Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?

[Severian]

Suspicious is all you can come up with?

LOL

Last time I checked.It is legal to fund a group doing something lawful.

This suspicion game was invented by environmentalists because their end game are being exposed for their absurd alarmism.The AGW hypothesis is failing as more and more science papers are being published.

Exxon has so little influence due to their tiny funding of a few organizations.It is silly to be suspicious.

Have you read the stupid Union of Concerned Scientists claims against Exxon?

This funding angle is stupid anyway.Since it is the CONTENT of the arguments that is what counts.

A good point, and the reason, in my opinion, for the ever more strident shrieks of the pro-AGW crowd to silence dissent and attempt to ram their policies thru the various world legislative bodies and such. The wheels are coming off the bus, and rapidly, and they feel the window for using this hysteria to force social and global government changes thru, or to turn a quick buck, closing.

Back when, before a lot of people had thought deeply about this (although the simple fact of how atmospheric absorption works should have been a clue for anyone who actually thought about it, but I digress), CO2 seemed a reasonable enough hypothesis. Note the emphasis, hypothesis, that is an idea to be tested rigorously with full transparency to get others to reproduce results. After all, atmospheric CO2 had gone up, temp had gone up, and ice cores seemed to support the link. And it was very convenient to environmental activist types who thought human behavior needed restricting, they'd tried with other pollutants, but industry in the industrial world had done a bang up job of reducing pollution, and making CO2 a pollutant seemed an inspired idea to these people.

But then, after people had raised an alarm and gotten lots of government funding streams up, closer examination showed very poor correlation between CO2 and temp, but strong correlation between other things, like solar and normal variability. The ice cores showed that CO2 lags not leads temperature, and all the other data that's been building up showed CO2 to be a minor forcing factor. It's there, but it is not the major contributor. Computer models are not the world, yet people cling to them even when they are shown to be drastically wrong. There is a kind of perverse pride of ownership involved, even if the thing you own is basically wrong and semi-useless apparently.

[stevoh]

Suspicious is all you can come up with?

LOL

Last time I checked.It is legal to fund a group doing something lawful.

This suspicion game was invented by environmentalists because their end game are being exposed for their absurd alarmism.The AGW hypothesis is failing as more and more science papers are being published.

Exxon has so little influence due to their tiny funding of a few organizations.It is silly to be suspicious.

Have you read the stupid Union of Concerned Scientists claims against Exxon?

This funding angle is stupid anyway.Since it is the CONTENT of the arguments that is what counts.

Suspicious? Yes. Same as healthy sceptisism. The same sceptisism you have for global warming science, I have for all new science until time and peer review proves otherwise. As new facts come to light, facts from scientific study, not op-ed pieces, the science adjusts and theories adapt to the new information.

If global warming is not a result of human activity, then scientific study will find that out, and I have no problem accepting the results of those investigations, but the source has to be scientific, not otherwise. And even if it is proven wrong, changing the composition of our atmosphere is still a bad idea, we do breath the stuff after all.

Ask yourself, if science proves that global warming is due to human activity, carbon emmissions to be precise, are you willing to accept that science? Or will you keep fighting it? Because there comes a point where bias plays a more important role than facts, and you seem to be leaning that way.

the reason, in my opinion, for the ever more strident shrieks of the pro-AGW crowd to silence dissent and attempt to ram their policies thru the various world legislative bodies and such. The wheels are coming off the bus, and rapidly, and they feel the window for using this hysteria to force social and global government changes thru, or to turn a quick buck, closing.

One of the things I find inspiring about the current global awareness of human activities on the environment is the amount of change the individual is having. Hybrid cars, once initially dismissed by american automakers as too expensive and without demand, are the single largest growing area of automobile sales. Now even american cars are available with hybrid options. The environment is not just a subject of tree huggers and environmental scientists any more, we are all dutyfully recycling, buying long life flourescent light bulbs, buying organic foods (another huge growth market), environmental concern has gone from the scientists and outspoken few and becoming supported by the masses. Government changes are fine, and they have their place, but the real change is coming from the consumer and their right to choice.

The real loud sqawks are coming from a minority of individuals who claim to understand science but are not scientists themselves. Various reasons such as making money, wanting to restrict government roles, making money, being concerned with only themselves and immediate gains, and making more money cloud their vision and make them desperate. Desperate enough to fund psuedo science, and out of hand reject any evidence found by the scientific community that supports global warming, they desperately pore through pages of scientific journals they don't understand trying to find the slightest error in math, statistical analysis, anything they can to cast doubt on actual science. Its not working.

The people are speaking through their dollars and their votes. Keep on squawking, the change is already here.

[Severian]

Ask yourself, if science proves that global warming is due to human activity, carbon emmissions to be precise, are you willing to accept that science? Or will you keep fighting it? Because there comes a point where bias plays a more important role than facts, and you seem to be leaning that way.

One of the things I find inspiring about the current global awareness of human activities on the environment is the amount of change the individual is having. Hybrid cars, once initially dismissed by american automakers as too expensive and without demand, are the single largest growing area of automobile sales. Now even american cars are available with hybrid options. The environment is not just a subject of tree huggers and environmental scientists any more, we are all dutyfully recycling, buying long life flourescent light bulbs, buying organic foods (another huge growth market), environmental concern has gone from the scientists and outspoken few and becoming supported by the masses. Government changes are fine, and they have their place, but the real change is coming from the consumer and their right to choice.

The real loud sqawks are coming from a minority of individuals who claim to understand science but are not scientists themselves. Various reasons such as making money, wanting to restrict government roles, making money, being concerned with only themselves and immediate gains, and making more money cloud their vision and make them desperate. Desperate enough to fund psuedo science, and out of hand reject any evidence found by the scientific community that supports global warming, they desperately pore through pages of scientific journals they don't understand trying to find the slightest error in math, statistical analysis, anything they can to cast doubt on actual science. Its not working.

The people are speaking through their dollars and their votes. Keep on squawking, the change is already here.

While I will agree with you whole heartedly that it's far better for people to adopt behavior that is beneficial themselves, rather than have it ramrodded down their throat by government, the changes you mention are all merely feel good BS that do not address the real issues. They are, however, the big things that uninformed people are being led to believe are good, regardless of the consequences, and again they are "good" because they allegedly reduce CO2, which since CO2 is not the boogie man the pro-AGW crowd let on, these are at best useless and at most harmful. Compact fluorescents? Nice, reduce energy use, at the cost of massive increases in mercury contamination in groundwater from throwing them in dumps. Hybrids? Marginal improvements in real world fuel economy at the massive environmental cost of production and disposal of batteries. Organic foods? Another feel good item that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You describe the pro-AGW crowd in that last paragraph splendidly, although I suspect you are still going on about how the pro-AGW science is right and settled and it's those nefarious deniers/skeptics who are trying to muck up the works. You still are completely blind to the reality of what science truly says, that is non-agenda driven science, which the pro-AGW position can in no way be described as. Yeah, it's all those uninformed scientists who are out there publishing peer reviewed papers that undercut the mantra of AGW that are the problem eh? Slightest error in math? ROFL, that's a good one, denigrate the people and their results, can't have the unwashed challenging our global warming masters now can we?

You, like so many other gullible and credulous people, accept a priori that AGW is a fact, no matter how bad the science is, and then attempt to attack those who point out the flaws.

...they desperately pore through pages of scientific journals they don't understand trying to find the slightest error in math, statistical analysis, anything they can to cast doubt on actual science.

Eh? You do know that this is how science works don't you? What a pompous, arrogant, and completely ignorant statement that is, and alas all too typical from uninformed non-scientists who seem to be compelled to argue about things they know absolutely nothing about. You apparently are of the it's OK if it's not right as long as the goal is, like, you know, important. Actual science is subjected to exactly these kinds of review, and if it can't pass muster, it either changes or goes away. But the AGW "science" just shrieks that it's being repressed and the critics are being mean and unfair, don't you know the science is settled?!?!? Oy!

So far you're showing that you are a completely typical example of the modern, environmentally gullible, undereducated but opinionated person that I see over and over and over again. Ignorance is not necessarily a terrible thing, but it becomes one if you are ignorant and damned proud of the fact.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Severian

[stevoh]

While I will agree with you whole heartedly that it's far better for people to adopt behavior that is beneficial themselves, rather than have it ramrodded down their throat by government, the changes you mention are all merely feel good BS that do not address the real issues. They are, however, the big things that uninformed people are being led to believe are good, regardless of the consequences, and again they are "good" because they allegedly reduce CO2, which since CO2 is not the boogie man the pro-AGW crowd let on, these are at best useless and at most harmful.

Reducing our use of energy is at best useless? Reducing our dependence on non-renewable resources, useless? Even without GW, reducing energy consumption is a worthy goal.

Compact fluorescents? Nice, reduce energy use, at the cost of massive increases in mercury contamination in groundwater from throwing them in dumps.

Where I live, they are recycled. Including the mercury.

Already low mercury version are available, identifiable by the green base. The amount of mercury needed will continue to decline as the technology improves.

Hybrids? Marginal improvements in real world fuel economy at the massive environmental cost of production and disposal of batteries.

Both Toyota and Honda recycle the batteries, from the toyota site:

Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery.

The batteries also last a good long time, since the Prius first went on sale in 2000, they have not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.

Organic foods? Another feel good item that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Who's scrutiny? Depends what your priorities are. And, since organic food sales are the fastest growing sector of the food market, it seems a lot share the same priorities.

You describe the pro-AGW crowd in that last paragraph splendidly, although I suspect you are still going on about how the pro-AGW science is right and settled and it's those nefarious deniers/skeptics who are trying to muck up the works. You still are completely blind to the reality of what science truly says, that is non-agenda driven science, which the pro-AGW position can in no way be described as. Yeah, it's all those uninformed scientists who are out there publishing peer reviewed papers that undercut the mantra of AGW that are the problem eh? Slightest error in math? ROFL, that's a good one, denigrate the people and their results, can't have the unwashed challenging our global warming masters now can we?

Challenge away, show me science from scientists and I will believe it. If global warming isn't caused by carbon dioxide, I have no problem with that.

You, like so many other gullible and credulous people, accept a priori that AGW is a fact, no matter how bad the science is, and then attempt to attack those who point out the flaws.

Read this thread. Where are the attacks coming from? I am interested in the science and fact. Show me science, not op-ed pieces on the science.

Eh? You do know that this is how science works don't you? What a pompous, arrogant, and completely ignorant statement that is, and alas all too typical from uninformed non-scientists who seem to be compelled to argue about things they know absolutely nothing about. You apparently are of the it's OK if it's not right as long as the goal is, like, you know, important. Actual science is subjected to exactly these kinds of review, and if it can't pass muster, it either changes or goes away. But the AGW "science" just shrieks that it's being repressed and the critics are being mean and unfair, don't you know the science is settled?!?!? Oy!

Gee, look, an attack. What a shocker. I don't think the science is settled. I am willing to accept what it finds.

So far you're showing that you are a completely typical example of the modern, environmentally gullible, undereducated but opinionated person that I see over and over and over again. Ignorance is not necessarily a terrible thing, but it becomes one if you are ignorant and damned proud of the fact.

More personal insults. Boring. Keep these out of our discussion or I am done.

Please respect others using this board by refraining from personal attacks. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with a thought or idea and attacking an individual. We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints, not tirades against another poster.

[sunsettommy]

Stevoh:

Suspicious? Yes. Same as healthy sceptisism. The same sceptisism you have for global warming science, I have for all new science until time and peer review proves otherwise. As new facts come to light, facts from scientific study, not op-ed pieces, the science adjusts and theories adapt to the new information.

Suspicious is all you have said since you present no evidence.Worthless I would say since it means you have irrational thoughts concerning Exxon.It is indicative of being closeminded.

LOLOLOLOL!!!

When will your anti Exxon mania ever die down?

It is called paranoia.

It is clear you have failed to beck up your claim against Exxon having undue influence.Illegal influence and so on.You have said NOTHING more beyond this "suspicion" allegation.

NOTHING!

Really you must be convinced they put oil in your toothpaste!

Just to let you know.Exxon did not send me any money.No oil company has sent me money.Nobody in the ENTIRE world has sent me money to be skeptical.

I have been in this climate stuff since the late 1970's.I am well aware of the science process.You have not said anything new here.You also have not said anything about the CONTENT of the posted article itself either.

Can you actually tell use what is wrong with the viscount paper? I as a layman undertstood it.

AndrewL never could.Maybe you will?

He he....

If global warming is not a result of human activity, then scientific study will find that out, and I have no problem accepting the results of those investigations, but the source has to be scientific, not otherwise. And even if it is proven wrong, changing the composition of our atmosphere is still a bad idea, we do breath the stuff after all.

Global warming is already proven in part to be a result of human activity.I have known for years that Mankind through various means have affected the climate of the world.

Most of the so called skeptics (sometimes called "deniers") accept the evidence.It shows that we have added additional CO2 beyond what Nature emits.About 2.5% of the total yearly emission is from us.Nature emits the other 97.5%.

It is obvious that you have no idea what skeptics know about the state of the climate science research.

You are a funny guy.

Ask yourself, if science proves that global warming is due to human activity, carbon emmissions to be precise, are you willing to accept that science? Or will you keep fighting it? Because there comes a point where bias plays a more important role than facts, and you seem to be leaning that way.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are so far behind in this.

Climate Science research long ago showed that we have a small climatic influence through land use changes,Chemical emissions,CO2 emissions,Ozone emissions and so on.

Skeptics already accepted it long ago.It is you who is comically unimformed about what most skeptics believe.

It is already well known that CO2 has a small warm forcing that diminishes with additional CO2 molecules being emitted.It is on a Logarithmic scale.

It is people like YOU who keeps fighting the science.The many published science papers does not support the stupidly unsupported idea that CO2 is the dominant warm forcing and that we are main the cause of it.

The IPCC themselves admit they know very little about most of the listed suspected warm forcings.They even showed us the "what we know" chart in their 2001 report.It is obvious you never saw it.

YOU never addressed the posted article because YOU have no idea what he is talking about.Neither does AndrewL whom I gave ground mistakenly when I realized that his argument was actually no good.The report was already updated when the Viscount made his report on it.

I missed it at first untill I saw the dates.

[Severian]

Reducing our use of energy is at best useless? Reducing our dependence on non-renewable resources, useless? Even without GW, reducing energy consumption is a worthy goal.

Where I live, they are recycled. Including the mercury.

How nice for you, in most places they are not, and even when the facilities exist, people still throw them in the trash. But keep on ignoring reality.

Already low mercury version are available, identifiable by the green base. The amount of mercury needed will continue to decline as the technology improves.

Both Toyota and Honda recycle the batteries, from the toyota site:

The batteries also last a good long time, since the Prius first went on sale in 2000, they have not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.

Who's scrutiny? Depends what your priorities are. And, since organic food sales are the fastest growing sector of the food market, it seems a lot share the same priorities.

You don't read very well do you? What about production, or are we supposed to ignore Al Gore's polluted zinc mine? Or the massive dead zone around the mines in Canada? And organic food is a fast growing market, that makes it right eh? By that logic, then, SUVs must make a whole lot of sense and be great things, they outsell cars in most markets. Life is not a popularity contest, though people who don't think well for themselves often make excellent trend followers.

Challenge away, show me science from scientists and I will believe it. If global warming isn't caused by carbon dioxide, I have no problem with that.

Read this thread. Where are the attacks coming from? I am interested in the science and fact. Show me science, not op-ed pieces on the science

Sunsettommy has shown you plenty of science fact, there's no indication you've absorbed it at all. This is the typical, ignorant, trollish response. I've seen it before, and no matter what you link to, it's never "right" to fools like yourself. All you generally will do is frantically google to try and find some green approved web site to tell you that it's OK to not read and think for yourself, and give you some cut and paste answer. If you can't find, for yourself, this evidence, then you just aren't looking, as it's out there in droves. Try reading something other than realclimate or some other green site for a change. If you've ignored the evidence presented in this thread, and you act like all this evidence and papers are just impossible to find, then you are the usual lazy, ideologically blinded type who apparently likes to be bamboozled. Unfortunately, there are way too many people like you out there, and that makes your kind dangerous, as people who don't practice critical thinking skills make it easy for the con artists of the world to sell us all down the river. Here's a hint, take a look at climateaudit.org, there have been some particularly good discussions of Hansen's idiocy lately. Not that you care, sniff, probably funded by eeeevilll BIG OIL!

Gee, look, an attack. What a shocker. I don't think the science is settled. I am willing to accept what it finds.

More personal insults. Boring. Keep these out of our discussion or I am done.

Gee, what a horrible horrible loss that would be. Not that you've said anything remotely intelligent, just attacked the credibility and attempted to slime people like Monckton, rather than understand what he's saying. But others are the meanies, I get it, typical, boringly typical unfortunately. It's just fine to slime honorable scientists and commentators by inferring they are all dishonest or incompetent, but heaven forbid someone points out what a tool you are for doing it. Once again, an attempt at diversion to keep from addressing the topic at hand. But this does give you a convenient excuse to drop out rather than actually say something intelligent.

Maybe I should apologize though, I actually thought you might actually be an open minded person, rather than an ideologically blinded, not too bright, lazy sheep willing, eager even, to follow the herd.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Severian

[Severian]

I have been in this climate stuff since the late 1970's.I am well aware of the science process.You have not said anything new here.You also have not said anything about the CONTENT of the posted article itself either.

Interesting, that's when I got a taste of this as well. I was down doing my undergraduate work in Florida, and freezing my buns off. It snowed in Miami back then for heaven's sake! I was doing the traditional grunt work/slave labor expected of physics undergrads, manning a telescope, developing film, and counting sunspots. One particularly cold winter day I was in the lab with my professor going blind and getting crippled up bent over a magnifying glass counting sunspots on film negatives, and the conversation turned to the impending ice age everyone was predicting. My prof scoffed at this, saying "take a look at the sunspot history, in a few years they'll be telling us we're all going to burn up." Remarkably prescient of him eh?

Later, in the late 80's I was developing an optical model of the atmosphere to predict and analyze atmospheric effects on lasers fired through the atmosphere. We were doing work on optical phase conjugation, and many of the wavelengths of interest lay right in CO2 and waters absorption ranges, so I got intimately familiar with CO2, and waters, absorption curves and effects. More familiar I think than many alleged climate scientists. When people started crowing about CO2 and it's increasing effects, none of it made any sense from what I knew for a fact about CO2 and its characteristic absorption effects. I could take that same model, run it today without changing the CO2 effect to account for increasing CO2, and not be able to see any change in the results outside of the last few decimal places.

So, based on my own work I knew that the hyperbole and panic over CO2 was bogus. And after freezing my nads off in the 70's, my response was also "bring on the warming."

Can you actually tell use what is wrong with the viscount paper? I as a layman undertstood it.

AndrewL never could.Maybe you will?

I hope you're not holding your breath, both of these guys are the typical "show me and I'll believe it" while simultaneously ignoring or finding fault with everything shown to them types. They will never, ever take the time to read and try and understand, if they did they'd be coming back with reasonable questions on the parts they didn't understand, not whining that this guy or that was incompetent, not credentialed, or a tool of Big Oil. They don't want their religious beliefs challenged.

[stevoh]

You don't read very well do you?

This is the typical, ignorant, trollish response. I've seen it before, and no matter what you link to, it's never "right" to fools like yourself.

Maybe I should apologize though, I actually thought you might actually be an open minded person, rather than an ideologically blinded, not too bright, lazy sheep willing, eager even, to follow the herd.

Eh? You do know that this is how science works don't you? What a pompous, arrogant, and completely ignorant statement that is, and alas all too typical from uninformed non-scientists who seem to be compelled to argue about things they know absolutely nothing about

So far you're showing that you are a completely typical example of the modern, environmentally gullible, undereducated but opinionated person that I see over and over and over again. Ignorance is not necessarily a terrible thing, but it becomes one if you are ignorant and damned proud of the fact.

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

[sunsettommy]

I see that you were here and replied to Severian.

I did post a reply to you.

It is post # 55.

I hope you start providing something more substantive beyond "suspicion".If not I will ignore anymore blather from you on it.

Meanwhile you still failed to make a comment on the content of the first post.The one that is about the Viscount paper.

The topic of this thread you never have been on.

He he.......

[Severian]

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

Well, that's certainly easier than thinking and addressing the science and point of this whole thread! You haven't said squat that's relevant to the debate or articles and data posted. Typical.

"Wah, he was mean to me! sniff whine"

Hysterical, another caricature posing as a person.

[Severian]

I see that you were here and replied to Severian.

I did post a reply to you.

It is post # 55.

I hope you start providing something more substantive beyond "suspicion".If not I will ignore anymore blather from you on it.

Meanwhile you still failed to make a comment on the content of the first post.The one that is about the Viscount paper.

The topic of this thread you never have been on.

He he.......

I think he's obviously the result of too much "don't grade them accurately it'll discourage them" modern education. He has the mistaken impression that his drivel actually has some kind of merit.

[Severian]

My my, lookie here! Watts has been overseeing a comprehensive site survey of the temperature measurement stations used to gather data in the US, you know, the data that just had to be adjusted to correct Hansen's Y2K error. Take a gander. The take away quote is:

_________________________________________

Note that of the 33% surveyed, only 13% meet the CRN site criteria (Rating of 1 and 2)for an acceptable location to accurately measure long term climate change free of localized influences.

Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - Class 1 and 2 are considered best, 5 is the worst.

Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

____________________________________

only 13% meet the criteria to be considered accurate enough to measure long term climate change! But don't worry, Hansen will step forward any day now to tell us all not to fret, he's "adjusted" the data to make up for this. Sheesh.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2048#more-2048

Oy!

[jbg]

Interesting, that's when I got a taste of this as well. I was down doing my undergraduate work in Florida, and freezing my buns off. It snowed in Miami back then for heaven's sake! I was doing the traditional grunt work/slave labor expected of physics undergrads, manning a telescope, developing film, and counting sunspots. One particularly cold winter day I was in the lab with my professor going blind and getting crippled up bent over a magnifying glass counting sunspots on film negatives, and the conversation turned to the impending ice age everyone was predicting. My prof scoffed at this, saying "take a look at the sunspot history, in a few years they'll be telling us we're all going to burn up." Remarkably prescient of him eh?

That was January 1977? I remember, back then, the Gore types were telling us we were in a man-made "global winter". In April 1975 I remember some numskull wanted to pour carbon black on Arctic pack ice in order to reverse this trend. I have an article, in PDF format, from the December 29, 1974 New York Times fretting about cooling. If anyone wants it PM me and I'll e-mail it.

So, based on my own work I knew that the hyperbole and panic over CO2 was bogus. And after freezing my nads off in the 70's, my response was also "bring on the warming."

I hope you're not holding your breath, both of these guys are the typical "show me and I'll believe it" while simultaneously ignoring or finding fault with everything shown to them types. They will never, ever take the time to read and try and understand, if they did they'd be coming back with reasonable questions on the parts they didn't understand, not whining that this guy or that was incompetent, not credentialed, or a tool of Big Oil. They don't want their religious beliefs challenged.

You're right. their beliefs have the character of a religion. Those beliefs are based on a sense of feeling guilty about material prosperity. Mind you, not so guilty they'd cut their own standard of living (witness Gore and Suzuki) but guilty enough they'd cut those of "mere pleblians".

[Severian]

That was January 1977? I remember, back then, the Gore types were telling us we were in a man-made "global winter". In April 1975 I remember some numskull wanted to pour carbon black on Arctic pack ice in order to reverse this trend. I have an article, in PDF format, from the December 29, 1974 New York Times fretting about cooling. If anyone wants it PM me and I'll e-mail it.

You're right. their beliefs have the character of a religion. Those beliefs are based on a sense of feeling guilty about material prosperity. Mind you, not so guilty they'd cut their own standard of living (witness Gore and Suzuki) but guilty enough they'd cut those of "mere pleblians".

I think so, I recall the winters in 77 and 78 to both be pretty brutal. The power demands for heating were bringing black and brown outs, the college turned off all lights except for classrooms in use, no hall lights, or outside lights. The whole winter had a really surreal feel to it, you could imagine yourself in some kind of scifi novel or movie where the impending ice age was looming, power was cut, martial law just around the corner. Then of course it warmed back up and spring came as usual, followed by a traditional brutal Florida summer. I really enjoyed working with that professor, I had and continue to have a great deal of respect for him and his opinions. Despite the backbreaking work, as he always said "It's good for you, builds character and discipline."

Yeah, the AGW proponents, particularly the lay ones who don't understand the science, and don't take the time to, approach this as some kind of demented Gaian religion, where man is guilty of original sin by destroying the Garden of Eden and must atone, well, everyone except the high priests, who get a pass. This whole thing, how science became so manipulated and corrupt, and how society and politics and the media responded, would make a heck of a sociological study for some aspiring grad student, it's fascinating, but also like watching a slow motion train wreck.

After looking over the recent predictions for falling solar output, I'm betting that another impending ice age scare and "we've got to do something NOW" cult will be operating in full force in another decade or so. What goes around comes around apparently.

[sunsettommy]

I see that a certain somebody has left this thread.Too bad he never was much into honest discussion.

I had hoped to have a rational rebuttal posted against the Monkton paper.All I got was the usual gibberish about peer review stuff and supicious funding.That he is not a scientist and LA LA LA.........

I thought the Viscount wrote a credible paper.I have posted the posted article in 3 other forums and not a rational rebuttal has ever come across.Just the usual personal attack against the Viscount.

Not once was anyone being decieved about the paper Monkton posted.He never said it was a peer reviewed paper or that he is a climate scientist.He wrote it with references to actual published science papers.Somehow that was not good enough for certain people in this thread.To post a rebuttal against it rather than the stupid bromide that it is not a peer reviewed paper and getting oil money.

It was simply too novel an idea of just choosing to either post a rebuttal or shut up!

Not once did this certain person bother to deal with the posted article's content or elaborate on the "suspicion" claim against an oil company.I asked several times for something more than "suspicion" allegation about oil backed funding in the reply.I got nothing but drivel in return.I even gave him a hint in looking up the Union of Concerned Scientists about it.He never bothered.

I see this so often in forums now that I consider such people having attention deficit disorder.

[jbg]

I'm still here.

[sunsettommy]

I'm still here.

You are not the one I was talking about.

LOL

[jbg]

You are not the one I was talking about.

LOL

I thought you wer taking attendance.

[Severian]

I thought you wer taking attendance.

[sunsettommy]

Bleah,bleah...............

[stevoh]

In the article referenced from the first post, Monkton is correct.

The results of the measurement of tropospheric warming using Weather balloons (radiosondes) do not indicate that the troposphere is warming at the anticipated rate or with the anticipated "hot spots" that are predicted to be the fingerprint of global warming.

The measurements from satelites for the lower troposphere as indicated below are more in line with surface temperature changes as shown below:

Global trend, lower tropospheric, dec 1992 – dec 2005

Satelite Temperature records

1992 0.014

1993 -0.020

1994 -0.013

1995 0.019

1996 0.023

1997 0.031

1998 0.101

1999 0.091

2000 0.081

2001 0.091

2002 0.109

2003 0.118

2004 0.116

2005 0.13

The lack of support from trophospheric measurements for the climate change model is acknowleged by the IPCC in their latest report:

the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising.

So, while the surface is heating at a predicted rate, the trophosphere is not heating at the rate predicted by some climate change models. Instead they are increasing at approximately the same rate.

Surface and satelite data plot:

So, global warming is occuring, but the predicted heating of the troposphere at a greater rate is not.