stevoh

First off, great! Nice, good to see someone go in with an open mind and see what the science says, and not what various political bodies who are trying to influence policy one way or the other have to say. However, I have a couple of questions. Firstly, why read only the information that skeptics have provided? Two weeks of that type of research, just like two weeks of reading one opinion on anything, will change your mind. Your research should be equally balanced between those that are sceptical of Global Warming science, and those who support it. So, junkscience is a fine start to represent the "skeptic" side of the argument. What websites did you look at that support human influence global warming? How did you establish that the information here was not valid, but the information from junk science was? Now to address one specific point, surrounding the antarctic ice increase, which is occuring. I am going to look into this more, but what I remember about this is that the ice is not increasing due to colder temperatures, but due to heavier snowfall. The snow layer compresses over time and produces more ice. I will get back to you on that one.

I myself am a skeptic, but I have yet to find a peer reviewed scientific paper that states that human caused global warming is not occuring. I don't need anything fancy, just link me to a published scientific paper that refutes human caused global warming. That's it. In fact, I am beginning to believe there IS something to this global warming thing, because the links I have investigated in this thread, the peer reviewed scientific ones, all back that up. I want a balanced view, but no-one is providing that information. Peer reviewed paper from accredited climate scientist is essential. Otherwise, its just opinion. I am interested in the science, not the politics. Please provide me a link to one, just one, published climate research paper that is peer reviewed that refutes human caused global warming. If you post one every week, should be a 10 second copy and paste.

I am interesting in finding that out, or I wouldn't have wasted my time on the various posts in this thread. However, what I do also find interesting is that the links provided that I looked actually support human influenced global warming. Those that are scientifically produced peer reviewed papers that is. It seems like the people who provide all the "evidence" that global warming is a myth count on the readers not checking up on the original papers to find out the truth. Or they don't understand the science they are linking to. The fact that people who deny global warming can't even link to a scientific paper that irrefutably says "human created global warming is not occuring" means to me that such papers are few and far between. I have yet to find one that exists. But I have read quite a few (two more from this thread) that continue to support it. I could never read enough to actually prove "overwhelming concensus", but the fact that a thread full of global warming skeptics, and the links they provide, cannot provide that evidence, says a lot.

So your point was not to show any interest in the information provided, or the way the information from the links was changed to match an agenda, your providing of links was merely a public service? Helping a fellow poster out from your sense of altruism?

First link, very interesting, looking at "whole earth" climate change, including heat capacity of the earths oceans, and its ability to store and release heat. The papers conclusion: "The estimated increase in GMST by well mixed greenhouse gases from preindustrial times to the present, 0.7 ± 0.3 K; the upper end of this range approaches the threshold for "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system," which is considered to be in the range 1 to 2 K [O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002; Hansen, 2004]." I have to wonder why Marino linked to this paper. Its probably because this scientist (and yes, he actually is a scientist doing climate research) has suggested that the temperature change from current greenhouse gas emissions proposed by other scientists is too high, and he has provided his hypothesis based on his whole earth approach. However, he has also stated that this range approaches the level of "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". In other words, its STILL something to investigate and a cause for concern. Was Marino's assessment of this paper accurate? Did he state that while the human induced climate change temperature measures suggested by this paper are lower than those from the IPCC, that they are still a cause for concern, and are in fact dangerous? Here is a quote: "“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research." Er, the paper actually supports man made global warming... Did this astronomer even READ this paper? Again, I also have to question why so much emphasis is placed on the "shakey science" of any paper that supports global warming, but somehow, this paper, escapes such scrutiny and is instantly elevated to "Fact" because it supports a less dramatic position.

No comments on the misinterpretation of the first article?

Marc Marano? The swift boat journalist? I thought he was more of a propaganda spreader, wasn't he associated with Rush Limbaugh? Well, lets give him a chance and see what he has. take a look at his list, first item: 1. “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” here is a direct link to the entire paper: http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf He states: "Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century." Then we look at the actual paper, and in the conclusion: "The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s eventin the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend." Strange how he left out that conclusion. A conclusion that says their hypothesis can be SUPERIMPOSED on anthropogenic warming trends. In other words, it is acting TOGETHER with anthropogenic climate change. The paper in no way disputes that anthropogenic climate change is occuring, it suggests that the climate shifts that it studies are ALSO influencing factors. In fact, many of the articles he points to are of similar themes. They discuss other influences besides CO2 concentration that influence weather. They do not DENY human influenced global warming at all, they introduce or define other mechanisms that have an influence AS WELL. He also makes it darn hard to find the original papers, despite his inclusion of "helpful" links. If he really believed what he said, then each link should link to the original paper, or a translated one if it is in english. Not another site of links, or a belgian website, in belgian, that requires a username and password to view. I don't have time to go into each and every link, although I did try a few, and, as noted above, found no direct links to the actual peer reviewed paper. Is he making it hard for a reason? I find it really interesting that any science that comes out and supports global warming, or, as is the case recently, are saying that the effects are being UNDERSTATED, are immediately attacked or dismissed as biased. Yet, any science that points out there are other factors in global temperature besides CO2 are immediately trusted and held in high regard? Why is the science that supports human caused global warming immediately distrusted regardless of its source, but science that suggests other factors or argues degree of influence is immediately trusted and used as "proof" that AGW is incorrect? Because the agenda isn't science.

You are correct in that I didn't watch the lecture. You are wrong that I did it so that I could attack the person. I WANT to find a legitimate climate scientist or group of climate scientists with scientifically peer reviewed information that counter the human global warming claims. I just haven't yet. The links above from another poster prove that that Bob Carter is a qualified geologist. However, the majority of the publications from the links concerning climate science are opinion pieces and lectures. They are not designed to further scientific investigation within the climate sciences. They are designed to address groups of individuals to convince them that global warming is not any cause for alarm. Let me explain the difference. In his field of expertise, geology, he is responsible for publishing part of a paper entitled "Beyond the GSSP: New developments in chronostatigraphy". His section, linked from the website provided above, is called "Stratigraphy into the 21st century". The purpose of this paper is to imalgimate the various papers provided by scientists, one of whom was Robert Carter, that were presented at the conference. This paper was for sharing information with the scientific community at a conference for the purpose of furthering scientific understanding of Chronostatigraphy. The PURPOSE and WHO IT IS PRESENTED TO, are key elements here. Its purpose is to share information with the scientific community, it is presented to fellow scientists. Now, take an article not within his field of expertise, "The Stern Review: A Dual Critique , Volume 7 Number 4.". Where is this information published? In "World Economics" a Journal of current Economic Analysis and Policy. What is the purpose of this journal? From the websites description: "World Economics is essential reading for government and corporate economists, politicians and their research staff, civil servants, labour leaders and senior business people. It supplies vital analysis for central banks, investment banks and other financial institutions, and for major corporations and regulatory institutions. It provides crucial briefing for members of think-tanks, government ministries and intergovernmental agencies." The purpose of this article is to provide information for economic decisions to non-scientists. The information Bob Carter provides is not peer reviewed, and is not provided to fellow climate scientists in order to further the understanding of climate science. It is provided to influence policy amongst economists. It is interesting to note that within the same publication, a little while later, Bob Carters article is rebuffed in the article "Response to ‘The Stern Review: A Dual Critique’ Nigel Arnell, Rachel Warren & Robert Nicholls", where Carters critisism of the original Stern review (which supported global warming) is rebuffed. This provides me with two pieces of information. World Economics is an opinion based economics journal that provides information in a non-biased format concerning economics, where both sides of an argument are presented. While I am pleased to see the lack of bias, I recognize that it is neither a scientific journal with peer reviewed publications, nor is it an attempt to further the study of climate science. Bob Carter's expertise is geography. His climate science articles are opinion, not qualified scientific study. His climate science articles are designed to influence policy, not further climate science. I am looking for the science, from a climate scientist.

Just once, I would like to look up a global warming skeptic and find they are a legitimate climate scientist with peer reviewed publications currently working in the field of climate studies. Usually, I am lucky if they are a scientist at all, at least in this case the guy is a geologist. All science, as all information, should be looked at with a critical eye. Why am I having so little luck finding legitimate scientific sources that back the current anti global warming theories? I am not interested in what a geologists opinion of climate change is.

For the US. Global warming is global temperature change, not just the US. Considering that is the period with which humans have been releasing the most CO2 into the atmosphere, therefore potentially influencing global temperatures, it is entirely relevant. And really, the most important period to understand. Notice the normally slow pace of such change, 39 900 000 years according to your figures. The current global warming trend is not notable due to temperature extremes, it is notable due to the pace of change.

You haven't tried my wife's cheesecake.

I don't buy the "bilingual packaging" argument. I recently bought some electronic hardware, and the packaging was in 5 languages, including spanish. Many areas of the US also require multilingual packaging and instructions (Florida, etc) and they don't pay more for it.

Running bc ferries...

Isn't the original topic about the creation of spaces in the day care system? I am quite willing to pay for day care for my daughter. However, I have had to put her name on various waiting lists, waiting lists that are at least a year long. For me, its not about having to pay for the space, its finding the space in the first place.

Global warming is real. Temperature measurements, satelite and ground prove it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png The question is not whether the global temperature is increasing, it is. The question is how much our release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is influencing that increase. In other words, is the increase part of the natural warming/cooling cycle of the earth, or is it due to human made greenhouse gas emissions.

In the article referenced from the first post, Monkton is correct. The results of the measurement of tropospheric warming using Weather balloons (radiosondes) do not indicate that the troposphere is warming at the anticipated rate or with the anticipated "hot spots" that are predicted to be the fingerprint of global warming. The measurements from satelites for the lower troposphere as indicated below are more in line with surface temperature changes as shown below: Global trend, lower tropospheric, dec 1992 – dec 2005 Satelite Temperature records 1992 0.014 1993 -0.020 1994 -0.013 1995 0.019 1996 0.023 1997 0.031 1998 0.101 1999 0.091 2000 0.081 2001 0.091 2002 0.109 2003 0.118 2004 0.116 2005 0.13 The lack of support from trophospheric measurements for the climate change model is acknowleged by the IPCC in their latest report: So, while the surface is heating at a predicted rate, the trophosphere is not heating at the rate predicted by some climate change models. Instead they are increasing at approximately the same rate. Surface and satelite data plot: So, global warming is occuring, but the predicted heating of the troposphere at a greater rate is not.

Why you can't stick to debate and need to pepper your argument with vacuous insults is beyond me. Done.

Reducing our use of energy is at best useless? Reducing our dependence on non-renewable resources, useless? Even without GW, reducing energy consumption is a worthy goal. Where I live, they are recycled. Including the mercury. Already low mercury version are available, identifiable by the green base. The amount of mercury needed will continue to decline as the technology improves. Both Toyota and Honda recycle the batteries, from the toyota site: The batteries also last a good long time, since the Prius first went on sale in 2000, they have not replaced a single battery for wear and tear. Who's scrutiny? Depends what your priorities are. And, since organic food sales are the fastest growing sector of the food market, it seems a lot share the same priorities. Challenge away, show me science from scientists and I will believe it. If global warming isn't caused by carbon dioxide, I have no problem with that. Read this thread. Where are the attacks coming from? I am interested in the science and fact. Show me science, not op-ed pieces on the science. Gee, look, an attack. What a shocker. I don't think the science is settled. I am willing to accept what it finds. More personal insults. Boring. Keep these out of our discussion or I am done.

Suspicious? Yes. Same as healthy sceptisism. The same sceptisism you have for global warming science, I have for all new science until time and peer review proves otherwise. As new facts come to light, facts from scientific study, not op-ed pieces, the science adjusts and theories adapt to the new information. If global warming is not a result of human activity, then scientific study will find that out, and I have no problem accepting the results of those investigations, but the source has to be scientific, not otherwise. And even if it is proven wrong, changing the composition of our atmosphere is still a bad idea, we do breath the stuff after all. Ask yourself, if science proves that global warming is due to human activity, carbon emmissions to be precise, are you willing to accept that science? Or will you keep fighting it? Because there comes a point where bias plays a more important role than facts, and you seem to be leaning that way. One of the things I find inspiring about the current global awareness of human activities on the environment is the amount of change the individual is having. Hybrid cars, once initially dismissed by american automakers as too expensive and without demand, are the single largest growing area of automobile sales. Now even american cars are available with hybrid options. The environment is not just a subject of tree huggers and environmental scientists any more, we are all dutyfully recycling, buying long life flourescent light bulbs, buying organic foods (another huge growth market), environmental concern has gone from the scientists and outspoken few and becoming supported by the masses. Government changes are fine, and they have their place, but the real change is coming from the consumer and their right to choice. The real loud sqawks are coming from a minority of individuals who claim to understand science but are not scientists themselves. Various reasons such as making money, wanting to restrict government roles, making money, being concerned with only themselves and immediate gains, and making more money cloud their vision and make them desperate. Desperate enough to fund psuedo science, and out of hand reject any evidence found by the scientific community that supports global warming, they desperately pore through pages of scientific journals they don't understand trying to find the slightest error in math, statistical analysis, anything they can to cast doubt on actual science. Its not working. The people are speaking through their dollars and their votes. Keep on squawking, the change is already here.

Wow, ok, that turned real nasty all of a sudden! We can discuss the facts and bias without bringing in the personal insults. The only reason exxon funding is suspicious is because it is within exxons best interest to have global warming proved wrong, so that they can keep selling their product without restriction. If global warming is a real effect, exxon will not be able to sell as much of their product. I am equally suspicious of "science" funded by environmental organizations. This does not mean in either case that the science is not necessarily factual, just that it has be be examined closely and peer reviewed before it can be accepted. I think it also goes without saying that science should come from qualified scientists. Of which Monkton is not.

A key question to ask, regardless of whether the "science" is from the left or right wing, is to ask if the scientist or skeptic would loose funding if the results of that science did not line up with the funding groups politics. In other words, if Monktons research had indicated one of two things: 1. The IPCC report conclusions were reasonable. 2. The IPCC report understated the man made global warming trends. Would he still be funded by Exxon? I dont' think so. The same holds true for left wing groups, if you are being funded by greenpeace, then you may loose that funding if your research indicates global warming isn't man influenced. A good first step for accurate information is to find out if the information actually comes from a qualified scientist however, I commend Andrew for taking the time to rebuff the arguments in this attempt at politicizing science.

Ok, so I am supposed to believe what Mr Monkton writes in some paper, even though he isn't a climate scientist, or even a scientist, and yet, in the same paper, Mr Monkton himself dismisses a real scientists evidence based on his qualifications: So, I am supposed to BELIEVE a non-scientist attempting to rebuff climate science, and yet am supposed to DISBELIEVE an actual scientist because he is not a climate scientist? Really? Monkton shouldn't be dismissing someones data as inaccurate when they have no qualifications in climatology, WHEN HE HAS NO SUCH QUALIFICATIONS HIMSELF. This is not a science based paper, it is a political paper.

Its pretty sad really. Of all of the things that you can focus on that are an actual waste of taxpayers money, you wouldn't think the health of your fellow Canadians would be one of them.

Why would I accept any paper on climate science from a person who is not a scientist? Even better, a climate scientist, but at least have some formal education within the scientific method. Why is the northwest passage opening up and becomming a hot news item if global warming isn't occuring? Read the quotes a little more closely and you will find your answer. The first states that parts of the north atlantic ocean are becoming less salty. This is true, waters below 1300 meters have been getting less salty since the 1980's. The top 400 meters has been getting more salty.

Who is Christopher Monckton, a pre-eminant climate scientist with the knowledge to write such a paper? Lets see... He was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism. A diploma in journalism hardly gives someone the qualifications necessary to rebuf climate science. Monckton has been described as "a fervent, forthright and opinionated Roman Catholic Tory" who has been closely associated with the "New Right" faction of the Conservative Party, so he can hardly be described as unbiased. What about the Science and Public policy institute? Where his paper is published, are they a science based unbiased organization? The Science and Public Policy Institute, part of Frontiers of Freedom, are a conservative organization funded by ExxonMobil that has campaigned against the screening of An Inconvenient Truth in U.S. schools. So, we have a man with no scientific training, strong right wing ties, supported by an organization funded by ExxonMobil, that is critical of global warming science? Hardly the voice of scientifically based unbiased truth, quite the opposite in fact.