living till people start dying off.
Here is a picture of the first row we installed:

[Brent Swain]

I don't think it wil be an act of reponsibility of humans as much as a major die off of humans . I hear with the wars in Ethiopia, , and the resultant reductions in human numbers, the populations of antelope there has rebounded in a big way.
I can think of a lot of drying anchorages which would be useable by single keelers, if they had a few feet more water. Existing charts will be extra safe to use, but beyind their shores, there will be far more options for single keel boats with more adventurous skippers.
For Florida Everglades type air boats, it will be wide open.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by nordvindcrew

how is global temperature measured and how sure are we of the accuracy ?

And where do they stick the thermometer?

[Boston]

as I said there are multiple methods all used in conjunction to verify the others
on something this important
they homogenize a number of data sets

[hoytedow]

Be sure to place all the thermometers on the hottest piece of asphalt you can find, and decommission the ones in the Arctic Circle so the numbers will trend upward. Manipulated data is unreliable data and is therefore garbage, just like anything ever written by Al Gore.

[Boston]

sorry Hoyt that myth has been busted long ago

if you have some data to show that the efforts of thousands of scientist world wide in taking accurate measurements has somehow been subverted by this evil plot of which you speak
we would all love to see it

all data is to some degree manipulated
its the correlation between data sets that is used to confirm a level of confidence in it
so when twenty different studies come in and all show the same thing
it kinda precluded your whole argument

once again you have made a claim and provided not a shred of scientific evidence to back it up
let alone a series of published works in support of your position
which is exactly what the IPCC has done
time and time again

[hoytedow]

As usual, I disagree. It is still out there, and not a myth.

[spearaddict]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

As usual, I disagree. It is still out there, and not a myth.

Well, we know you disagree. Do you have data is the question... Without data, you are solely basing your decision in your inability to comprehend things greater than yourself.
I hope you don't use NOAA charts or weather reports. You do know those reports are biased towards AGW right?