Political Crossfire Forums

[The Impeacher]

sorry galt, you cannot talk about "x factor" of clouds and the difficulties of climate modeling and then deny the green house gasses.

i'd like you any of you doubters to explain to me how green house gasses and pollution in general is either GOOD for the environment, or WOULD NOT effect the climate?

[Headrattle]

Then how do you counter the fact that a majority of climatologists believe that global warming is happening and is caused by humans? A conspiracy? Now it is true that you can come up with a study that doesn’t say the same one as mine, but which one is the correct one? Could it be possible that all of the scientists are being tricked? What do they have to gain from pointing out that there is climate change? What do those sponsored by oil companies have to gain?

Climate Change isn’t fully understood. That is true. But a majority of climatologists believe that it is occurring and it is caused by humans. And that number is growing. You must understand that those that believed in Climate Change used to be in the minority, but over time it has gained acceptance. True it isn’t as bad as most environmentalists believe, but as long as we aren’t hurting our nation and essentially making scientific progress, why not be a little cautious?

[mathurin]

i will try to explain


it probably started with someone wanting to keep research funding, a ticking time bomb type of thing is more likely to catch attention, eventually it became entrenched that there was a problem, though even now it has not been clearly defined ("pollution" and "greenhouse gasses" are "affecting" the climate, though exactly how or why we dont know, but we can prove it because weather is acting odd, very clear eh, weather is always odd)
soon enough it became part of the climatologists education, that there is a problem, perhaps the term was even created for this specific field of study, why else does the specialization exist, weather is studied by meteorologists

so asking why most climatologists believe in global warming would be similar to asking why oncologists believe in cancer, they have to to get their position

[Headrattle]

I don't believe that for a second. As long as there are hurricanes, tornados and el nino, there will be funding for climitologists. There are plenty of reasons to research climate other then global climate change. So your analogy doesn't quite fit. Another thing that shows that that type of reasoning doesn't make any sense is that if money was the end result, then they would be in the pockets of corporations because there is more money. And another thing is that if that were true Climitologists wouldn't be pointing out that the Environmentalists and their politicians are warping the science as well as those who don't believe it.

So the idea that Climate Change came about to get more funding is an interesting idea, but there isn't any evidence to support it.

[Random Evil Guy]

John Galt wrote: Yes I know oceans store heat. Why would they release the heat before the CO2 rose

the point is that the increase in co2 and temperature levels aren't simultaneous due to the slow heating of the oceans. in addition you have natural factors such as volcanos, el nino etc. so one doesn't expect the two graphs(co2 and temperature) to be exact.

John Galt wrote:
As for what I said that "makes no sense" you continually claim that scientists who are being like Galelieo and doubting conventional wisdom of the religious fanatics are pawns of the oil companies (which makes no sense they want to drive profits up and it is much more believable that they are behind the peak oil nonsense than global warming) and I say the others are pawns of the religious zealots.

nope. i just asked if you could find me one skeptical climate scientist who isn't funded by oil companies. can you?

John Galt wrote:
I say the others are pawns of the religious zealots. So everyone's a pawn, and unless youi can find one that isn't, then you are committing a fallacy when you look for people who are against the religious furvor that has swept much of the so-called scientific community regarding this usse as being pawns.

this is were you make no sense whatsoever. who are the 'religious zealots' and what is their goal? are you seriously saying that mainstream climate science is 'corrupt'?

[ieatfood]

when you don't like the conclusion that the experts are coming to, claim that the experts are corrupt

sorry, but that's a losing play in my book

[Kindred]

Just had to add this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6720088/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11009001/

[Citizendave]

....and getting back to the first post in this thread by John Galt:

Quote: There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

Quote: Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.

[url] http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml [/url]



John Galt wrote:
......we can't know what is causing global warming. Which, btw, hasn't been happening for the better part of a decade.


Sorry John, 1998 was not a typical year for a specific reason. Looks like it has been happening.

[Citizendave]

Much has been made of the lack of scientific objectivity due to the influence of money in the past pages.

Bob Carter wrote:
scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research.


emt3197 wrote:
You speak as if climatologists do not have agendas of their own. What do you think a scientist will say when they are trying to appropriate money from different sources.


GTTofAK wrote:
Yet they both now work at Columbia which makes a boat load of money leading the world in "Climate Science".


John Galt wrote:
Give me one scientist who isn't bankrolled by anyone but himself who is a global warming theory worshipper.


I confess, I have found the catagorical consensus on GW to be suspicious. Usually the science swings from one direction to the other: one year eggs are bad. The next? It's OK to eat them. A November 2004 survey of several hundred published (peer reviewed) research papers found not even one which challenged human induced GW. (As I recall, a few were inconclusive).

I began to wonder, what type of organization would be objective?

I have hit upon the idea of looking at what the global property insurance companies think. Risk is their business, and misjudging the situation would cost them money. Also, any large company has a busines plan which looks over the next 5 to 10 years. Here's what Munich Reinsurance has concluded from their science department:

Quote: The scientists of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research Department are convinced that this global warming is essentially man-made and will have massive repercussions......
[url] http://www.munichre.com/ [/url]



If any of you skeptics or deniers can provide a link to a global property insurance company which does not believe in human induced GW, I'll read the link.

I'm waiting.....

[mathurin]

Headrattle wrote: I don't believe that for a second. As long as there are hurricanes, tornados and el nino, there will be funding for climitologists. There are plenty of reasons to research climate other then global climate change. So your analogy doesn't quite fit. Another thing that shows that that type of reasoning doesn't make any sense is that if money was the end result, then they would be in the pockets of corporations because there is more money. And another thing is that if that were true Climitologists wouldn't be pointing out that the Environmentalists and their politicians are warping the science as well as those who don't believe it.

So the idea that Climate Change came about to get more funding is an interesting idea, but there isn't any evidence to support it.

last i knew hurricanes and tornados were in the ballpark of meteorologists, you know, the weatherguys

regardless, stating that you need to understand a tornado or hurricane or whatever because it might cause a couple million dollars damage (katrina was a fluke, most dont cause that caliber of damage, and dont even start on how GW caused it) is not the same as claiming a global man made phenomenom that will end the world
it is also consistent with almost all other environmentalist crap, when these kind of connections show it makes me question the source of them

[Headrattle]

mathurin wrote: last i knew hurricanes and tornados were in the ballpark of meteorologists, you know, the weatherguys
They are a significant part ot Climitology as well. It would be closer to your analogy. Which is why I used it. Don't take the statement too seriously. I was pointing out a flaw in your analogy, and why your point doesn't make any sense.

Quote: regardless, stating that you need to understand a tornado or hurricane or whatever because it might cause a couple million dollars damage is not the same as claiming a global man made phenomenom that will end the world
it is also consistent with almost all other environmentalist crap, when these kind of connections show it makes me question the source of them

I am quite aware of Katrina and how it isn't a normal Hurricane given that most of my family was displaced because of it. However, You didn't really answer the doubts that I had.

Essentially, I find it doubtful that climitologists are in it for the money. If they wanted to do that, they would just have to work for the oil companies. Sorry, I don't go well with Conspiracy theories.

[Citizendave]

Another large property insurance company:

Quote: Climate change is happening. In our view, a precautionary approach is the only appropriate way to deal with it - since it is not possible to quantify the total impact of climate change before taking action......

.....From the emerging greenhouse gas regulation to the multitude of proposed US federal and state policies, as well as global NGO initiatives, the public and other stakeholders are exerting increasing pressure for concrete action.

[url] http://www.swissre.com/
[/url]


Swiss Reinsurance is one of the largest property insurance companies in the world. They have the resources and economic motivation to conduct an objective assessment of global warming.

[Free Thinkr]

Headrattle wrote: Then how do you counter the fact that a majority of climatologists believe that global warming is happening and is caused by humans? A conspiracy? Now it is true that you can come up with a study that doesn’t say the same one as mine, but which one is the correct one? Could it be possible that all of the scientists are being tricked? What do they have to gain from pointing out that there is climate change? What do those sponsored by oil companies have to gain?

Climate Change isn’t fully understood. That is true. But a majority of climatologists believe that it is occurring and it is caused by humans. And that number is growing. You must understand that those that believed in Climate Change used to be in the minority, but over time it has gained acceptance. True it isn’t as bad as most environmentalists believe, but as long as we aren’t hurting our nation and essentially making scientific progress, why not be a little cautious?
How do you counter the fact that Mormonism is growing? Belief is a funny thing.

[Free Thinkr]

Headrattle wrote: I don't believe that for a second. As long as there are hurricanes, tornados and el nino, there will be funding for climitologists. There are plenty of reasons to research climate other then global climate change. So your analogy doesn't quite fit. Another thing that shows that that type of reasoning doesn't make any sense is that if money was the end result, then they would be in the pockets of corporations because there is more money. And another thing is that if that were true Climitologists wouldn't be pointing out that the Environmentalists and their politicians are warping the science as well as those who don't believe it.

So the idea that Climate Change came about to get more funding is an interesting idea, but there isn't any evidence to support it.
Tornados? Hurricanes? Booooriiing! Science struggles to get funding. Religions don't. Every good religion has a doomsday theory; that's how you keep the money coming in.

[JLChrista]

The Impeacher wrote: sorry galt, you cannot talk about "x factor" of clouds and the difficulties of climate modeling and then deny the green house gasses.

i'd like you any of you doubters to explain to me how green house gasses and pollution in general is either GOOD for the environment, or WOULD NOT effect the climate?

Well, if PBS's Nova is correct; pollution may have been dampering the effects of greenhouse gases. They claim that a scientists (sorry I watch but don't retain names) proved after 9-11 when planes weren't flying for three days, that the contrails caused by airplanes kept the areas that were tested cooler, or in this case the lack of them cause more warmth. And it had previously been shown that the particulate air pollution in and around India was causing something called global dimming wherein the particles not only added to the shading of an area but it also caused the sunlight to reflect back up off of the top of the "dirty" cloud masses more than off the top of clean cloud masses. When they were able to have a relatively accurate comparison in the three days after 9-11 on contrails, they found more effects than they had anticipated. This could mean that cleaning up the huge amounts of pollution that were in clouds may also have had a much greater dampening or dimming or cooling effect than originally thought.

In a nut shell the program ended with the concept that the fact that we have cleaned up "pollution" in so many parts of the world may be allowing greenhouse emissions do MORE damage and faster now because it is no longer countered by the dirty clouds dimming and cooling as it was up till we got all pollution conscious.

So in fact, dirty, polluted clouds/skies may have been "good" for the earth in that two wrongs made an almost even cancellation of each other.

[Citizendave]

Free Thinkr

Quote: Science struggles to get funding.

Not in the area of global warming. I read that many different government departments (10 or more) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars studying GW since Bush has been elected.

Quote: How do you counter the fact that Mormonism is growing?

You compare belief in Mormonism to belief in GW. Here's where your metaphor is wrong:

Mormonism is growing because people like it, and they see it as a useful and benefical aspect of their lives. However, belief in human induced GW is growing reluctantly, since most people hope it isn't true, and view it as a hazardous aspect of their lives.

I think your metaphor undercuts your incorrect opinion on GW, rather than supporting it.

[Free Thinkr]

Citizendave wrote: Free Thinkr

Quote: Science struggles to get funding.

Not in the area of global warming. I read that many different government departments (10 or more) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars studying GW since Bush has been elected.
That was my very point. How much funding do tornadoes get? I'd bet my boots it isn't but a fraction of what GW gets. How much funding do you think a climatologist who makes conservative predictions about global warming gets? They might as well rename climatology "global-warmatology."

Quote: Quote: How do you counter the fact that Mormonism is growing?

You compare belief in Mormonism to belief in GW. Here's where your metaphor is wrong:

Mormonism is growing because people like it, and they see it as a useful and benefical aspect of their lives. However, belief in human induced GW is growing reluctantly, since most people hope it isn't true, and view it as a hazardous aspect of their lives.

I think your metaphor undercuts your incorrect opinion on GW, rather than supporting it.
I don't think so. People, for whatever reason, definitely like to believe the end is near. Or perhaps they like the feeling that they're going to be responsible for stopping it or overcoming it. It's hard to say. It's notable, however, that religions invariably speak of end-times, and such scenarios are often used to convince potential converts. Why do they lead with that, if it doesn't get results? The answer is simple: it gets results. Be it Mormonism, Scientology, or GW, people are easily persuaded when end-times scenarios are given.

Like I said in that other thread on the PBS show: I found it very interesting that the two scientists they interviewed were scoffed at by climatologists when they discovered that the solar intensity had decreased. How could climatologists, whose field is so utterly dependent on this data, have been unaware? That, in and of itself, is enough to cast major suspicions on the whole field. Then they have the other guy tossing out doomsday scenarios saying that unless we cut "greenhouse gas" emissions by 80% in the next decade, we'll likely move beyond a point of no return. Yeah? Well if that's the case, pack it in. It's been a nice run.

[Citizendave]

Quote: Yeah? Well if that's the case, pack it in. It's been a nice run.

That's just all wrong. Only a skeptic would say that. We have to try.

Quote:
How much funding do you think a climatologist who makes conservative predictions about global warming gets?


There is a model which predicts only modest rise ( 9 cm) in sea level over the next 100 years. There is debate is over how bad it's going to be.

Quote:
That, in and of itself, is enough to cast major suspicions on the whole field.


Human induced GW has been confirmed so many different ways. I understand that not much money has been devoted to studying the possibilities which skeptics continue to assert. But with ExxonMobil giving 100 million dollars to Stanford to study alternative fuels, and major CO2 emitters now voluntarily tracking and reporting their output, indications are that people such as yourself are being swept aside.

Having said that, if you pm me the link to the other thread I'll look at what you said, or just post the link. Frankly, I was reading an article on GW which had a graphic which HAS to be phony baloney. Doesn't change my mind about whether or not it's happening.

Quote:


3 DECEMBER 2004 VOL 306 SCIENCE http://www.sciencemag.org/


Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have
used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions....

....[SKEPTICS] suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate
change. This is not the case.

....In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements......

.....The American Meteorological Society.... the American GeophysicalUnion....the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling .... The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision....



[The author details the research method:]

.... analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”. The 928 papers were divided into six categories..... 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility .... Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research....But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

[url] http://www.c-ciarn.ca/app/filerepository/44C6944FFDE849C9B85110DCB718C3CF.PDF

[/url]


Really, who is it that you imagine is going to come along with some hard science to refute GW? Since the article I've quoted above was published, several more very damning studies have come out.

[Free Thinkr]

Citizendave wrote: Quote: Yeah? Well if that's the case, pack it in. It's been a nice run.

That's just all wrong. Only a skeptic would say that. We have to try.
I think you meant "cynic." And like I said, if we only have 10 years to reduce emissions 80%, we're effed. No hope whatsoever. If we don't know how long we have or how much we need to reduce emissions, it's pretty impossible to have any concrete standards.

Quote: Quote: How much funding do you think a climatologist who makes conservative predictions about global warming gets?


There is a model which predicts only modest rise ( 9 cm) in sea level over the next 100 years. There is debate is over how bad it's going to be.
Yeah, well here's the problem: all we hear about is how much has supposedly occurred, when that isn't very important at all. What's important is how much will occur, and what will result. If the sea level is only going to rise 9 cm, we don't have a problem.

I find it quite interesting that, despite the fact that none of these scientists have anything better than a guess about the threat posed by GW, that doesn't stop many of them from posing wild-assed doomsday scenarios for every GW program on TV.

GW is one part science, one part religion.

Quote: Quote:
That, in and of itself, is enough to cast major suspicions on the whole field.


Human induced GW has been confirmed so many different ways. I understand that not much money has been devoted to studying the possibilities which skeptics continue to assert. But with ExxonMobil giving 100 million dollars to Stanford to study alternative fuels, and major CO2 emitters now voluntarily tracking and reporting their output, indications are that people such as yourself are being swept aside.
Of course. Just like every eco-scare. No different than the crazy-ass outrage over landfills they were screaming about back when I was in high-school.

Quote: Having said that, if you pm me the link to the other thread I'll look at what you said, or just post the link. Frankly, I was reading an article on GW which had a graphic which HAS to be phony baloney. Doesn't change my mind about whether or not it's happening.
The thread is on global dimming, and it's just a few threads down. The bottom line is this: these so-called "climatologists" were wholly unaware that the sun's intensity at the surface had gone down. They had no idea.

Now you think about that for a minute. Think about the relationship between the sun and the earth's climate. And then try and tell me with a straight face that these guys know what they're talking about. Yeah right. I think we need to consider the possibility that these "experts" are not quite as good as we assumed.

Quote: Quote: 3 DECEMBER 2004 VOL 306 SCIENCE http://www.sciencemag.org/


Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have
used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions....

....[SKEPTICS] suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate
change. This is not the case.

....In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements......

.....The American Meteorological Society.... the American GeophysicalUnion....the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling .... The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision....



[The author details the research method:]

.... analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change". The 928 papers were divided into six categories..... 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility .... Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research....But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

[url] http://www.c-ciarn.ca/app/filerepository/44C6944FFDE849C9B85110DCB718C3CF.PDF

[/url]


Really, who is it that you imagine is going to come along with some hard science to refute GW? Since the article I've quoted above was published, several more very damning studies have come out.
No one's come up with hard science to refute Leprechauns either. I still am skeptical about their existence, however.

[Citizendave]

Quote: The bottom line is this: these so-called "climatologists" were wholly unaware that the sun's intensity at the surface had gone down. They had no idea.


The description of the NOVA story gives a false impression. Since I did not see the show, I don't know to what degree the show does the same thing. I read on the other thread that you did see the show. Since I can't pick apart the show, so I'll tackle the description.

Quote: "Dimming the Sun" investigates the discovery that the sunlight reaching Earth has been growing dimmer...

Quote: Working in Israel, Dr. Gerald Stanhill was one of the first to discover the surprising fact that less solar energy is reaching the Earth's surface.
[url] www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/about.html [/url]


They are making Stanhill's research sound like a new discovery, and he's only verifying and advancing. The understanding of the concept is quite old.

Quote: While his measurements were met with skepticism...

The mesurements were questioned because of their dramatic nature. Not becuase he was laying out a revoultionary concept.

Quote: Scientists have long known that increasing air pollution—the smog that clouds urban skies—endangers our respiratory health. But they had underestimated the impact of pollution on the amount of sunlight reaching Earth.

If someone is going to "underestimate" the impact, that means they are aware of the condition. The page with the description of the NOVA show has a link to a slide show which talks about the refinement of a very old concept.

Quote:
paraphrising the slide show:
Benjamin Franklin proposed the idea in 1783 that a volcano in Iceland erupted and caused temperatures to lower in Europe.

In the early 1900's scientists tried and failed to link the same two events.

In the 1940's the first handbook of aerosol science. While scientists knew that particles could block sunlight, they did not link it to climate science.

By the 1950's science was aware the human activity was creating clouds which was blocking sunlight.

In the 1960 science began to focus on haze, and documented that particles sent into the air can ramain in the air a long time, and travel long distances.

Late 1970's, early 1980's, ice cores reveal that, after volcanic eruptions, temperatures get lower. Also, confirmation that certain particles can remain in the air for years.

Mid 1970's, early climate computer models factor in aerosols and their sunlight-reflective properties. They overstate their ability to refect sunlight, and erroneously predict a dramatic cooling trend.

1980 - Building on the emerging knowledge related to aerosols, researchers suggest that the dinosaurs were killed off by debris sent airborn by an asteroid hitting the earth 65 million years ago.


There are 4 or 5 pages more noting additional scientific advancement on the subject. The last page says that "Stanhill was not alone in measuring" the drop in sunlight." Pollution particles hanging in the air is and has been a part of every modern climate model.