Thread: could use some global warming right now

Originally Posted by Bruce

OK, work with me here. Can anyone identify the anthropogenes who turned on the furnace which reversed the last ice age? And, where was that furnace located and how was it fueled? Apparently we got a lotta mens doing bad thiings over lotsa millenia. Seems that most of those anthropgenes are bad fitting at best. Hmmm?

Oh, and who started that last ice age?

Well I believe technically we're still in an ice age. Saying that man is affecting the climate is not the same as saying that everything stayed the same prior. Yes, there has always been an ebb and flow, but only in the last century or so have we had the technology and interest to determine what our role is, and the increasing temperature rises over the last 50 years are an amazing coincidence at best.

Of course, if you don't believe the science pointing to global warming I'm not sure why you'd believe the science saying that there were glacial periods. Same people most likely.

Originally Posted by Dllandry

I look at the global warming thing much like 10-15 years ago when all the "experts" were screaming about the hole in the ozone layer. Weren't we all supposed to be burned to a crisp by now? I do not believe it now, nor will anyone ever convince me differently.

If you live near areas where ozone layer has already thinned, you have a higher risk to get melanoma. From 2002 to 2009 the number of registered melanoma cases has risen almost 50% so i guess experts knew what they were saying.

what is the ideal global temperature?

Here is some evidence

United Nations' Experts Doctor Evidence
'Hot Politics' by James M. Sheehan (July 1996) As United Nations negotiations for the Global Climate Convention convene this month, scientists on the UN's panel of expert advisers are under fire for altering a scientific report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) made headlines with its claim that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Now there is evidence suggesting that this assessment was driven by politics, and not science.
The IPCC's 1995 report, the final version of which was published in June, is supposed to represent the consensus of world scientific experts regarding the highly controversial issue of global warming. The panel's work is relied upon by Global Climate Convention negotiators who are considering possible curbs on the use of fossil fuels, such as energy taxes. The IPCC's reputation for objectivity rests upon its commitment to balanced scientific opinion arrived at through the process of peer review.
Potential misconduct at the IPCC was recently uncovered by the Global Climate Coalition, an association of oil, coal, and utility companies. In a memorandum to Congress and the White House, the business coalition alerted U.S. officials that the IPCC's final published report had been altered before final publication. Substantial portions of Chapter 8, which discusses the impact of human activities on the earth's climate, had been re-written by one of its authors after contributing scientists had already given their approval. Cautionary references to scientific uncertainty were removed or modified, changes not approved by the reviewers. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz called the last-minute editing a "disturbing corruption of the peer review process" which could "deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."
Seitz's remarks set off tremors throughout the scientific community. Several articles about the controversy appeared in the New York Times and Energy Daily, as well as the prestigious journals Science and Nature. The IPCC's Sir John Houghton labeled the charges "appalling," and maintained that the re-write "improved the science." Lead author Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, denied wrongdoing and claimed that IPCC rules allow modifications "to improve the report's scientific clarity." However, the deletions were more than minor clarifications. Key portions accepted by contributing scientists were later removed or altered without their knowledge. The changes functioned to suppress doubts and to downplay uncertainties about forecasting a human influence on climate. For example, Santer told Science that in a discussion of when scientists will be able attribute climate change to human causes, he removed the phrase "we do not know" because it overstated doubts that human activity can be blamed.
The IPCC's explanations bolster the impression that the revisions were politically motivated. Santer cites a November State Department memo to the IPCC advising "that chapter authors modify the text in an appropriate manner." According to an editorial in Nature, IPCC officials said that revisions to the text were needed "to ensure that it conformed to a 'policymakers' summary of the full report," a document whose language is voted on by government delegates. Thus the process is heavily influenced by government officials, including non-scientists.
The IPCC had a rather different response to earlier efforts to modify its report. During peer review, Britain's Global Commons Institute (GCI) took issue with a finding in Chapter 6 that the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions may exceed the predicted economic damage from global warming. Demanding that the damage be calculated in a way which showed that richer countries owe "compensation" to the Third World, GCI orchestrated an effort by delegates from Cuba and the Alliance of Small Island States to rewrite the report, replacing all damage estimates with warnings about "the loss of unique cultures." In response, senior IPCC official James Bruce insisted that the proper time to make revisions under IPCC rules was during two prior rounds of peer review: "At this stage [the October 1995 Montreal working group], the authors can make a few editorial changes for clarity of reading, but not changes to the meaning or substance of the report" (italics added).
Perhaps IPCC officials should consult one another regarding their contrasting interpretations of IPCC procedures. Both environmentalist groups, like GCI and Greenpeace, and industry groups like the Global Climate Coalition, are having great difficulty understanding how the IPCC conducts itself with regard to peer review. What is clear, however, is that the UN panel is so thoroughly politicized that its integrity and objectivity cannot be taken for granted.

Originally Posted by Dllandry

Yep sure do they have an agenda that is not based on science but keeping money comming in for research, conferences, etc. Its so warm now days it snows in Saudi Arabia. Oh yeah I know its not called global warming any more its climate change.

Are you claiming the climate scientists are lying to get money?

Don't you think that would be easy to point out?

Do you believe that global warming deniers have an agenda? Why would you believe them?

Originally Posted by Sailor

If you live near areas where ozone layer has already thinned, you have a higher risk to get melanoma. i guess experts knew what they were saying.

Some experts disagree.
Discovery Health "Melanoma"

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Are you claiming the climate scientists are lying to get money?

Don't you think that would be easy to point out?

Do you believe that global warming deniers have an agenda? Why would you believe them?

It is always about money


In fact I do believe the deniers also have an agenda and use facts they have to support their argument. I happen to believe global warming is not man made in its entirety and do not totally believe the propaganda either side puts out.



Here is another piece of propaganda that supports global warming myth.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi.../33-37_725.pdf

What about this from 1975

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Originally Posted by Dllandry

It is always about money

So you're saying climate scientists are lying? If you are don't you think it would be rather hard to hide that? You're basically saying that 97% of climate scientists are unethical.

Originally Posted by commiecat

....you're just going to say "Ha! Those sources are made up!" in the interim?

Fair enough.

Nope I was simply pointing out that by saying 97 out of 100 dentists prefer Trident is an appeal to authority, which, by definition, is a logical fallacy, especially if you consider that those dentists may have a vested interest in selling as much Trident as possible. That argument avoids the matter at hand; does trident cause global warming?.....or.....wait.....I'm lost.

What makes me somewhat skeptical is the way that any facts that don't support the current man made global warming theory either get left out or hidden. In Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology just released a report on the last decade that had huge headlines that it was the warmest decade on record. Now if you actually read the report, buried away on page 10 was a comment that 2010 was actually the coldest year of the decade and didn't rate in the warmest years. Now if you believe that the amount of CO2 is increasing and that is the cause of the warming, why then don't the yearly temperatures reflect that and why bury this fact?
I've seen too much alarmism from the Pro side and that makes me skeptical.

Al Gore in an Inconveniet Truth said that global warming was causing hurricanes / cyclones to be more intense. Yet recently the Florida State University showed that this was total bunk.



The red dot is when Gore made his claim.

We had a number of alarmists in Australia preaching that global warming had destroyed our rainfall (the country was going through a drought which is pretty normal for us). Alot of State Government spent $billions building desalination plants and enforcing water restrictions. Guess what, the drought has broken (as it was always going to) and we now have more water than we know what to do with.