Science of global warming settled

[B. Max]

Not that we didn't already know.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...4929.shtml?s=lh

Global Warming: Pure Fiction

Gerlich, a professor of mathematical physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Germany and his colleague professor, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, examined the so-called "greenhouse effect" and found it to be pure fiction as an instrument of alleged global warming. In 113 pages laden with complicated equations, citations from the scientific literature, examinations of various experiments and conclusions based on physics and the laws of physics, the researchers expose the fraudulent grounds upon which the global warming theory rests.

[ScottSA]

This is just one more example of the ever-growing surge of reality intruding into this "debate". Oops...there go the last shreds of Dion's platform...

[jawapunk]

www.newsmax.com .... Clearly a unbiased source of information. I am sure I can also provide links to thousands of news articles that point towards scientific studies that prove the existence of the green house effect anad global warming.

I feel like perhaps you are merely trying to play devils advocate, but I don't think global warming is a liberal or conservative issue but a global one that doesn't deal on party lines or chooses sides. That is like saying hurrican katrina was a tool of the Republicans to draw attention away from Iraq.

[marcinmoka]

Didn't these guys use Wikipedia as sources for their paper?

Ah well.

Scott and B.Max (though I only expect a somewhat intelligible answer from one of you), I will forgo discussing the specifics of this global warming as fact or myth as we will never see eye to eye.

What really vexes me is your take on the whole logistics of this "conspiracy". When the vast majority of scientists either claim this event to be real or at least urge us to proceed with caution as this is still an unknown, but one with potentially detrimental consequences, you brush if off (or in the case of the poster going by the alias of Jerry Seinfeld, who is probably idiling his car as we write just to piss off his Sierra Club member neighbors).

Whereas the moment one obscure web page publishes something by some low level academic, you claim it as being the truth.

This makes me curious to find out your side of the story. How do YOU believe this environmental "conspiracy" came about? Was it the 'powers that be' who bribed the 'media establishment' to focus on an equally bribed group of respected academics and scientists to propagate this "myth" and silence those who dissented? Who is responsible for this "treachery"? Why? Where do their interests lay?

Or is this just another symptom of an aversion to change.

Edited August 7, 2007 by marcinmoka

[ScottSA]

Didn't these guys use Wikipedia as sources for their paper?

Ah well.

Scott and B.Max (though I only expect a somewhat intelligible answer from one of you), I will forgo discussing the specifics of this global warming as fact or myth as we will never see eye to eye.

What really vexes me is your take on the whole logistics of this "conspiracy". When the vast majority of scientists either claim this event to be real or at least urge us to proceed with caution as this is still an unknown, but one with potentially detrimental consequences, you brush if off (or in the case of the poster going by the alias of Jerry Seinfeld, who is probably idiling his car as we write just to piss off his Sierra Club member neighbors).

Whereas the moment one obscure web page publishes something by some low level academic, you claim it as being the truth.

This makes me curious to find out your side of the story. How do YOU believe this environmental "conspiracy" came about? Was it the 'powers that be' who bribed the 'media establishment' to focus on an equally bribed group of respected academics and scientists to propagate this "myth" and silence those who dissented? Who is responsible for this "treachery"? Why? Where do their interests lay?

Or is this just another symptom of an aversion to change.

That has already been answered time after time, and in fact I have answered it myself.

First, your question is predicated upon a false assumption: there is no "vast majority" claiming anything.

Second, as usual you, like all Church of GW apologists, fail to define the issue. What do you mean by "global warming?" That the earth is warming? I can agree that maybe it's warming, although that's far from a given. That humanity is causing it? I doubt it, and so do a great many scientists, your "vast majority" notwithstanding. That it's a catastrophe? If anything I think it's a benefit, if only for an extended growing season. So does the financial world, given the number of "global warming" funds opening up to take your money (let me be clear here that just because a fund says it is sectorally invested doesn't mean it can't invest in any damned thing it wants; see: "ethical funds."). In other words, the existence of new "global warming" funds has more to do with marketing a fad than with Global Warming. In a nutshell then, my position is:

1 Maybe it's happening

2 If it is, it's probably not manmade

3 If it is, whether it's manmade or not, it's a good thing and not a bad thing.

Third, as for some "conspiracy," those are your words, not mine. I would call it an "industry," and I would call it that because that's what it has become. It started like any fad in academia; in the same way "Y2K began," and "women's studies" before that, and "Black Studies" before that; as a fad guaranteed to generate grant money.

Because it suited the purpose of so many other groups...far more than any of the previous fads, it caught on bigtime. Think about it; this fad is appealing to everybody: political groups ranging from the Green and current Liberal parties to the UN, love it because it's a ready made platform of promises that never have to be kept; existing environmental groups love it because it obviously generates donations; outright socialists love it because it's a great platform to argue for global socialism a la Kyoto, and MOST important , capitalists love it because it's an excellent marketing tool that simply can't be beat! I could go on, but I think this pretty much covers the main points.

So it's not a "conspiracy," it's a convergence of interests. And around those interests an industry has come into being. Wanna sell mutual funds? Market "global warming" funds, the 'ethical funds' of the 21st century. They invest in the same damned things any tech fund invests in, but the name gives everyone the warm fuzzies and a feeling of combatting big bad GW. Want a job as a reporter? Market yourself as an "environmental reporter"...a whole new category that has recently come into being...the market is crying out for them. Want an academic grant? link your issue to GW in some way, no matter how farfetched. Want to market anything? Link it to global warming! (go to e-bay and type it in and watch what happens).

Now, back the actual point at hand...like I said, the number of scientists coming out to refute this fabricated nonsense are increasing. The number of scientists defending the claims, and in particular the apocapyptic claims, are decreasing.

[jawapunk]

I will some links here to show, FROM CREDIBLE SOURCES, that Global Warming is not an illusion, and that the scientific community is not shying aaway from the issue as you say, I have also tried to include a number of various sites, even AlJazeera!:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4495463.stm

http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/threat/threat6.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle516033.ece

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archi...ArchiveId=19069

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publi...earth/index.htm

http://www.conference-board.org/utilities/...m?press_ID=2465

There are hundreds of others, scientific organizations, universities, news sites and more that state the same thing that Global warming is real, it is increasing and that is caused by man through industry and IT IS NOT A GOOD THING.

[GostHacked]

Let your minds chew on this for a bit.

If global warming is real, and things will melt and the sea level will rise, ect ect. Why is Dubai even being built? It is right on the ocean. Sea level basicly. That shiney new city in the sand will just get washed away. But yet billions, trillions are pouring into it and skyscrapers are going up at a frantic pace.

You'd think those people investing the cash in this place would want to be aware of what lies ahead for the future. If it is fact that the sea level will rise, then Dubai is in serious danger already. Tell me why would it be built if the sea will rise?

[jawapunk]

That is a good point. I don't really have atime line on sea levels rising, whether they will rise immediately or whether it will take 50+ years etc...i will say to answer though that in many ways commerce is inerested in the now, especially contractors and construction. If someone says here is a few hundred million dollars, build me this, they will do it, where the person wants it.

Another point would be that, the costs of moving entire cities may be less than building protective dykes etc..

[ScottSA]

That is a good point. I don't really have atime line on sea levels rising, whether they will rise immediately or whether it will take 50+ years etc...i will say to answer though that in many ways commerce is inerested in the now, especially contractors and construction. If someone says here is a few hundred million dollars, build me this, they will do it, where the person wants it.

Another point would be that, the costs of moving entire cities may be less than building protective dykes etc..

So you think it's all a big mistake? Your links, incidently, are no more conclusive than the link that started this post. Most of them are fairly stale-dated actually.

[marcinmoka]

If global warming is real, and things will melt and the sea level will rise, ect ect. Why is Dubai even being built? It is right on the ocean. Sea level basicly. That shiney new city in the sand will just get washed away

No offense, but when it comes to money being spent wisely, the LAST place I would ever look to is the wider M.E. While nations such as Norway or our very own use their resource wealth to invest in a more long term, sustainable economic projects not reliant on the energy sector, the M.E has a knack in investing said revenues in yachts and luxury automobiles rather than infrastructure and science textbooks.

--------------------

Second, as usual you, like all Church of GW apologists, fail to define the issue.

So I fail to define the issue, BUT, It has already been defined well enough for you to claim that you have already answered "time after time". Interesting. Or maybe this is just a cheap rhetorical ploy which ignores notions I have also explained ad nauseum, notably the concept of uncertainty.

Hell, I just wanted to know your opinion concerning the logistics and intent of the "GW" crowd. You seem to be fearful that everyone else is forming a conspiracy against you, so pardon me for imputing.

First, your question is predicated upon a false assumption: there is no "vast majority" claiming anything.

Well one group is far more visible and prominent, something you admitted to. If I am unable to hear the voice of the GW skeptics, how am I supposed to size up their numbers. So yes, in the media and in academic circles (I am a student, one who spends plenty of time on campus), the vast majority does indeed claim this issue should be at the very least, not ignored as it does present an unknown and a potential threat. ( I have always argued though that the doomsday sayers be best ignored, as should the extremists on the other end who believe the environment is a closed system and that longer growing seasons will be the only thing to take place without any consequences).

But seeing as you have access to some critical data I lack, what are the numbers of those who have brought up the issue of "global warming" and their thoughts on the subject, be it for, against, the pros, the cons, etc. I know you have a tendency to ignore questions asking for specifications, but please do not overlook this one. I want to know your sources. Especially because you agree with B.Max's announcement " Science of global warming settled". It is this certitude which I bring into question.

I doubt it, and so do a great many scientists, your "vast majority" notwithstanding.

Data and sources, please & thank you.

It started like any fad in academia; in the same way "Y2K began," and "women's studies" before that, and "Black Studies" before that; as a fad guaranteed to generate grant money.

And pitiful, impressionable fools such as Nicholas Stern, not to mention entire governments and corporations managed to fall for this "fad", yet Scott, our resident Oracle, managed to see through these lies and propaganda generated upon the feeble minded masses.

Think about it; this fad is appealing to everybody: political groups ranging from the Green and current Liberal parties to the UN, love it because it's a ready made platform of promises that never have to be kept;

Pardon? They love it BECAUSE it is easy AND filled with promises that never have to be kept? This is your grand explanation?

existing environmental groups love it because it obviously generates donations;

Fair enough.

outright socialists love it because it's a great platform to argue for global socialism a la Kyoto

Kyoto was blatantly unfair, but was it ever an argument for socialism? I guess, albeit a pathetic argument.

capitalists love it because it's an excellent marketing tool that simply can't be beat! I could go on, but I think this pretty much covers the main points.

I agree with you here, but I must ask, is this a bad thing? Why stifle it? Especially if a nation such as ours has the know how and technology to potentially sell it and therefore better our own self interest?

---------------

My position is also includes many "maybes". I however, tend not to be a gambling man. Being aware now is more an insurance policy, by putting away a minute amount now SHOULD an unlikely event ever come to fruition.

1. Maybe it is happening

2. Maybe it is manmade

3. If it is manmade, it is wisest to approach with caution, especially if at little cost to ourselves, but the potential aversion of a major risk one day in the future. This will at least buy us time to study it further.

Edited August 8, 2007 by marcinmoka

[jawapunk]

So you think it's all a big mistake? Your links, incidently, are no more conclusive than the link that started this post. Most of them are fairly stale-dated actually.

My point is that anyone can pull a link out of their rear and say "aha, see!" If you would prefer, I could have listed the thousands of others...If you choose to not believe in scientific data then that is your own perogative.

[Bonam]

Who cares if global warming is man-made? What matters is whether or not we can affect the world's climate. And the answer is that we can, if we want to. If the globe is warming, and if it is going to warm to temperatures that will have an adverse affect on human civilization, then we should intervene, whether the cause of the warming is man-made or natural. On the other hand, if the effects of global warming are not harmful, or are even beneficial on the whole (more useable land area in the north, etc), then we should let it happen, whether it's natural or man-made.

That's my general stance on global warming. As for this particular thread... saying that the science of global warming is settled with that one article is naive, and ignorant of the way science works.

[noahbody]

As for this particular thread... saying that the science of global warming is settled with that one article is naive, and ignorant of the way science works.

Agreed. But what really needs to be put to rest is "The time for debate is over." There is plenty of time for study.

[ScottSA]

Agree 100%. The people who claim "science" is on their side usually have not the slightest clue what the "science" says, because the science is projected probabilities based on assumptions based on unverifiable data. In other words, given differnt unverifiable assumptions, the same models could as easily predict a new ice age or global inferno. Not to mention that the "vast majority" of the alleged "vast majority" of "scientists" range from piano teachers to political studies doctorates, with the odd climatologist sprinkled in. I daresay if one removed the "scientists" who have nothing to do with climatology, the "vast majority" would shrink by orders of magnitude.

It's telling that even the climatologists who initially jumped on the GW bandwagon are now urging caution with the irresponsible nonsense being put about by Suzuki and Gore et. al.

[B. Max]

My point is that anyone can pull a link out of their rear and say "aha, see!" If you would prefer, I could have listed the thousands of others...If you choose to not believe in scientific data then that is your own perogative.

Go ahead and do it. Not one can prove man made global warming as we have been told to believe. It is a fraud and it has been proven to be a fraud over and over again.

[marcinmoka]

It is a fraud and it has been proven to be a fraud over and over again.

They are out to get ya!!!!

[B. Max]

They are out to get ya!!!!

But in the end they are going to get it.

[B. Max]

Another in the long list of papers that prove Gore and the IPCC are liars.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ratures-cooling

[marcinmoka]

But in the end they are going to get it.

Best start stockpiling food on the ol' compound.

[noahbody]

Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were...

The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.

In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columni...d1-2fefe0905363

Sorry, Al.

[AndrewL]

Go ahead and do it. Not one can prove man made global warming as we have been told to believe. It is a fraud and it has been proven to be a fraud over and over again.

That's exactly what was said when Galileo suggested the earth revolves about the sun. That is exactly what was said when Darwin showed that evolution was driven by natural selection. And so on....

Certainly i can agree that the science on anthropogenic global warming is not 100% conclusive, but to suggest it is some global conspiracy or massive fraud is just ridiculous. You sound like an inquisitor.

Andrew

Edited August 14, 2007 by AndrewL

[Bonam]

I think that the fact that the global average temperature is increasing has been proven. Whether this is man-made or not, while there is significant evidence to support this, is not yet proven 100%. However, who cares whether it is man made or not? Like I've said before, the question is whether it's harmful to human civilization or not. If it is, we should intervene, whether or not we originally caused the problem.

[B. Max]

That's exactly what was said when Galileo suggested the earth revolves about the sun. That is exactly what was said when Darwin showed that evolution was driven by natural selection. And so on....

Certainly i can agree that the science on anthropogenic global warming is not 100% conclusive, but to suggest it is some global conspiracy or massive fraud is just ridiculous. You sound like an inquisitor.

Andrew

That's the second time this year that Hansen has change the US historical data sets. It was like getting caught stealing and being made to put it.

Edited August 14, 2007 by B. Max

[AndrewL]

That's the second time this year that Hansen has change the US historical data sets. It was like getting caught steeling and being made to put it.

He fixed an errror. He did not change the data set arbitrarily. This is science. That is how scientists work. They make mistakes and they correct them and move on. As opposed to religious ideologues and other fanatics who make mistakes and wait centuries before admitting they might be wrong.

And ultimately this is nonsense anyway...

The evidence of a warming planet goes far beyonf temperature data... and the issue of warming is only part of a much larger issue of the destruction of our landbase and the conversion of all bio-mass into human-mass.

Even if global warming is one day shown conclusively to be entirely independent of human greenhouse gas emmissions, that should not give us a license to go on destroying the ecological basis for our continued survival.

Andrew

Edited August 14, 2007 by AndrewL

[Sulaco]

He fixed an errror. He did not change the data set arbitrarily. This is science. That is how scientists work. They make mistakes and they correct them and move on. As opposed to religious ideologues and other fanatics who make mistakes and wait centuries before admitting they might be wrong.

And ultimately this is nonsense anyway...

The evidence of a warming planet goes far beyonf temperature data... and the issue of warming is only part of a much larger issue of the destruction of our landbase and the conversion of all bio-mass into human-mass.

Even if global warming is one day shown conclusively to be entirely independent of human greenhouse gas emmissions, that should not give us a license to go on destroying the ecological basis for our continued survival.

Andrew

I guess I might be misreading that - but the sentence seems absurd. No one is talking about a "license to destory". But I think we are talking about how much of our economy should be diverted to "eco-protection". Without an analysis of costs and benefits your statement is meaningless twaddle - if you will pardon me.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Sulaco