Climate Change Skepticism

[Wild Bill]

You can start your own party. Just like Harper did.

Now let's see, I have to help feed my kids. I'm not wealthy. I'm middle aged.

You're telling me that I should go start my own party.

Thanks for your suggestion! Your memo is before me. It will shortly be behind me.

[jdobbin]

Now let's see, I have to help feed my kids. I'm not wealthy. I'm middle aged.

You're telling me that I should go start my own party.

Thanks for your suggestion! Your memo is before me. It will shortly be behind me.

Anyone who complains about the lack of choices in Ottawa, I pose this question to. Harper wasn't a wealthy man when he ran.

I certainly wasn't rich when I ran either.

[Wild Bill]

Anyone who complains about the lack of choices in Ottawa, I pose this question to. Harper wasn't a wealthy man when he ran.

I certainly wasn't rich when I ran either.

Did you run for an existing party? Or did you yourself start a new one?

If you started a new one, how successful was it?

We all have differing amounts of talent, energy, resources and obligations. At this stage in my life I'm not prepared to lose my house and walk away from my family. That's what it would take for me to even entertain the notion of starting a new party. At least, one that might actually achieve some influence. I admire the Libertarian Party for their platform more than any other but even a vote for them let alone helping campaign would be a waste of time in today's climate.

Besides, I'm honest enough about myself to understand that I lack much of the necessary skill set to be successful. It would be pointless to just make a token effort.

The last one to try who achieved any success was Manning. He had sufficient money and power connections to make more than a Don Quixote effort.

He did more than prove that there was an untapped demographic desperate for a new political choice on the ballot.

Perhaps I'll see another Manning before I die. Meanwhile, I'll do the traditional Canadian thing and vote for who smells the least!

[jbg]

Perhaps I'll see another Manning before I die. Meanwhile, I'll do the traditional Canadian thing and vote for who smells the least!

There's always the NDP or the Rhino Party. Or the Bloc.

[jdobbin]

Did you run for an existing party? Or did you yourself start a new one?

If you started a new one, how successful was it?

I ran for a party that had one seat and went to 20 seats in the election I ran in. Many people thought a vote was wasted on the party I belonged. Obviously, it wasn't.

If you think the Libertarian party is the best party, it is never a wasted voted to vote for them. If more people voted for who they believed in rather than settling, the less cynical they might be.

I don't know anyone who has run and lost their house. How much money would you lose on an MP's salary? How much money do you think is needed to run? If the independently wealthy are the only ones who can run for office, the poorer the rest of us will be.

[Wild Bill]

I ran for a party that had one seat and went to 20 seats in the election I ran in. Many people thought a vote was wasted on the party I belonged. Obviously, it wasn't.

If you think the Libertarian party is the best party, it is never a wasted voted to vote for them. If more people voted for who they believed in rather than settling, the less cynical they might be.

I don't know anyone who has run and lost their house. How much money would you lose on an MP's salary? How much money do you think is needed to run? If the independently wealthy are the only ones who can run for office, the poorer the rest of us will be.

Let's assume that someone else picks up the entire tab for developing the party. That of course is a might big assumption when you're starting from scratch but for the purposes of argument let's accept it.

Now, I have a mortgage and bills TODAY! Who pays them?

I make my living with a guitar amp repair/build business out of my home. Part of the reason it works is that it is a niche market. This market runs with vacuum tube technology, a technology that has not been taught in schools since 1960. This means I have little competition. It also means that there's no student available I can hire as a helper. If I train someone from scratch I can't afford the months of lost time and income.

"How much money would you lose on an MP's salary?" - That's assuming you win and become an MP. Where is the income if you lose? How badly does your business suffer and how much income do you lose while you try to build it back up again?

This is the reason that professionals tend to dominate as elected representatives. They can afford to lose! Suppose you had an ordinary job working at an order desk somewhere. Would you take it for granted that the company would hold your job for you while you took a flyer on a campaign? Suppose you won for a term and then lost. Would that company automatically take you back?

Now suppose you're 55. Despite the "official" line, age discrimination is a fact of life.

Sorry. I just don't find your suggestion practical for my own position. In fact, I find it rather glib. Besides, new parties don't achieve power in a few weekends. Reform's timeline was considered incredible and that took a couple of decades.

At my age I'd like to see the results before I die!

[jdobbin]

Let's assume that someone else picks up the entire tab for developing the party. That of course is a might big assumption when you're starting from scratch but for the purposes of argument let's accept it.

Now, I have a mortgage and bills TODAY! Who pays them?

I make my living with a guitar amp repair/build business out of my home. Part of the reason it works is that it is a niche market. This market runs with vacuum tube technology, a technology that has not been taught in schools since 1960. This means I have little competition. It also means that there's no student available I can hire as a helper. If I train someone from scratch I can't afford the months of lost time and income.

"How much money would you lose on an MP's salary?" - That's assuming you win and become an MP. Where is the income if you lose? How badly does your business suffer and how much income do you lose while you try to build it back up again?

This is the reason that professionals tend to dominate as elected representatives. They can afford to lose! Suppose you had an ordinary job working at an order desk somewhere. Would you take it for granted that the company would hold your job for you while you took a flyer on a campaign? Suppose you won for a term and then lost. Would that company automatically take you back?

Now suppose you're 55. Despite the "official" line, age discrimination is a fact of life.

Sorry. I just don't find your suggestion practical for my own position. In fact, I find it rather glib. Besides, new parties don't achieve power in a few weekends. Reform's timeline was considered incredible and that took a couple of decades.

At my age I'd like to see the results before I die!

I'm sorry. I find it glib when people dismiss actually voting for the the people they believe in or putting their money where their mouths are. People settle and then they fall into a pattern of unhappiness and complaint about what could have been or what should have been.

If you said you were not interested in running because it held no appeal, I'd understand. If you said you didn't vote Libertarian because you didn't like their leader, I'd understand. I don't know if any of that is true or not but I know for certain that it can't be easy settling if you are interested in how things are run in the country.

I've often voted for a candidate that wasn't going to win simply because I believed they were the best candidate. And when there wasn't a better candidate to stand up and run, I ran myself. Much of the cynicism people have is because they didn't vote who they thought was best and that they didn't put themselves up when there was no one better to do the job.

If the system is broken as you say and only professionals are running then it has to be fixed. Do you have any suggestions?

You obviously have an interest in politics. Is there nothing that you can do with your vote or being involved part-time that can make a difference? Do you feel you have to settle every election?

[Wild Bill]

I'm sorry. I find it glib when people dismiss actually voting for the the people they believe in or putting their money where their mouths are. People settle and then they fall into a pattern of unhappiness and complaint about what could have been or what should have been.

If you said you were not interested in running because it held no appeal, I'd understand. If you said you didn't vote Libertarian because you didn't like their leader, I'd understand. I don't know if any of that is true or not but I know for certain that it can't be easy settling if you are interested in how things are run in the country.

I've often voted for a candidate that wasn't going to win simply because I believed they were the best candidate. And when there wasn't a better candidate to stand up and run, I ran myself. Much of the cynicism people have is because they didn't vote who they thought was best and that they didn't put themselves up when there was no one better to do the job.

If the system is broken as you say and only professionals are running then it has to be fixed. Do you have any suggestions?

You obviously have an interest in politics. Is there nothing that you can do with your vote or being involved part-time that can make a difference? Do you feel you have to settle every election?

Oh, please don't assume that I've never gotten active! I started as a teenager banging up signs in a municipal election. Later I got swept up in Trudeau-mania but his first term educated me strongly in how "the name is NOT the thing!", meaning that the term "Liberal" in Liberal Party was merely a convenience and had nothing to do with their actual philosophy.

Not being a socialist that eliminated the NDP. Besides, I had first hand knowledge of a local scandal involving an NDP MP and the underage sister of one of my friends that soured me forever for "posturing do-gooders".

So I banged up signs for Mulroney when he won his first majority. By the time of his second win I began to realise that I was not supporting change but rather the last of the old style politicians. His party still took the "troops" for granted, with endless committees on party policy that were totally non-binding and ALWAYS ignored! I might as well have been a Liberal!

When Manning came on the scene I actually got a membership before the party had officially voted to move eastwards into Ontario. I helped organize the local riding and served as a director for a couple of terms. Our riding actually got one of our committee's planks adopted into the Blue Book of the party's platform.

Then came Stockwell Day. The party had been warned a few years before by Stephen Harper in a convention speech that if we allowed the social conservatives to rule the party we would be doomed to electoral oblivion. Day won the leadership and we promptly saw Harper proven right. Who could forget the "Barney the Dinosaur" label pinned on him by Warren Kinsella, the Liberal flack?

That was when I dropped out. I still watch from the sidelines but never again would I commit my own money, time and resources. I had learned that politics is the art of compromise and that people as a whole get what they wish. My own tastes are such that it's not likely I can see all but a small amount of my own values in a particular political party. That's understandable, of course. As a populist I've always believed that "the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard!" but with no inspiration to attract me I'm not going to divert personal resources away from my family commitments.

So perhaps today I AM one of those who "bitch but do nothing" but I believe I've paid my dues and now am ENTITLED to do so!

[jdobbin]

That was when I dropped out. I still watch from the sidelines but never again would I commit my own money, time and resources. I had learned that politics is the art of compromise and that people as a whole get what they wish. My own tastes are such that it's not likely I can see all but a small amount of my own values in a particular political party. That's understandable, of course. As a populist I've always believed that "the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard!" but with no inspiration to attract me I'm not going to divert personal resources away from my family commitments.

So perhaps today I AM one of those who "bitch but do nothing" but I believe I've paid my dues and now am ENTITLED to do so!

Sounds like you've seen your share of elected officials who have left you cold in the long run. I've used my vote as a protest in several elections and actually felt better about it. I find that happens almost every municipal election now.

[Wayward Son]

If you ever wonder why forums like this one are dominated by global warming skeptics vs the scientific community where the consensus that humans are causing global warming is one of the strongest ever achieved the answer is simple. Understanding global warming requires a lot of knowledge. Most of these scientists have spent years, often their entire career working on these issues. Whereas a skeptic can spend two weeks reading some poorly formulated blather on skeptical websites, and despite not even understanding the basics of climatology, or even basic chemistry, biology and physics, he can actually believe that he knows more than the scientists who spend so much time on these issues. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

Thankfully it really doesn’t matter that a small percentage of people and scientists reject the evidence, just like it wouldn’t matter a hoot to the aviation industry if someone was posting post after post about how the current understanding of aerodynamics is completely false. The scientific community will move on evaluating the evidence as it appears and the world will make the necessary changes, just as it always has despite there always being those who are screaming conspiracy theories. The changes will not be painless, but for the most part they will be automatic for most people and 100 years from now people will look back at the naysayers and the doomsayers and wonder how each group could be so completely clueless.

In the last couple weeks I have taken the time to go through a lot of material written by climate change sceptics and, much to my surprise, I found that the scientific arguments are sound and the responses to those arguments by the global warming establishment have ranged from inadequate to nonsensical.

You could spend a couple weeks reading through a lot of material written by holocaust deniers or “truthers” who believe that 9/11 was a white house organized inside job and finish absolutely convinced that their arguments are sound and the responses to them inadequate and nonsensical. That doesn’t make either correct, in fact you would be dumber after reading them than you were before. As climate change is a much, much more complex issue than either of the two I mentioned it is easier to be duped by the pseudo-science they promote. I am not a climatologist, nor do I have a fraction of the understand that most of them do on these issues. But I have spent 10 years reading both sides of the issue. I have read each IPCC report from start to finish. I have read hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. I have read at least 2 dozen books on climate change, mostly written by skeptics (for instance every book by Patrick Michaels, Lomborg, Svensmark, Avery etc). I have a good deal of respect for many skeptics, mainly the Pielke’s, Spener and Christy, and Lomborg but little respect for many others. Incidently US Climate Change Science Program is the group the Bush administration appointed because they didn’t want to listen to the IPCC. Like the IPCC, prominent skeptics have been involved at all levels and they have released a couple reports so far (all available for free online). They seem to be saying the exact same thing as the IPCC – I guess they are wrong too. So as I have said I have spent easily several thousand hours on this and I consider myself to be a novice. Good to see that in a couple weeks someone else can learn enough to be convinced that the scientific community is completely wrong. Especially when you are espousing views that most of the highest profile skeptical scientists reject.

I don’t have hardly any free time and I rarely waste my time on forum’s like this one, but seeing as Riverwind had made some of the most outrageously ridiculous and completely faulty statements I have read in the longest time and no one had to countered much of the nonsense I decided to reply.

1) In 1985 the Vostok ice core data suggested that CO2 and temperature rose and fell in lock step with each other. This data strongly suggested a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. However, in 2003 new high resolution data demonstrated that CO2 levels started to rise 800 years *after* the temperature starts to rise which suggests that CO2 is a result of warming and not a cause. The new data is not disputed by GW advocates and they have been forced to admit that the Vostok ice core data neither supports nor negates their CO2 hypothesis. The trouble is this data was a critical initial dataset and we likely would not be talking about GW today if the data collected in 1985 has shown the trailing CO2 levels.

When I first read this I fell off my chair, then each additional time I have read it I fell of my chair again (don’t worry I have placed padding around it now so I don’t hurt myself). Seems that Dr. Evans (or some other ignoramus) has served up a double whopper with cheese and you have swallowed it whole. Funny enough I took a class in climatology BEFORE 2003 and we used a textbook which I will have to assume was published before the class started (although maybe big science is involved in so elaborate a conspiracy that they have built a time machine and sent textbooks written after 2003 back into the past) and it talked about this well known fact that has been understood by scientists before they started doing ice cores. Quite simply there needs to be a forcing factor to start the planet warming. In the past that was Milankovitch cycles resulting in the orbits where the distance between the sun and earth were closer together and therefore the earth got hotter (or other changes in the cycle such as insolation curves which are more complex), that increase in temperature would lead to a decrease in ice cover and increase in surface plant cover plus it increased the temperature of the oceans which released CO2 (a well known gas law – Henry’s) which together lead to increased CO2, methane and water vapor in the atmosphere. However it was well understood that the Milankovitch cycles could not account for whole temperature increase (the effect and duration of changes far exceeds the cause if ghgs are not taken into consideration) and the temperature would increase for 5000 to 10000 years which was much longer than could be expected by the Milankovitch cycle. The answer was simple. The Milankovitch cycle lead to increased temperature, which lead to increased ghgs which in turn lead to increased temperature, which lead to increased ghg, which lead to increased temperature, which lead to increased ghg and that trend continues until there is another forcing factor that was also generally part of the Milankovitch cycle providing an opposite forcing factor. What this means is simple. There are multiple forcing factors and increased ghg concentrations in the atmosphere is one of them.

I can't believe that anyone could make a statement like “we likely would not be talking about GW today if the data collected in 1985 has shown the trailing CO2 levels” and expect to be taken seriously. Scientists always knew that historically the first forcing factor in the chain was an increase in temperature. They are also smart enough to understand that the chain can just as easily be started by any of the forcing factors, for the simple reason that forcing factors are forcing factors. Prior to humans there wasn't a way for the earths cycles to produce a large enough increase in ghgs to start the chain. Now there is.

2) The famous hockey stick chart that melded data collected from tree rings with data collected from weather stations has been shown to have numerous statistical flaws. This chart was the center piece of earlier IPCC reports, however, the IPCC now downplays the hockey stick but conveniently ignores the fact that much of the current science is based on the assumption that the current temperature rise is rapid and unusual - something that is simply not true.

The original hockey stick did have errors – as the original authors expected and noted in their paper, why do you think they titled the paper: “Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations”?? This is not unusual for an original piece of extremely complicated research. For instance for many years the satellite records of Christy and Spencer were the darlings of the denier world. Their original satellite data was so riddled with errors and has been significantly altered so many times that today it bears almost no resemblance to the original. That is how science works. You collect data and publish it so that others can examine it and attempt to reproduce it so a more accurate understand can evolve. The general trend of the hockey stick curve has been reproduced countless times, although most “skeptics” ignore that and instead only talk about Mann’s original kind of like the intelligent design folk who claim evolution is bunk because there are inaccuracies in Darwin’s work while ignoring the mountains of evidence produced since.

3) Recent satillite measurements suggest that the ice sheet in antartica is increasing in size and causing sea levels to decrease. GW advocates try to argue that this is not significant because 'it takes 100s of years for climate changes to have an impact on ice sheets'. Unfortunately, that argument cuts both ways because it implies that any large melting ice sheets are responding to climate changes from 100s of years ago and cannot be associated with the recent warming trend.

Antarctica may or may not be increasing or decreasing in mass. Certainly sea levels are not decreasing – there is no evidence to support that what-so-ever, in fact the satellite data that you are refering too states that it is increasing at 1.88 mm/year over the 20th century. So you are completely wrong there. The GRACE satellite measurements showed that Antarctica is losing mass – lots of it - and this was shocking to scientists who believed it would be at least a hundred years before this would happen. The Wingham study showed that Antarctica was gaining a bit. The two studies covered different times (Wingham 1993 – 2003 I think and GRACE 2002 – 2005). I will assume that you are talking about the Wingham study seeing as he and it were profiled in the National Post “Deniers” series. I am wondering if they will update that article with Wingham’s newer study published in Science in March in which he showed that just like GRACE found his newer satellite evidence shows Antarctica losing mass.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5818/1529

Irregardless if you were to actually read the IPCC reports (instead of just the excerpts that McIntyre and friends show you) you would know that scientists had always expected Antarctica to gain mass due to warmer Antarctic air leading to higher moisture levels and therefore more snow fall (the height of Antarctica above sea level is so high that it should be damn near impossible for it to melt). And of course the sea level rise predicted by the IPCC has always been almost entirely due to a warmer ocean expanding through simple laws of chemistry and physics. Wingham’s and GRACE’s satellite results show that things are worse than scientists predicted.

None of these examples actually disprove the human caused GW hypothesis but it does demonstrate that it may not be as certain as GW advocates claim. I feel that everyone should be concerned about the way GW advocates are quick to ignore new data that contradicts their hypothesis.

For once you are right: none of those examples disprove human caused GW theory. In fact scientists have long known all of them to be true, but they are twisted by “skeptics” who recognize that most people won’t bother to research.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Wayward Son

[Wayward Son]

Another thing to note: if you read through the body of the IPCC report you will find that the facts presented by the skeptics are not disputed.

Interesting coming someone who says later that you have read parts of the IPCC report. Maybe you should read the whole thing.

The only thing that is disputed is the significance of the data. For example, the IPCC acknowledges that solar variations are the mostly likely explaination for climate changes in the past but they provide no argument that excludes solar variations as a possible cause of the current warming trend. They argue instead that there is no evidence that the solar variations are causing the current warming trend.

They argue that because there IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE SOLAR VARIATIONS ARE CAUSING THE CURRENT WARMING TREND. That is because they have actually read the evidence. Sami Solanki is the world’s leading expert on solar variations. In fact he was also included in the National post “denier” series where they did an article on him in which the author managed to completely misrepresent every single thing that Solanki actually says. Solanki has shown that solar variance is most likely largely responsible for global temperature variances starting at least a couple hundred years ago until about 1970. Very solid data that is peer reviewed and reproducible. He has also shown with solid data that is peer reviewed and reproducible that solar variance can’t be responsible for anymore than a minimal percentage of any of the global temperature variance since then, because solar variance has not increased, not even a small blip. Solanki, despite being labeled a “denier” by the National Post has repeatedly said

that human ghg emissions are likely the only possible explanation for the vast majority of the increase in global temperatures since the 70s. The NP has never retracted those lies as far as I know.

IOW - they take the position that CO2 is guilty until proven innocent and the skeptics take the position that CO2 is innocent until proven guilty.

Seeing as gas laws and experiments show that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere must trap heat and trapped heat must raise temperatures then it is common sense to believe that gases humans emit will follow the gas laws in the exact same way as the natural greenhouse effect. Laws are true until they are disproven (good luck on that one) so it is you that is trying to overturn a well established and always reproducible law of nature and I say “you” because almost all of the “skeptics” you are relying on understand the gas laws.

There is no experimental evidence that proves the link between CO2 and warming. All we have is a theoretical model.

That is true. There is no scientific evidence that proves anything. Of course almost none of the well known “skeptics” believes the BS you just said.

One thing people have to keep in mind: there is no real data that demonstrates a causal link between CO2 increases and temperature rises. However, there is real data that suggests that their is no link between the two or that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels.

A total load of rubbish.

The argument for the CO2 hypothesis goes like this: We believe that CO2 is the only explanation for the current temperature rise because the computer models that we built show this to be true.

Again a total load of rubbish. You really need to stop swallowing whatever “deniers” say as gospel. There are a ton of reasons why most scientists believe that human ghg emissions are the main cause of current global warming. Computer models are just one reason and a reason that is almost never provided as evidence.

You picked an interesting example. I provided that link because it explained how the reliability of the ice core data has changed over time and why a reasonable person in the 1990s could have looked at the data and presumed a CO2 link but another person looking at the data today would presume no link.

Again a total load of rubbish. I am tired of wasting my time. There are almost a dozen papers over the 20 years published in Nature about the Vostok ice cores. I suggest that you read them before continuing to embarrass yourself.

Pielke rejects the idea that human emissions are the major cause of the problem. He believes that land use pratices and urbanization are a bigger factor.

Those ARE human emissions. How is that not obvious?

The IPCC consistently denies that the sun is a significant factor and chooses to ignore data that that suggests it is.

Data such as?

The IPCC has said over and over that the observed warming can only be explained by CO2 emissions.

No, the IPCC has said over and over that the majority of observed warming over the last couple decades can only be explained by CO2 emissions. In no way do they dismiss other sources as contributing sources. Again, you would know this if you actually read the reports.

Again you miss my point. The fact that GW activists take such an absurd position is more evidence of why their opinions cannot be trusted. Why do you trust the word of people that willfully ignore well thought out criticisms of their theories?

Most GW activists have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Same goes for most GW “skeptics.” There are many scientists who know exactly what they are talking about. Unfortunately they are being ignored.

NASA researchers have projected a major solar minimum (solar cycle 25) for the period of about 2020 to 2030. If that occurs, and Earth’s temperature decreases, solar energy will have been established as a major driver of climate.

Uh, OK. 2005 was warmer than 2001. Average sunspots in 2005 about 25. How about 2001? About 120. Solar cycle 19 was the highest solar maximum. It peaked around 1960. Temperatures? Frigid by 20th century standards. Fact is for the last couple months we have been recording an average of almost zero sunspots so this year should be way colder than 1960, but it is not. I would suggest actually reading about cosmic rays and the earth’s magnetic fields and their effects, instead of believing what a couple GW skeptics say about them.

The use of the word 'denier' among GW activists is a perfect example of why we should be very careful about trusting their word because it demonstrates that they are not looking at this issue rationally

Baloney. The use of the word “skeptic” for deniers is ridiculous. I am a skeptic. I have been a member of skeptic’s societies for years. What do Skeptic Magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, The Skeptics Society and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry all have in common? They all support the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that the evidence overwhelmingly points to man being the major cause of current global warming. If you deny the evidence you are not a skeptic, you are a denier.

No. The 2007 paper was a much larger study that showed a co-relation between urban areas and higher temperature.

Ah yes those large urban heat islands in the Arctic and the west Antarctica coastal areas.

Everyone agrees that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels will cause a 1 deg increase in temperature.

Why would they agree if, as you have said repeatedly, there is no evidence to support CO2 affecting temperature? Or did you already change your mind on this?

A problem only exists because the GW alarmists argue that CO2 will cause feedbacks that amplify its effect triggering temp increases of 5 degrees or more. They justify this claim with models don't have a very good track record of predicting anything.

No they don’t justify these claims by using computer models. They try to use computer models to simulate the effects of known gas laws. They understand that their models are approximations using the best available data to them. But the knowledge of feedbacks is not due to computer models but due to an understanding of the natural world.

The earth had no ice caps and 5x CO2 levels as today in the jurassic period yet the earth supported a lot of life

The earth had no ice caps because there were no landmasses at or near the poles. Life evolved over millions of years to exist in conditions with much higher CO2 levels. Current life has evolved to exist in current conditions. Changes in conditions will not lead to an absence of life on earth. Rapid changes of conditions can lead to much chaos and extinction as current life tries to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. Examine the fossilized plants of the Jurassic period and compare them to the wild plants of today, neither would likely survive in the climate of the other.

You can see the data from the 1990 IPC report here (the IPCC data is red). As you can see the 1990 data presents the same picture that the Loehle report does.

That is a hand drawn replication, and not a very good at that, of the original hand drawn example. Futhermore, the graph in the 1990 IPCC report was not meant to represent accuracy in any way – in fact there were no numbers in the graph for the obvious reason that it was just a non-scientific representation of how a future graph of data might look when the data becomes available. It says as much in the damn report. The fact that skeptics have taken to displaying it as a scientific representation of the 1990 IPCC reports shows the depth of their depravity and why they can’t be trusted.

The CO2 hypothesis is only reasonable if you assume that the current warming is abnormal and then rule out other explanations because you assume it is abnormal. If you assume that the current warming is normal then a solar hypothesis is most reasonable.

No it is not. You are saying that if in the past the temperature has increased as fast as it currently is then the cause of the current temperature increase must be normal and caused by the same forcing factors that caused the earlier increases. That would be a reasonable argument if we didn’t understand Milankovitch cycles and can measure solar intensity. Since we can measure both and can show that neither are the cause for the majority of the warming we are currently experiencing it would be ridiculous to assume that they still must be the cause. Especially when we know that is another factor present today which was not present in the past. That factor is the massive amounts of ghg gasses that we are spewing into the atmosphere. Ghgs that every scientist knows traps heat.

Even AGW advocates agree that the direct CO2 induced temperature rise would not exceed 1 DegC even if the CO2 levels double from the pre-industrial levels (i.e. nothing to worry about).

No they don’t agree.

There are going to be 9 billion people on this planet in 30 years and these people need energy. Most of this energy must come from fossil fuels unless there is an unexpected breakthrough in technology (we cannot assume it will happen). Alternate forms of energy simply cannot produce the amount of energy required.

You probably won’t believe this but this a type of energy they have found that we can use called….”nuclear energy.”

The scientists who produce the data in the IPCC reports consistently refuse to provide the raw data and computer programs to peer reviewers which means no one can verify the statistical manipulations that were used to produce the data. Some of the data is available now but only after skeptics used the Freedom of Information Act in the US to force disclosure of the data. This secrecy makes all of their conclusions questionable.

That would be a far better argument if most skeptics released their raw data and computer programs for peer review. But most haven’t and refuse to. Nor do I really think that it is necessary for them, in fact demanding that organizations release their code that they have spent months or longer developing, as McIntyre demands would never fly in any other field. Does Microsoft release their source code? No. So why should the source code be demanded from scientists? It is known where the scientists get their data from and it is freely available at NOAA. If you question the results then create your own program input the data and publish your results.

The idea of science is that it must be reproducible for it to be accepted. I feel far more comfortable if other scientists can reproduce the results on their own – which shows that independent models agree, than if they are just examining and copying the raw data and source code of others.

We know that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were at least 3 times higher in the past and that our current era is CO2-deprived.

We know that the intensity of the sun at that time was much lower than it is today. Therefore more trapping of heat would be necessary to produce the same temperatures as we have today. The sun is more intense today, therefore CO2 levels as high as they were in the past are not necessarily going to produce the same temperatures, and in fact should result in higher temperatures.

Therefore I do not feel that there is any real concern about upsetting the 'balance of nature' with higher CO2 levels.

Well that is a relief. Your two weeks of studying what “skeptics” think about global warming leaves me very reassured about your conclusions.

Because the public has been duped by the scientists peddling this false hypothesis and politicians have been forced to respond. That does not mean it is right. One would hope that science will win out but history shows us that humans can be quite irrational. It would help if people like you would open your mind and recognize that what you have been told could be very wrong.

No irony at all that this is written by someone who has done nothing but read and post nothing but skeptical and “big science is a conspiracy” nonsense that is on the net. If you spent the time to first learn and understand the basics of science and climate science you would be in a far better position to realize that the scientific consensus is made up of people who have read most of the same things you have, but have dismissed them because they understand science.

Actually no. Most of these scientists find it difficult to get funding because of the intellectual bullying and misinformation that has gone on. Climate change is huge business now and the peddlers of the myth have too much to lose.

You must have evidence to support such a claim, but none of examples you cited had a thing to do with funding.

What happened to your brain? Did the AGW scientists remove it an replace it with tape recorder? I have presented a long series arguments that demonstrates - beyond any resonable doubt - that the AGW claims are likely a myth. Yet you choose to ignore it and repeat the AGW catechism. I may not agree with stevoh but he at least attempts to addres the arguments.

If you only realized how ridiculous most of the evidence you have presented is. In fact they have showed almost nothing except that you are willing to believe without question almost anything a skeptic says.

[jdobbin]

If you only realized how ridiculous most of the evidence you have presented is. In fact they have showed almost nothing except that you are willing to believe without question almost anything a skeptic says.

Thanks for your contribution to this forum. It was interesting reading.

[noahbody]

One thing people have to keep in mind: there is no real data that demonstrates a causal link between CO2 increases and temperature rises. However, there is real data that suggests that their is no link between the two or that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels.

A total load of rubbish

Please expand on why the above statement is rubbish. Links are appreciated. Thanks.

[Riverwind]

No one really disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that some of the warming can be attributed to CO2.

No one really disputes that CO2 will cause additional ~0.5-1.0 degC warming over the next 100 years.

The problem with the GW alarmist view are the claims that CO2 produces largely positive feedback and will induce catastrophic warming. The evidence for the catastrophic warming claims rests entirely on the computer models. You claimed there is more evidence but you did not bother to say what it is. I certainly can't find anything other than 'proof by model'.

This entire debate comes down to that question.

I acknowledge that Spencer's work is not a complete, however, it does demonstrate that our knowledge of climate feed backs is not as solid as you would like to believe. Here is what he has to say on the models:

The most important example of this lack of understanding is, in my view, how precipitation systems control the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, over 90% of which is due to water vapor and clouds. The Earth's total greenhouse effect is not some passive quantity that can be easily modified by mankind adding a little carbon dioxide -- it is instead constantly being limited by precipitation systems, which remove water vapor and adjust cloud amounts to keep the total greenhouse effect consistent with the amount of available sunlight. Our understanding of this limiting process is still immature, and therefore not contained in the models.

Given the stakes involved there is no excuse for refusing to disclose the data and computer programs used - especially if the research was paid for by government grants. If the science is sound then the GW alarmists should have no problem allowing others to review their conclusions. Frankly, if NASA et. al. are going to insist that they have removed the urban heat island effect then they should explain exactly how they did it. I found the games that NASA played with the temperature record to be quite disturbing. A little openness would go a long way.

You don't like McIntyre, however, I think his criticisms of the reliability of tree ring proxies to be quite legitimate. The fact that the IPCC insists on using these proxies is one of the reasons I view their work with suspicion. Especially when other proxies and the historical record seem indicate that the MWP was as warm as today.

The sun was weaker 3 billion years ago but I have seen no reference that indicates that the sun was significantly weaker during the last 400,000 years than it is today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_..._insolation.jpg. Even if it was slightly weaker that does not really explain how come we did not see run away global warming from CO2 induced positive feedback. There must have been some sort a negative feedback mechanism at work. What is it?

I am partially reacting to the science is 'settled' dogma coming from AGW advocates. This attitude leads to arrogance and tunnel vision which will lead to disaster if public policies are based on science that is later found to be completely wrong. AGW advocates are quick to dismiss any science that casts doubt on their CO2 hypothesis and will spend a lot of time trying to find measurement errors instead of re-examining the assumptions in the theory. This approach would not be so bad if the AGW advocates did not completely ignore evidence of bad data when it comes to the surface temperature record and climate reconstructions.

From what I have read there is no way nuclear power could replace the energy needs of the planet (even if we could live with the waste problem). Frankly, you should hope that you are wrong because the chances of human reducing CO2 to the levels demanded is next to zero.

Ultimately, I feel the AGW advocates have failed to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that CO2 induced warming will happen in the way their computer models predict. The climate system is very complex and no one really understands what is happening and the models have done a poor job of predicting the trends to date. The errors between the actual tropospheric temperature and the predicted temperature is significant because illustrates that heating is not occurring as quickly as expect. AGW advocates could have chosen to show some humility when looking at this result and acknowledge that they may have over-estimated the effect of CO2 induced warming. Instead AGW advocates assume that something is wrong with the measurements and seek to add arbitrary fudge factors from aerosols. It is not an attitude that builds confidence.

That said, I would be very interested to hear any AGW supporter tell us what would falsify the catastrophic CO2 induced warming hypothesis. The impression I get is we could go 100 years with no significant warming and the AGW crowd would continue to insist that every possible weather outcome is a result of CO2.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Well, although I've been a science buff since I was 5 years old I wouldn't claim to be an expert, much less one that was only 2 weeks old.

However, I will say that when I read the alarmist reports in the media I'm struck by similarities that go like this: "Global Warming is real because most scientists agree, there is no longer any need for debate of any kind, it is all Man's fault and he must immediately spend huge sums of money to change his evil ways and all of that money and effort must come from developed nations who should give the lion's share of the money to undeveloped nations who do not have to spend the money on CO2 emission reductions because they missed their chance to pollute for being late starters.

Geez, I couldn't have written a longer, run-on sentence if I was writing in German!

I freely admit to being a layman at best only marginally more informed than the average Joe. Still, it is the hysteria and the left wing politics that shakes my confidence in such reports. What I find is that the "deniers" usually seem to be appealing to my "head" and the GW supporters tend to tell me to just shut up and swallow their position and accept them as being larger in numbers and inherently smarter than me so therefore totally right and any doubters must be totally wrong, if not actually evil.

Add to this the fact that I grew up through the 70's where I was constantly told by the same type of people that by now every drop of petroleum should be long gone and we should be well into the next Ice Age.

When the issues are too complex for an individual's own level of education to understand he is forced to rely on the apparent character of whoever is trying to persuade him to a particular point of view. To me, a choice between Al Gore and Kary Mullis is a no-brainer.

[jbg]

You could spend a couple weeks reading through a lot of material written by holocaust deniers or “truthers” who believe that 9/11 was a white house organized inside job and finish absolutely convinced that their arguments are sound and the responses to them inadequate and nonsensical.

How profound. You can create a Hitler analogy for Global Warming. Congratulations on your literary skill.

[Riverwind]

Here is an assement of the recent report by the US senate on the scientific consensus (the author is a moderate in this debate).

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/...nsensus-busted/

At the same time, there are at least two areas of persistent, and legitimate, scientific debate left — more than enough to produce lists as long as the one published today by Senator Inhofe.

First, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent and pace of warming from a particular rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases, and about how fast and far seas will rise as a result. (It’s important to keep in mind that uncertainty could result in outcomes being much worse than the midrange outcome, or much less severe).

Second, there is a wider debate over what to do, or not do, about climate change, with peoples’ preferences (a carbon tax, a technology push, building dikes or parasols in space) not so much a function of science as values. And values are shaped by all manner of things, including how you were raised and where you live.

[Riverwind]

---

Edited December 21, 2007 by Riverwind

[Wayward Son]

Please expand on why the above statement is rubbish. Links are appreciated. Thanks.

Do I really need to provide links when Riverwind agreed that “no one really disputes” it directly below your post and when all of the major skeptics such as Lindzen, the Pielke’s, Lomborg, Christy and Spencer have all agreed as well. There is really no dispute that increases in CO2 leads to heat trapping and therefore higher temperatures (I mean even skeptic Patrick Michaels in 2006 admitted that "Record temperatures will continue to be set every couple of years or so." - his position is that is good thing. And another skeptical author Ronald Bailey, who in 2002 wrote a book titled “Global Warming and other Eco-Myths” was by 2005 saying “Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets—satellite, surface, and balloon—have been pointing to rising global temperatures.” Bailey by the way wrote 4 articles for Reason magazine about the Bali conference and although I disagree with him on several issues they are definitely worth reading, as is his most recent book “Liberation Biology: The Scientific And Moral Case For The Biotech Revolution”) . The disputes really are how much warming will result, the role that negative and positive feedback loops will play, and how best to deal with the problem of global warming. So the issue isn't that I can't provide a link, more that I don't have much free time and don't really want to spend it searching for the most appropriate explaination.

The problem with the GW alarmist view are the claims that CO2 produces largely positive feedback and will induce catastrophic warming. The evidence for the catastrophic warming claims rests entirely on the computer models. You claimed there is more evidence but you did not bother to say what it is. I certainly can't find anything other than 'proof by model'.

I will start off by mentioning one thing as you mention Spencer and his criticism of climate models below. It seems almost every GW skeptical blog (like this one of hundreds: http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/...ed-for-in.html) on the net uses quotes from Spencer and Lindzen to say that climate models can’t understand clouds so they ignore them completely. Whether Spencer and Lindzen have actually said that or whether they are being misinterpreted I can’t say. But surely they know that in fact all climate models that the IPCC includes do take cloud effects into account (both positive and negative feedbacks). Yes there is a large amount of uncertainty with clouds but models are currently attempting to reduce that uncertainty by using different sets of cloud modeling parameters – one for instance has been running over 60,000 different simulations, so that is definitely not ignoring clouds. But as for your reference to catastrophic warming and that they rest entirely on computer models. You are probably right. It depends on what people refer to when they say catastrophic warming – I don’t use the phrase myself. However we don’t need models to know that CO2 traps heat or to know that the poles warm much faster than the equator (we know that because the atmospheric layer is much lower at the poles). We don’t need models to know that if the permafrost melts in the arctic it will release a lot of methane. We don’t need models to understand that warming leads to alterations in ocean currents and those can lead to alterations of weather patterns such as long-term droughts or increased rain in areas. There shouldn’t be much dispute about that as many of the major skeptics actually use those changes to provide examples of positive changes that will occur. They believe that the positives will outweigh the negatives, others such as myself believe that seeing as both nature and humans have adapted to our current climate and weather systems then the negatives will outweigh the positives.

Furthermore several skeptics do accept the computer models, the most well known would probably be Lomborg, who in his recently released “Cool It” endorses accepting the IPCC middle of the road climate predictions. He doesn’t endorse following Kyoto, but he does promote spending billions through research and development towards the development of alternative fuels and energy efficiency, along with spending billions more towards tackling third world problems like malaria, illiteracy, clean water, ending hunger and so on. Lomborg has an issue with the lack of ability of much of the environment to assess risks and I agree with him on that.

This entire debate comes down to that question.

I acknowledge that Spencer's work is not a complete, however, it does demonstrate that our knowledge of climate feed backs is not as solid as you would like to believe. Here is what he has to say on the models:

Given the stakes involved there is no excuse for refusing to disclose the data and computer programs used - especially if the research was paid for by government grants. If the science is sound then the GW alarmists should have no problem allowing others to review their conclusions. Frankly, if NASA et. al. are going to insist that they have removed the urban heat island effect then they should explain exactly how they did it. I found the games that NASA played with the temperature record to be quite disturbing. A little openness would go a long way.

I will have to check to see if Christy and Spencer ever released their data and computer source code. Last I checked they hadn't. As for NASA not explaining how they removed UHI, well I disagree, they explained how they did it. They adjusted trends in urban stations around the world to match rural stations in their regions. We recognize that cities are hotter, but seem to forget that most stations are not actually in the cities (they are normally in a park which is much cooler than downtown) and have a tendency to not be greatly affected by the increased heat in the city. Studies I have seen have shown that UHI has only minimal effect on the records - both present day and historical. Skeptics have a tendency to have an issue with those studies, but I have yet to see them do their own study.

You don't like McIntyre, however, I think his criticisms of the reliability of tree ring proxies to be quite legitimate. The fact that the IPCC insists on using these proxies is one of the reasons I view their work with suspicion. Especially when other proxies and the historical record seem indicate that the MWP was as warm as today.

I mentioned McIntyre twice. The first time was actually an accident, I meant Milloy, but McIntyre was appropriate in that place too. I have read McIntyre’s blog off and on for a couple years as time permits, consider him to be a hard worker and have had the odd exchange over the internet where I found him to be very reasonable. I don’t agree with many of his positions, like his demanding of source code be released to the public. I just don’t see why that should be warranted. If he has issues with the results that NASA gets then he can do the same thing they do. Take the data available freely online and calculate it. If his results are different from theirs than other groups can attempt to reproduce the results and if there appears to be fraud then that can be investigated. My problem with the releasing of source code is that it allows others who are attempting to reproduce the results to do so by copying instead of doing original work. I think that it will lead to less scientific accuracy, not more. And as I have said, the skeptical scientists on the whole don’t release their source code either.

I understand why McIntyre wants the source code released. That is because it is very easy to criticize, but much harder to create. Again he could do the same thing that NASA does. He could take the same data (available for free from the NOAA) and create the same kind of computer program to calculate the same results. But there are a couple of problems with that: It is a lot of work and because the program required is so large and complex McIntyre will undoubtedly have small errors in his program (as he has already found when doing such things) When the end result is a difference between results that is almost immeasurable, no one will pay any attention and he did all of that work for nothing. He recognizes this and he understands that if he does his own work he will be just as open to criticism and that the differences will statistically insignificant almost every time. He is not a stupid man so he knows that if instead he can get the source code then he can spend a lot less time to find a tiny error and then he can exploit the error and not end result – which is most often that the corrected error is statistically meaningless. He recognizes that there is far more gain with far less work, but I like scientists to actually do work. The global warming skeptics really behave in much the same way that the creatists/intelligent designers do. They do very little original work and they instead concentrate on getting media attention.

But, anyways that doesn’t mean that I don’t like McIntyre, I actually think that the field of climatology is better off with him around then without. But I certainly wouldn’t use him as a primary source of information about climate change. However, I really don’t like Milloy.

As for tree rings, you have issues with the IPCC on that issue, I have issues with Lohle (sp?), but overall I don't really think it matters much. Whether or not the MWP was as warm or even warmer than today means little. The cause of the MWP was different than the cause of current warming.

The sun was weaker 3 billion years ago but I have seen no reference that indicates that the sun was significantly weaker during the last 400,000 years than it is today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_..._insolation.jpg. Even if it was slightly weaker that does not really explain how come we did not see run away global warming from CO2 induced positive feedback. There must have been some sort a negative feedback mechanism at work. What is it?

I am not an expert on ice ages. My understanding is that the causes have to be the same as the traditional causes of warming: Milankovitch cycles, atmospheric gas concentrations, solar energy levels and volcano emissions. As for there never being run away global warming (not that I am claiming that runaway global warming will happen now) well for the records we have going back 600,000 years CO2 levels only increased from 200 ppm to 280 ppm over a period of 30,000 - 80,000 years. Our current level of CO2 is already much higher than that and we have the ability to increase the CO2 levels by 80 ppm in a period of a decades.

I am partially reacting to the science is 'settled' dogma coming from AGW advocates. This attitude leads to arrogance and tunnel vision which will lead to disaster if public policies are based on science that is later found to be completely wrong. AGW advocates are quick to dismiss any science that casts doubt on their CO2 hypothesis and will spend a lot of time trying to find measurement errors instead of re-examining the assumptions in the theory. This approach would not be so bad if the AGW advocates did not completely ignore evidence of bad data when it comes to the surface temperature record and climate reconstructions.

I think that kind of attitude is rare among most of the scientists actively working in the field. But for instance should those scientists have any time for those who are making outrageous claims? Not long ago there was a media story that made the rounds about a russia scientist who was a climate skeptic and head of their major observatory - turns out the scientist was not the head of the observatory or even any of the departments within. Turns out that he had never published any work related to his claims. He was out for glory and attention and the unskeptical media lapped it up. How much time should scientists take to explain how ridiculous his claims were? I often here people and even some well known skeptics who are as shady as they come say that humans only produce 3% of the annual CO2 emissions and that 97% of the emissions comes from natural sources. Those scientists know that they are being completely dishonest and that natural sources actually take in more CO2 than they emit. Why should any scientist who says such baloney be given the time of day by real scientists who are busy?

From what I have read there is no way nuclear power could replace the energy needs of the planet (even if we could live with the waste problem). Frankly, you should hope that you are wrong because the chances of human reducing CO2 to the levels demanded is next to zero.

Nuclear energy can't replace all of our energy but can replace a lot of them for a very long time. What you have read about the waste problem is most likely incorrect. It has been said that if a person like me living in Canada could get all of my energy from nuclear power over the course of my lifetime the waste would fit in a pop can and only a fraction of that waste would be highly radioactive. We get radiation from everywhere - you would most likely get more radiation standing outside a coal plant than a nuclear one. As far as I know no one in the US, Canada or western europe has died from nuclear energy - in fact the worst incident was three mile island which resulted in no injuries at the plant or in the community. You can't say that about other sources of energy - coal, oil, natural gas, dams - for instance if my memory serves me right 160,000 people died after a dam burst in China. Like anything else there are risks with nuclear power, but I think that the risks have been vastly blown out of proportion compared to the benefits. Still that is just my opinion and I am no way saying that Nuclear energy is a utopia, but I encourage anyone to read a book in favor and a book opposed. (I recommend "Power to Save the World" as the pro book).

Ultimately, I feel the AGW advocates have failed to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that CO2 induced warming will happen in the way their computer models predict. The climate system is very complex and no one really understands what is happening and the models have done a poor job of predicting the trends to date. The errors between the actual tropospheric temperature and the predicted temperature is significant because illustrates that heating is not occurring as quickly as expect. AGW advocates could have chosen to show some humility when looking at this result and acknowledge that they may have over-estimated the effect of CO2 induced warming. Instead AGW advocates assume that something is wrong with the measurements and seek to add arbitrary fudge factors from aerosols. It is not an attitude that builds confidence.

I disagree with that statement. There is a wide range of computer model predictions and the IPCC has been honest about the uncertainties. I also disagree with your assessment that those models have done a poor job predicting trends. Hansen's computer model predicted the changes from the effects of Pinatubo extremely accurately. As for predicting the future climate only time will tell, but I certainly have less confidence in the predictions of the likes of Michaels and Lindzen who as Ronald Bailey has pointed out have already turned out to be wrong on their predictions from the 90's.

That said, I would be very interested to hear any AGW supporter tell us what would falsify the catastrophic CO2 induced warming hypothesis. The impression I get is we could go 100 years with no significant warming and the AGW crowd would continue to insist that every possible weather outcome is a result of CO2.

I rarely see scientists remark that a weather event was due to global warming. I often see non-scientists declare that daily that events are proof that global warming either does exist or doesn't. I don't promote catastrophic anything, but I will say that the idea that CO2 traps heat is not a hypothesis.

Add to this the fact that I grew up through the 70's where I was constantly told by the same type of people that by now every drop of petroleum should be long gone and we should be well into the next Ice Age.

The idea of an imminent ice age in the 70’s didn’t come from the scientific community. In fact it is almost impossible to find any mention of it, especially a positive one, in any of the major scientific journals. A couple scientists, who were widely dismissed by the rest of the scientific community, got far more mainstream media play then their research warranted.

How profound. You can create a Hitler analogy for Global Warming. Congratulations on your literary skill.

Holocaust denial is actually a great example of what can happen if you spend two weeks reading arguments from one side. There are a couple world renowned historians who write holocaust denial material. They concentrate on a couple areas where generally accepted knowledge turns out to be wrong or exaggerated and they exploit those discrepancies to try to convince readers that if anything we know about the holocaust is wrong than everything we know about the holocaust must be wrong. That doesn’t mean that I am associating global warming deniers with hitler, what I am saying is that we need to read both sides of an issue, and not the best of one side and the worst of the other side. And because of all the mentioning of skeptical thought I felt it was appropriate as skeptical organizations discuss holocaust denial frequently and Michael Shermer (the founder of the skeptical society) has written a book on it. In fact if you go to skepticforum you will see that it is has its own category.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Wayward Son

[bush_cheney2004]

....As far as I know no one in the US, Canada or western europe has died from nuclear energy - in fact the worst incident was three mile island which resulted in no injuries at the plant or in the community.

Point taken, but technically this statement is false. Three people were killed in 1961 at the US Army's SL-1 reactor facility in Idaho when an uncontrolled criticality caused a steam explosion and partial meltdown. One man standing on top of the reactor vessel was impaled by a control rod to the ceiling.

Now back to the GW fun....

[leonardcohen]

The idea of an imminent ice age in the 70’s didn’t come from the scientific community. In fact it is almost impossible to find any mention of it, especially a positive one, in any of the major scientific journals. A couple scientists, who were widely dismissed by the rest of the scientific community, got far more mainstream media play then their research warranted.

Here's another prediction- In 30 years or so the same thing

will be said about global warming

[Wayward Son]

Point taken, but technically this statement is false. Three people were killed in 1961 at the US Army's SL-1 reactor facility in Idaho when an uncontrolled criticality caused a steam explosion and partial meltdown. One man standing on top of the reactor vessel was impaled by a control rod to the ceiling.

Now back to the GW fun....

I stand corrected. I only looked at civilian.

[Wayward Son]

Here's another prediction- In 30 years or so the same thing

will be said about global warming

Well the chances of your prediction being right appear extremely slim. The same thing can't be said about global warming as global cooling because in the case of global warming it appears in thousands of peer reviewed articles each year in all of the major scientific journals. In fact I can't remember the last weekly edition of science or nature which did not have at least one article on global warming. In the case of global cooling or an imminent ice age there was maybe a half dozen articles between all of the major science journals over a decade and they were mostly dismissive of the idea. The one didn't come from the scientific community, had almost no real science behind it and was mainly only considered in the popular media, the other comes from the scientific community, has tons of real science behind behind it and gets far more attention in the scientific journals than any other issue. If you honestly for a second think that these two are in any way related then you should do some research. When the likes of Tim Ball and Fred Singer bring up comparisons they know they are completely full of it and probably can't believe their luck that people are still stupid enough to pay them to speak nonsense.

[jbg]

Well the chances of your prediction being right appear extremely slim. The same thing can't be said about global warming as global cooling because in the case of global warming it appears in thousands of peer reviewed articles each year in all of the major scientific journals.

Google Pacific Decadal Oscillation and maybe you'll change your mind. That's a 20-30 year cycle of warming/cooling that I believe is a major factor.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... In the case of global cooling or an imminent ice age there was maybe a half dozen articles between all of the major science journals over a decade and they were mostly dismissive of the idea. The one didn't come from the scientific community, had almost no real science behind it and was mainly only considered in the popular media, the other comes from the scientific community, has tons of real science behind behind it and gets far more attention in the scientific journals than any other issue. ...

This is patently false.....the fact that global cooling hypothesists (for interglacial periods) of nearly 40 years ago admitted that they did not have enough research or correlations give them far more credibility than the "scientists" who accept the exact same type of popular media hype for GW.

Here is an example of global cooling reporting that did include emminent "...ists", who did not have the resources or modeling methods available today, but they were still smart enough to know what they didn't know.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/quat_res_1972.html

Such a comparison is like saying that the Apollo Moon Missions were wrong because we can't do the same thing today.