# Climate Change? Of course. Which way?



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

The earth is in a 23000 year wobble of the spin axis. 

The Sun has variability that we are only beginning to measure. What is the 23K year Sun cycle?

Our earth orbit precesses. The moon is moving farther out. Our Solar System is
swinging thru dark energy and matter, they say. The hubris of anyone that claims to 
have certain knowlege is only surpassed by
the tyranny of opinion the smuggly wield.

We are to go along with the Majority Bully?
I say, no. For those who don't slop at the
research grant trough, and still have an open
mind, let us consider the BEST study recently published. Doesn't surprise me that some see it as the latest data for man made global warming. Looking through funny colored glasses. Money Green. Luddites,
Carbon Credit traders.

Sure, if you don't read past wikipedia and the popular sources. Mostly, however, the
BEST study does not support MMGM.

BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming.
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon.

Based on this most recent temperature and CO2 information, some of which I have posted in another sub-forum.

" We can safely assume that the BEST researchers are no dummies.....that would explain their hedging comments that the human influence is 'overestimated' and that natural decadal oscillations may be driving temperatures instead of human CO2 emissions."

Other minority findings here.
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

Of course, you'll see character stabbing and mud slinging practiced against this, soon enough. The way of the gun, for all the vaulted snobbery.


----------



## *BUDS (Nov 15, 2011)

97% of world climate scientists say it does exist and is getting worse, 3% (on the payroll of oil,coal co. etc)say there is no global warming. I dont know where you get this 1/3 bullshit. Also just a Q, do you know more about climate change than the scientists?


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

Quote your sources, please. 97%? Don't believe it. I'm quoting a study, sir.
I know what I know because I study. Do you? Or do you bow before the "scientists?"

Are you a sacrifice to the Research Grant Inquisition? Good god, man. I think for 
myself. You start with the potty mouth in the science forum? We are talking reasonably about the minority reports that you wish to bully into quiet.


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Nov 16, 2011)

*BUDS said:


> 97% of world climate scientists say it does exist and is getting worse, 3% (on the payroll of oil,coal co. etc)say there is no global warming. I dont know where you get this 1/3 bullshit. Also just a Q, do you know more about climate change than the scientists?


99% of the scientist said Einstein was crazy , but we know otherwise..... whats your point.


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

(1770): "*When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.*" Edmund Burke.

Climate change, (was global warming) was and is a political agenda.
Leftist want their power structrure. They think this is the ticket. Else,
why shout down and anyone who still asks questions? Brown Shirt tactics. We must be a politcal threat.

If it was just science and not politics it would be a civil and reasonable quest.

But, when one sides sniffs power, the sheep are punished. The way of the gun.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

You're kidding me, right? Some of the great (non-political, largely) scientific debates of the last 200 years were pure Jerry! cn


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

Oh, I know. It's knock down drag out, sometimes. And I guess ole Edison had his agenda. <shrug> this seems different somehow. It's popular politics crashing into the information age. Voters are too busy to think it through sometimes. The unintended consequences. Perhaps it always seems stange when good science is muddied
with the shrill voice of power.

It hit my limit last year when the Discovery channel tried to run a few episode of a What to DO?!?!? "science" show. Brain dead ideas along the lines of Space Fountains. Use ships to throw up water vapor world wide and other weather tinkering horrors. Slow the Jet Stream with giant engines in giant ballons? Guilt side of the blame game. Well, we broke it, right? is the subliminal message. 1984 was not paranoia, he was a prophet, imo. The information age just makes it much more subtle. 

It wasn't popular and actually suggested uni-lateral action against international treaty, if I read between the lines.

Lucky I believe in common sense and the System, thereof. Folks will get to spend a lot of money either way.

I'm always against bullies.


----------



## un named (Nov 16, 2011)

*BUDS said:


> 97% of world climate scientists say it does exist and is getting worse, 3% (on the payroll of oil,coal co. etc)say there is no global warming. I dont know where you get this 1/3 bullshit. Also just a Q, do you know more about climate change than the scientists?


He gets his 1/3 bullshit from scientific facts from non-bribed scientists that refuse to go under the corruption of our treacherous government.
Where have you ever seen a commercial from the government controlled television saying "let's not worry about global warming because it's a natural cycle where we are actually slowly going in to a mini ice age" You don't see it because those 97% of scientists you are claiming say it IS getting worse have no proof under interviews of the actual cycle that global warming is man made and it is all paid off information to take more money from the tax payers pockets -carbon tax etc;

Just a Q: Do you believe all the propaganda the government displays for our community and society to see.


----------



## un named (Nov 16, 2011)

Just read doer's other comments i would say he knows more than all us put together hes got it spot on +rep


----------



## Nusky (Nov 16, 2011)

I don't think air pollution changes the climate of the earth at all. If it did, we'd see drastic changes in places like China where the pollution is a HUGE problem. But, its still a good idea to try to limit the amount we release. Either way I just bought a car that gets 16 MPG and also burns OIL as it burns fuel. Fuck the earth.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 16, 2011)

Nusky said:


> I don't think air pollution changes the climate of the earth at all. If it did, we'd see drastic changes in places like China where the pollution is a HUGE problem. But, its still a good idea to try to limit the amount we release. Either way I just bought a car that gets 16 MPG and also burns OIL as it burns fuel. Fuck the earth.


Are you including co2 in your definition of pollution? You do realize we are discussing global climate change, not just localized atmospheric events? China and the US are not affected by climate change nearly as much as Greenland, and the poles. Although the average global temps have only risen slightly, it is much more pronounced as you get near the pole regions because of the role that ocean currents play.


----------



## Doer (Nov 17, 2011)

There has been so much bait and switch here. First it was global warming and
methane was the ghg. Woops, methane is mostly from cow poop and marsh gas.
And the bets need to be hedged politically. 

So, now it morphed to Climate Change and CO2. You know the old joke about betting
on the weather. Only one sure bet. It will change.

A small win, factory polution credit exchange was added to sweeten the deal, and
has become the Carbon Credit market. One of the top dogs there is Al Gore.

Smell the rat? So, of course the climate is changing. But CO2? It's the premier
mineral cycle on the planet. Volcanos spew it, reefs take it up, plants breathe it
in, we breathe it out. It's the perfect chaos element. The debate will rage and
money, taxpayer money will be spent in large amounts. 

The latest reseach along the CO2 line, published this year, says that clouds play
a bigger role here to mitigate temperature than is credited, in the current
"group think."

Not suprising. The secret most powerful gas in the atmosphere is water vapor,
not CO2.

If they were so sure it was warming why did they change the name of the
movement to Climate Change? Savvy politics.

And why scream down those that disagree? We are kicking the rice bowl.


----------



## Doer (Nov 17, 2011)

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, BEST, had a report out earlier this year.

Of course, the shrill partisans on this grabbed it as the final nail in the coffin conducted
by the climate change deny-ers. (first thing on the leftist agenda, call names)

Here's what the leader said, "
BEST founder Richard A. Muller told _The Guardian_ "...we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious," "...we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close."[3]
The BEST project is funded by unrestricted educational grants totalling (as of March 2011) about $635,000. Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER)[4], and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how BEST conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

*It actually was un-biased* but that that didn't stop the power mongers from spinning it for their purpose. 

See the current wikipedia for BEST and ask yourself. Does it mention this? No.


BEST results show little, if any, warming over recent years
BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming
BEST determined that government maintained temperature-station quality is "awful"
BEST found that the urban impact on global land temperatures is minimal
BEST concluded that the human influence on land temperatures may be overestimated
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2011)

Wow, poison the well much? 

Many of these questions and issues are valid, and probably something any one who has not looked into climate change would ask. There is nothing wrong with asking questions and seeking clarification. The problem is, you present these questions as if you have exhaustively searched for answers, when many of them can be answered by google and careful reading. You pre-reject any explanation based on paranoid sounding conjecture.

Lets look at some of the issues brought up here.

*Global warming is still being debated:*

This link explains that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists. The page provides source links to many independent science organizations and academic groups. It is a summary and collection of consensus proof, not just one webmasters opinion. Some of the facts pointed out in the summary are:



> That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
> 
> A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis
> 
> We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. *There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change.* *Not one*.


There are an abundance of links to many different official sites showing conclusively that a consensus exists. Any skeptics should following this data and investigate the validity of the links. The question of "is the jury still out" must be answered "no" by any reasonable person

*They switched Global Warming to Climate Change:*

Who are 'they'? These two terms have been around for decades and mean different things, although they are related by causality. Global warming refers to a long term warming trend, while climate change refers to the effects this warming trend has. Pretty simple. No deceitful tactics here, just precise terms being used in the name of accuracy. 

*The BEST study showed a cooling trend:*

The BEST study showed exactly what climatologists expected, the earth is warming. It served to confirm most earlier studies, not contradict them. Anyone who points out a cooling trend is guilty of purposely trying to skew the data by cherry picking small samples. Anyone who wishes to examine this data set can follow this link, which provides a summary, and again, many independent sources. If you wish for summary, including links, for the entire study as a whole, try here.


----------



## Doer (Nov 17, 2011)

You already said, and are saying again, you want to control the style of the debate, characterize the way I sound, and take your passive agressiveness into a personal
attack, again? And suddenly, you are quote mining, where you
scolded me yesterday, for it. Flip Flop, the acid tongue.

We, the few, I admit, are discussing the minority view in a pot forum, for crying outloud, and you have a stick up your ass, apprearently. Can't stand opposition,
stoop to name calling and snobbery. It's obvious you have skin in the game, it's
your ricebowl or you would not be here with your ad hominem attacks.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2011)

Doer said:


> You already said, and are saying again, you want to control the style of the debate, characterize the way I sound, and take your passive agressiveness into a personal
> attack, again? And suddenly, you are quote mining, where you
> scolded me yesterday, for it. Flip Flop, the acid tongue.


Perhaps you are unclear on what the tactic of quote mining entails. First of all, it involves a quote. Text from a webpage does not constitute a quote, it is demonstration of pertinent data. 

Quote mining is taking a direct quote and displaying it out of context in the pretense that it agrees with your point. Not to be confused with legitimate quoting, witch illustrates a point. I wont point out your incidence of quote mining because it was in another thread, but I welcome you to specify which quote you are accusing me of mining here.



> We, the few, I admit, are discussing the minority view in a pot forum, for crying outloud, and you have a stick up your ass, apprearently. Can't stand opposition,
> stoop to name calling and snobbery.


You surely didn't present this topic as if it is just shooting the shit in a pot forum, nor are you simply presenting your take on things. You are making unjustified accusations based on ill-informed and biased speculation. You are claiming the public is being lied to on a global scale for the sake of money and power. Seems like a fairly alarming proposition to me. Meanwhile all I did was present data and clarify some of the misconceptions you presented here. Again I welcome you to specify the name calling and snobbery.



> It's obvious you have skin in the game, it's
> your ricebowl or you would not be here with your ad hominem attacks.


We can see what your evidence filter requires for a conclusion by examining this statement. You do not know anything about me but are certain I am now part of this conspiracy. Simply because I presented data and summary of the consensus you have decided I am on the take. Please point out the ad hominem attacks you accuse me of. Ad hominem occurs when you point out an irrelevant detail to refute logic, instead of focusing on the logic itself. Much like what you have done by alluding to my source of income.

I find it interesting that all of your text is attacking me, and none of it addresses the points I brought up. For example, you were asking for sources confirming the consensus of 97%. I provided this data as you requested, do you now acknowledge a consensus exists? You were also speculating about the use of the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming'. I explained that both terms have been around for many years and are used when appropriate. Considering the level of interest you displayed when saying "*If they were so sure it was warming why did they change the name of the
movement to Climate Change?"* I would have thought you would have responded upon hearing the correct reason. Instead you only seem interested in discrediting me based on irrelevant and made up allegations. Is this the typical way in which you digest information?


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

Hey, you-dog. I never said anything about anybody. Certainly not you until the personal attacks began, (Doer doesn't sound like he's just shooting the shit) and now they continue. You control the manner and tone of the debate. I'm obviously not the only the only one who thinks so. You act like you're defending a movement. The end justifies the means. The way of the gun. Ergo sum.


----------



## Harrekin (Nov 18, 2011)

Isnt there evidence that at times in the past atmospheric CO2 concentrations were up to 12x times more than they are at present?

I think it's immensely arrogant to think humans alone can drastically influence a planet that's been around for 4 billion years with cyclical climate changes documented for millions of years. 

We may be influencing or accelerating a natural cycle, but the idea of "Man Made Climate Change" is absurd.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Isnt there evidence that at times in the past atmospheric CO2 concentrations were up to 12x times more than they are at present?
> 
> I think it's immensely arrogant to think humans alone can drastically influence a planet that's been around for 4 billion years with cyclical climate changes documented for millions of years.
> 
> We may be influencing or accelerating a natural cycle, but the idea of "Man Made Climate Change" is absurd.


...I think it's a living metaphor for the 'unhealthy air' in the world  You know, like how we're mostly arrogant towards each other. We tend to use our vocal capabilities to tear down instead of building up and it causes a living pollution.

"seek and ye shall find" in this context, to me, looks a bit like "evidence, of course you'll find it".

...just my 2¢


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Isnt there evidence that at times in the past atmospheric CO2 concentrations were up to 12x times more than they are at present?
> 
> I think it's immensely arrogant to think humans alone can drastically influence a planet that's been around for 4 billion years with cyclical climate changes documented for millions of years.
> 
> We may be influencing or accelerating a natural cycle, but the idea of "Man Made Climate Change" is absurd.


In short, the sun was cooler and less intense in the past and demand for co2 was higher, however c02 is not the only driver of climate change. If you wish to read an in depth explanation, go here.

I don't think anyone is taking the position that human are 100% responsible for climate change. In addition, I don't think anyone serious is saying that human contribution is 0%. Nature does a good job of cycling the co2 it makes, unfortunately humans do not. The co2 produced by volcano's and forest fires ect. is easily absorbed back into nature. A good deal of human co2 emissions are also absorbed by nature, maybe as much as half. Unless humans do something to offset the rest, a rise in level seems likely. A rise in co2 level has a direct effect on climate. Again, a more in depth explanation can be found here. It's not out of arrogance that we think humans are a major contributer to climate change, it because that is what the evidence tells us.

I'll agree with those who say carbon credits are a sham solution. I am not a fan of 'green guilt'. Many people care about the environment and any time there is a subject people feel passionate about, there are scam artists waiting to take advantage. I don't however equate those situations to the whole concept being a fraud. As I said, I think these are fine questions to ask, however when I look at the answers evidence based data gives us, they make sense. When I look at the words of those claiming to be opposition, they don't make sense, they make mistakes.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> In short, the sun was cooler and less intense in the past and demand for co2 was higher, however c02 is not the only driver of climate change. If you wish to read an in depth explanation, go here.
> 
> I don't think anyone is taking the position that human are 100% responsible for climate change. In addition, I don't think anyone serious is saying that human contribution is 0%. Nature does a good job of cycling the co2 it makes, unfortunately humans do not. *The co2 produced by volcano's and forest fires ect. is easily absorbed back into nature.* A good deal of human co2 emissions are also absorbed by nature, maybe as much as half. Unless humans do something to offset the rest, a rise in level seems likely. A rise in co2 level has a direct effect on climate. Again, a more in depth explanation can be found here.
> 
> I'll agree with those who say carbon credits are a sham solution. I am not a fan of 'green guilt'. Many people care about the environment and any time there is a subject people feel passionate about, there are scam artists waiting to take advantage. I don't however equate those situations to the whole concept being a fraud. As I said, I think these are fine questions to ask, however when I look at the answers evidence based data gives us, they make sense. When I look at the words of those claiming to be opposition, they don't make sense, they make mistakes.


...I wish I could find the article - a writer was saying something to the effect of "one year's worth of volcanic output in co2 was equivalent to what we've done as a race." I wonder if that could be substantiated in any way. It could be a stretch, but it sits well in the belly... so-to-speak


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I wish I could find the article - a writer was saying something to the effect of "one year's worth of volcanic output in co2 was equivalent to what we've done as a race." I wonder if that could be substantiated in any way. It could be a stretch, but it sits well in the belly... so-to-speak


I would be interested in reading the article, but that doesn't reflect numbers according to the reports by official sources. The USGS site says "Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year." The highest number any study has given us for emissions is 319 million tonnes per year. Meanwhile the estimate for human Co2 emissions from fossil fuels per year is 30 billion tonnes. So volcano's produce about 1% of what we do, according to science.


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)




----------



## cannabineer (Nov 18, 2011)

What I find fascinating is that while the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 is only one per cent of the annually exchanged (emitted, resorbed) amount, the quantity of "excess" CO2 staying in despite the release/resorption cycle tracks the amount produced by human use of fossil fuel. This might suggest that the natural cycle was operating at saturation, or it could mean something else.
I've also been fascinated by the clear, close correlation in the ice core data between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature as measured by ice isotope ratios. I DID read somewhere that analysis of those data revealed that CO2 conc. lagged temp. by an average of 800 years. Were it the other way around, I would have no trouble buying the idea that CO2 conc. is a causative factor in global temp. However the data suggest that it is a delayed effect, and that means that I cannot either assign or falsify a causal link between our artificial CO2 spike and global temps. 

We could be starting a runaway global warming event that'll raise aggregate surface temps by as much as ten degrees, and that would be a real hardship.
We could be delaying or aborting the onset of a new glacial period ... who's to know?
So i am officially on the fence in this debate. 
I will of course welcome links to good, first-run (no cherrypickin blogs, please!) information that would educate me. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> What I find fascinating is that while the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 is only one per cent of the annually exchanged (emitted, resorbed) amount, the quantity of "excess" CO2 staying in despite the release/resorption cycle tracks the amount produced by human use of fossil fuel.* This might suggest that the natural cycle was operating at saturation, or it could mean something else.*
> I've also been fascinated by the clear, close correlation in the ice core data between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature as measured by ice isotope ratios. I DID read somewhere that analysis of those data revealed that CO2 conc. lagged temp. by an average of 800 years. Were it the other way around, I would have no trouble buying the idea that CO2 conc. is a causative factor in global temp. However the data suggest that it is a delayed effect, and that means that I cannot either assign or falsify a causal link between our artificial CO2 spike and global temps.
> 
> We could be starting a runaway global warming event that'll raise aggregate surface temps by as much as ten degrees, and that would be a real hardship.
> ...


...what do people do for _their_ plants, hmmm?  Yikes, that sounds a little 'anunnaki'


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)




----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I would be interested in reading the article, but that doesn't reflect numbers according to the reports by official sources. The USGS site says "Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year." The highest number any study has given us for emissions is 319 million tonnes per year. Meanwhile the estimate for human Co2 emissions from fossil fuels per year is 30 billion tonnes. So volcano's produce about 1% of what we do, according to science.



...thanks for the info. And, I will see if I can find the article. I'm going to check out more at usgs, they have a pretty cool site to get lost in for a while


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)




----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2011)

Doer said:


>


...and if you put these end for end you wind up with the total picture. A sine wave of 'beautiful', tail devouring continuum to which all else is connected. (and follows suit, I might add  )


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> What I find fascinating is that while the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 is only one per cent of the annually exchanged (emitted, resorbed) amount, the quantity of "excess" CO2 staying in despite the release/resorption cycle tracks the amount produced by human use of fossil fuel. This might suggest that the natural cycle was operating at saturation, or it could mean something else.
> I've also been fascinated by the clear, close correlation in the ice core data between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature as measured by ice isotope ratios. I DID read somewhere that analysis of those data revealed that CO2 conc. lagged temp. by an average of 800 years. Were it the other way around, I would have no trouble buying the idea that CO2 conc. is a causative factor in global temp. However the data suggest that it is a delayed effect, and that means that I cannot either assign or falsify a causal link between our artificial CO2 spike and global temps.
> 
> We could be starting a runaway global warming event that'll raise aggregate surface temps by as much as ten degrees, and that would be a real hardship.
> ...


I agree that the answers to how much humans contribute and what we can do about it still need a lot of research and sorting through. The bit about past co2 levels lagging behind tempeture rise is accepted science. Here is a bit of explanation of what climatologists make of that.


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)




----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)




----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2011)

Doer said:


>


...the gnostics also say that this is a breath in, and a breath out. Each 'breath' encompasses an epoch. I so loooove that idea.


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

Allow a Forbes article? It's not a blog.
*
Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/

I'm just a citizen, but....what's being omtted for the popular view by the screamers? I'll proposed this. I know I'm not an ivory tower intellecutal. But, just back of the napkin logic. No agenda.

Greenhouse gases raise air temp
Heat of evaopration builds cloud 
Heat doesn't enter the oceans
Clouds increase reflection of solar energy
Closed loop feedback
*


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

As far as voting among the scientists (all of them?,) a poll, a survey, really. Just remember the ways of power.

According to Dictatorship, by Jennifer Fandel

Saddam Hussein won his last election by 99.96%


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 18, 2011)

Doer said:


> Allow a Forbes article? It's not a blog.
> *
> Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade?
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/
> ...


A Forbes article still came from a journalist ... a professional interpreter and repackager. By "first run" I mean that a peer-review process is still inside the horizon. I realize you don't like peer review since it's a package deal with scientific grantsmanship. cn


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

*gnostics also say that this is a breath in, and a breath out

Gotta love the gnostics! 

But, that's for another discussion. Cheers.
*


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> A Forbes article still came from a journalist ... a professional interpreter and repackager. By "first run" I mean that a peer-review process is still inside the horizon. I realize you don't like peer review since it's a package deal with scientific grantsmanship. cn


OK, don't mind that at all. Raw feed. I'll see if I can find CLOUD.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 18, 2011)

Doer said:


> OK, don't mind that at all. Raw feed. I'll see if I can find CLOUD.


You've bracketed the target but no bullseye ... between raw feed and chewed cud ... peer-reviewed publications by the pros. cn


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

Don't have full access, $32 to buy it.

So, to clarify, I'm not against grants. I'm against the politics and
the ursurping of the process. Against the bullies.

(oh poor doer, must of had his grant turned down) No, gainfully
employed in the management ranks of the computer biz. No
axe to grind.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> So i am officially on the fence in this debate.
> I will of course welcome links to good, first-run (no cherrypickin blogs, please!) information that would educate me. cn


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/index_en.php

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/87278a1097ec1c167e3a512cdb1ea3b6,0/148.html


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/
> 
> ...


Those are general, wave the flag sites.
I don't think cn is claiming this level of ignorance....but he can say for himself, I guess.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0830654w20543w8/fulltext.pdf

The so called Cloud Effect has been in play
for a while, now.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2011)

Doer said:


> Those are general, wave the flag sites.
> I don't think cn is claiming this level of ignorance....but he can say for himself, I guess.
> 
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0830654w20543w8/fulltext.pdf
> ...


What level of ignorance does one need to go to realclimate.org where actual climate scientists are available to explain and debunk the noise from the deniers?


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> What level of ignorance does one need to go to realclimate.org where actual climate scientists are available to explain and debunk the noise from the deniers?


Oh well, sorry for the noise. Raining on your parade? Actual scientists, huh?

It's just that cn was asking for specifics. That's the cheering section.


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

Rather lengthy, but very interesting, IMO.
From the 2011 World Climate Research Conf.

http://conference2011.wcrp-climate.org/documents/Position_B6_v4.pdf

2.2.3 Gravity Waves (just to name one factor)


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2011)

*CFMIP/GCSS/EUCLIPSE Meeting on Cloud Processes and Climate Feedbacks*
*Monday 6th June 2011 &#8211; Understanding, evaluating and improving the representation of clouds and** cloud feedbacks in global models*

http://www.euclipse.eu/downloads/PresentationsExeter2011/AgendaExeterJune2011_latest.htm

It's a very deep dive. Just to say, Cloud Effect has been discounted as too weak. Lot's of stuff.
Just being fair. Not at all against honest peer-review. Take your pick.


----------



## Toolage 87 (Nov 19, 2011)

Global warming is a bunch of bs. This kind of thing has been going on for the longest time we are just making it happen faster.

The government just wants to push new tech stuff because they want more money from taxes people pay that will pad their butts witch isn't going so well.


----------



## Doer (Nov 30, 2011)

It's been awhile. I put up some current thinking. Anyone dispute that Cloud Effect is still not understood?
And if that's so, "Global Warming" is not a done deal? We still don't know if the long term trend
is cooling or warming, right?


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Dec 1, 2011)

Its all about the sun spots man


----------



## Doer (Dec 1, 2011)

Well, maybe not "all."  

Aren't we swirling through galactic weather, as well? Dark matter, gravity waves, etc?
Many unknown factors affect the heat transfer mechanisms of the atmosphere. We don't know the
what, so we don't know the 'why....' unless we are carbon credit traders or after new grants, maybe?


----------



## canndo (Dec 12, 2011)

All of you man made global climate change nay sayers:

do some research on a now defunct organization called the GCC or Global Climate Coalition. This organization of "affected industries" took it's methods from the disinformation campaign of cigarette manufacturers and had a stated purpose of introducing "doubt" into a previously strictly scientific debate. The reason the organization disbanded is because it was judged to have worked after having injected millions into the public discourse. You have been duped. Research grants are worth perhaps billions - the energy status quo is worth trillions, if you follow the money, who do you think is the more influenced?


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 12, 2011)

Toolage 87 said:


> Global warming is a bunch of bs. This kind of thing has been going on for the longest time we are just making it happen faster.


isnt that what the climate change people are saying?


----------



## Doer (Dec 13, 2011)

canndo said:


> All of you man made global climate change nay sayers:
> 
> do some research on a now defunct organization called the GCC or Global Climate Coalition. This organization of "affected industries" took it's methods from the disinformation campaign of cigarette manufacturers and had a stated purpose of introducing "doubt" into a previously strictly scientific debate. The reason the organization disbanded is because it was judged to have worked after having injected millions into the public discourse. You have been duped. Research grants are worth perhaps billions - the energy status quo is worth trillions, if you follow the money, who do you think is the more influenced?


RED HERRING. We aren't talking about the money of research grants.

You said it, however. Follow the money.

The "new energy" economy is worth Quadrillions. And upsetting the power structure of the world, to benefit the "new few?" Priceless.

It's a power shift play. Of course, you don't and, I'd say, can't refute Cloud Effect. Without understand that, we don't know
WHAT affects the energy budget of the atmosphere.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 13, 2011)

Doer said:


> RED HERRING. We aren't talking about the money of research grants.
> 
> You said it, however. Follow the money.
> 
> ...



Hey Doer... why-o-why? I was just reading a bit on cloud effect and found in my travels:  ISIS PROTON SYNCHROTRON

God particles, Isis, Atlas and Alice... Starts to look like a new myth after a while.


----------



## canndo (Dec 13, 2011)

Doer said:


> RED HERRING. We aren't talking about the money of research grants.
> 
> You said it, however. Follow the money.
> 
> ...



PR is not a red herring, nor is the amount of money the status quo has invested in the system and is hell bent on preserving even in the face of imminent disaster (not global warming but peak oil, global warming can be dealt with). As I said, check out the GCC - it is the source of all following debate and pseudo (it's the sun) science.


----------



## Toolage 87 (Dec 14, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> isnt that what the climate change people are saying?


Not really most people are saying its all caused by humans but they never thing its also caused by natural causes like forest fires caused from hot weather or lightning strikes and other natural stuff. Alot of people also don't think about the problems that are caused from the sun spots to.


----------



## Toolage 87 (Dec 14, 2011)

I am doing my part with reducing my greenhouse gas foot print by going solar.

If I can find a peace of land by a creek or river I would also do micro hydro.


----------



## Doer (Dec 14, 2011)

canndo said:


> PR is not a red herring, nor is the amount of money the status quo has invested in the system and is hell bent on preserving even in the face of imminent disaster (not global warming but peak oil, global warming can be dealt with). As I said, check out the GCC - it is the source of all following debate and pseudo (it's the sun) science.


It's still worth mentioning. Cloud Effect. You can say what you want about the PR wars. But, this is a Science thread. 

Let's see your science to refute Cloud Effect as a closed loop feedback control. No matter how much you spin in the emotion, the clouds are still there.


----------



## canndo (Dec 15, 2011)

Toolage 87 said:


> Not really most people are saying its all caused by humans but they never thing its also caused by natural causes like forest fires caused from hot weather or lightning strikes and other natural stuff. Alot of people also don't think about the problems that are caused from the sun spots to.


forest fires have nothing to do with global warming, The carbon released from the fire is carbon that was sequestered in the trees and will be again.


----------



## canndo (Dec 15, 2011)

Doer said:


> It's still worth mentioning. Cloud Effect. You can say what you want about the PR wars. But, this is a Science thread.
> 
> Let's see your science to refute Cloud Effect as a closed loop feedback control. No matter how much you spin in the emotion, the clouds are still there.



You are going to have to be more specific.


----------



## Doer (Dec 15, 2011)

canndo said:


> You are going to have to be more specific.


Canndo, all the bread crumbs you need are documented in this thread. Cloud Effect. I can't do this homework for you. It's a very deep subject that has been sweep under the rug long enough that you don't know about it. But, it's been known about. It's the dirty little secret the GW movement has buried and otherwise shouted down. As you say, follow the money. Just read the material I've posted and see for yourself. Cheers.


----------



## canndo (Dec 15, 2011)

Doer said:


> Canndo, all the bread crumbs you need are documented in this thread. Cloud Effect. I can't do this homework for you. It's a very deep subject that has been sweep under the rug long enough that you don't know about it. But, it's been known about. It's the dirty little secret the GW movement has buried and otherwise shouted down. As you say, follow the money. Just read the material I've posted and see for yourself. Cheers.




I intend to.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 15, 2011)

Doer said:


> Allow a Forbes article? It's not a blog.
> *
> Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade?
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/
> ...


*A Positive Outlook For Clouds*

The effect of clouds in a warming world is a difficult one to predict. One challenge is that clouds have both warming and cooling effects. Low-level clouds in particular tend to cause a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight, while high-level clouds tend to cause a warming effect by trapping heat. 

So as the planet warms, clouds can have a cooling effect if the amount of low-level clouds increases and/or if the amount of high-level clouds decreases. Clouds will have a warming effect if the opposite is true. Thus it becomes complicated to figure out the overall effect of clouds, because scientists need to determine not only if the amount of clouds increases or decreases in a warming world, but which types of clouds are increasing or decreasing. 

For climate scientists who are skeptical that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will cause a dangerous amount of warming, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, their skepticism hinges mainly on this cloud cover uncertainty. They tend to believe that as the planet warms, low-level cloud cover will increase, thus increasing the overall reflectiveness of the Earth, offsetting the increased greenhouse effect and preventing a dangerous level of global warming from occurring. However, some recent scientific studies have contradicted this theory.


----------



## Doer (Dec 16, 2011)

Huh? I listed studies, in detail. We can't let you get by with a throwaway line liike this. "* However, some recent scientific studies have contradicted this theory." *And aren't you just posting the comments of the Forbes article? That was dis-allowed by the one guy that,
though silent now, quite fairly, asked for the peer reviewed text, which I provided a link to.

"*You've bracketed the target but no bullseye ... between raw feed and chewed cud ... peer-reviewed publications by the pros. cn"*

In science, we quote the studies if we make the claims. The recent studies, from this year, since I was asked for the most current, are very clear. No one has yet to come forward with a model showing negative feedback that agrees with the satelite data. That's just one point about Cloud Effect. If GW can't be modeled with Cloud Effect to match current data, that means we are not able to acurrately predict GW, right?


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 16, 2011)

Doer said:


> Huh? I listed studies, in detail. We can't let you get by with a throwaway line ike this. "* However, some recent scientific studies have contradicted this theory." *
> 
> In science, we quote the studies if we make the claims. The recent studies, from this year, since I was asked for the most current, are very clear. No one has yet to come forward with a model showing negative feedback that agrees with the satelite data. That's just one point about Cloud Effect. If GW can't be modeled with Cloud Effect to match current data, that means we are not able to acurrately predict GW, right?


Throwaway line? Did you read the whole article? Did you see where the recent studies show the cloud effect is net positive FB? Didn't think so.


----------



## Doer (Dec 16, 2011)

Of course, I read it. I posted it. I also familarized myself with the CLOUD study from CERN. That's what the article is about. 

So, I'll say again, there is no real accepted evidence for positive or negative FB with Cloud Effect. The models don't align with the data.
My stance all along is that we don't know. I don't have to prove GW doesn't exist. But, I can easily raise resonable doubt.
It's there for anyone to see.

I do this to counter the smug, nasty ass attitude, that I see coming form the GW cult. The cult has usurped the science.

I set this thread to counter the factless claims this GW business is a Done Deal. I tire of the bullying. I want to confront all the 
uniformed torch bearers of the cult, that are too lazy to think for themselves. The fact that so many here will jump in 
w/ shrill and insulting comments, proves my point, I'd say.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 16, 2011)

Doer said:


> Of course, I read it. I posted it. I also familarized myself with the CLOUD study from CERN. That's what the article is about.


 You say you read it but then criticize me for a single line in the middle of the article and ask if it was from Forbes? No, you didn't read the link I posted before you criticized it. 


> So, I'll say again, there is no real accepted evidence for positive or negative FB with Cloud Effect. The models don't align with the data.
> My stance all along is that we don't know. I don't have to prove GW doesn't exist. But, I can easily raise resonable doubt.
> It's there for anyone to see.


 Except that all of the evidence seems to point to a positive effect. Saying we don't know is disingenuous. 



> I do this to counter the smug, nasty ass attitude, that I see coming form the GW cult. The cult has usurped the science.


 As opposed to the non-science and rabid partisanship coming from the 'skeptics.'



> I set this thread to counter the factless claims this GW business is a Done Deal. I tire of the bullying. I want to confront all the
> uniformed torch bearers of the cult, that are too lazy to think for themselves. The fact that so many here will jump in
> w/ shrill and insulting comments, proves my point, I'd say.


You are the only shrill commenter I have seen. No one claims it is a 'done deal' that's another mischaracterization by whackos that don't understand what scientific consensus means. As you know, scientific consensus can be overturned but it will be done by other scientists, not by bloggers criticizing the scientist's methods from afar.


----------



## Doer (Dec 16, 2011)

Blah, Blah fight boy... Post the science, please. Blog and articles are specifically useless, as are websites of the Cheering Section. And check your foul, combative attitude at the door.

I won't be playing the, "and so are you" ,' oh, you are the worst one," game. Personal bullying. Nor will I answer any kind of bullish right-fight, point by point. 

Let's discuss the science. You copy pasted the Forbes article quote without referencing the "recent studies." And now you are telling me I lie about reading it. Doesn't further the scientific perusal, in the least. 

Why don't you comment on the Cloud Model Conference stuff I posted. It's quite interesting, IMO.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 16, 2011)

Doer said:


> Blah, Blah fight boy... Post the science, please. Blog and articles are specifically useless, as are websites of the Cheering Section. And check your foul, combative attitude at the door.
> 
> I won't be playing the, "and so are you" ,' oh, you are the worst one," game. Personal bullying. Nor will I answer any kind of bullish right-fight, point by point.
> 
> ...


I have no idea where in the Forbes article the quote that you are referring to is but the article I posted was not from Forbes and had no less than 4 citations with links to the actual science. Somehow you thought I posted a quote from the article you posted but I did not. If you can't be bothered to click a link and see for yourself, I'm not sure how I can help. 

Here's more from *What is the net feedback from clouds?*: 

In short, while much more research of the cloud-climate feedback is needed, the evidence is building against those who argue for a strongly negative cloud feedback. It's also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 17, 2011)

*BUDS said:


> 97% of world climate scientists say it does exist and is getting worse, 3% (on the payroll of oil,coal co. etc)say there is no global warming. I dont know where you get this 1/3 bullshit. Also just a Q, do you know more about climate change than the scientists?



If you honestly believe that 97% consensus crap this is your lucky day! I happen to own a really nice bridge that connects two boroughs of New York, those being Manhattan and Brooklyn. I'm getting older and I don't get many chances to go up there and enjoy it anymore so I have been considering selling it and I will sell it to you for a very reasonable price. I like to call it the Brooklyn Bridge but once yours you could of course rename it anything you would like. After all, it would be yours so you would have that right so you could rename it after yourself! If interested be sure to PM me. 

Have you not heard about Climategate and now the sequel, Climategate 2? Recently another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University&#8203;&#8212;&#8203;ground zero of &#8220;Climategate I&#8221; in 2009 were released&#8203;. They have been even more damning than the originals. 


Here is a little bit that touches on the consensus lie.

One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter), *the circle of scientists who control the syntheses that go into IPCC reports and the national climate reports that the U.S. and other governments occasionally produce is quite small and partial to particular outcomes of these periodic assessments. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign&#8203;&#8212;&#8203;namely, that there exists a firm &#8220;consensus&#8221; about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers.*


In the editing process before the IPCC&#8217;s 2001 third assessment report, Timothy Carter of the Finnish Environmental Institute wrote in 2000 to three chapter authors with the observation, *&#8220;It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.&#8221; In this case, decisions at the highest levels of what specific figures and conclusions were to appear in the short &#8220;summary for policy makers&#8221;&#8203;*&#8212;&#8203;usually the only part of the IPCC&#8217;s multivolume reports that the media and politicians read&#8203;&#8212;&#8203;required changing what appeared in individual chapters, a case of the conclusions driving the findings in the detailed chapters instead of the other way around. *This has been a frequent complaint of scientists participating in the IPCC process since the beginning, and the new emails show that even scientists within the &#8220;consensus&#8221; recognize the problem. Comments such as one from Jonathan Overpeck, writing in 2004 about how to summarize some ocean data in a half-page, reinforce the impression that politics drives the process: &#8220;The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what&#8217;s included and what is left out.&#8221; *



Wake up and smell the Mango Haze, dude! Man made or man driven global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the citizens of this rock we all live on.


----------



## Doer (Dec 17, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I have no idea where in the Forbes article the quote that you are referring to is but the article I posted was not from Forbes and had no less than 4 citations with links to the actual science. Somehow you thought I posted a quote from the article you posted but I did not. If you can't be bothered to click a link and see for yourself, I'm not sure how I can help.
> 
> Here's more from *What is the net feedback from clouds?*:
> 
> In short, while much more research of the cloud-climate feedback is needed, the evidence is building against those who argue for a strongly negative cloud feedback. It's also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low.


Your attitude sucks and that's how you drive the debate so foul. You just posted part of an article. And you quoted me and my reference (only) to the Forbes article.

So, just stlck the the science please. The junk from the cheering section "the evidence is building", etc? That just means to me the focus of the bullying has lasered onto this since it's the Achilles Heel. It reminds me of how fast the GW crowd, mostly meat eaters, abandoned methane as a green house gas. The "studies" showed cows as the culprit. Woops. CO2 is much more prevasive, so vague to measure and not tied to a food source.


----------



## Doer (Dec 17, 2011)

Brick, I agree. The IPCC is a Thugocracy. And now Canada has pulled out of Kyoto. Who will be next?


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 17, 2011)

Doer said:


> Your attitude sucks


You know, I tried to discuss this with you in good faith. Obviously you don't care to return the favor. 

Yes, I posted part of an article, we cannot post complete articles because then it becomes copyright infringement and there have been websites that receive takedown notices after wholesale copying of another website. That's why I posted a link to the whole article including all of the references for you to check. As I said, if you can't be bothered to actually click the links I provide, then I can't help.

However, since you are acting like such a prick, not once responding to the science in the links I posted but instead launch personal attacks against me, I will no longer participate. Go get 
someone else.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 17, 2011)

Doer said:


> Your attitude sucks and that's how you drive the debate so foul. You just posted part of an article. And you quoted me and my reference (only) to the Forbes article.
> 
> So, just stlck the the science please. The junk from the cheering section "the evidence is building", etc? That just means to me the focus of the bullying has lasered onto this since it's the Achilles Heel. It reminds me of how fast the GW crowd, mostly meat eaters, abandoned methane as a green house gas. The "studies" showed cows as the culprit. Woops. CO2 is much more prevasive, so vague to measure and not tied to a food source.


After having read your and mindphuk's posts, Doer, I cannot agree with your assignment of the seat of "foul attitude". Where has Mindphuk descended to an ad hominem attack? Where has Mindphuk anticipayed a possible rebuttal (effectively putting words into the mouth of an interlocutor)? You have done both repeatedly.
Effective, civil debate has rules. I see Mindphuk hewing to those rules. I don't see you doing the same.

OK something technical. I have been reading about methane. At this time it has been assigned a specific greenhouse effectiveness 25 times that of CO2 per unit of concentration. Carbon dioxide is near or at 390 ppm, whereas methane is now near or at 1.8 ppm. So if the relative greenhouse effectiveness number is good, methane's effect is aboit 11.35% that of CO2, and 10.something % of the combined effect of the two. Negligible? maybe not. Significant? Also ... maybe not. Imo, no point setting mousetraps when the real problem is rats. cn


----------



## Doer (Dec 18, 2011)

"*You are the only shrill commenter I have seen." 

That, sir, is ** ad hominem**. And though Mr. H "likes" your comment, he's well aware of how these attacks begin. I decided long ago to just fight this passive aggressive with aggressive. Make the PA types very nervous. And cn, you didn't notice where the personal attacks began? 

Look through my exchange with H. also, on the other Thread. I notice he, too, is silent about Cloud Effect. So loud before.

The PA/PC approach is how the GW cult wants us personally insulted, if we don't agree. It's Thuggery. Tyranny. As soon as I was a lost in the article war trying to figure out what the Phuck he was talking about, I was called the lie, twice. 

Re-read, cn. You set the tone but now you're changing stripes?

Most of it was a simple mis-understanding about which part of which article he means with his brief, un-explained approach of just posting links and snips.

Then he smears about me not reading it when he posted reference, only, to the article that YOU objected to. But, throws in a link and snip, un-referenced.

YOU wanted just the science posted, YOU acted strictly neutral, but never said a word about the Cloud Effect research I dug up for YOU.

Seems funny now that you want step in to scold me and not object to the no science /no peer review, Cheering Section articles of someone else. Foul. And, somehow, you don't seem so neutral now.

Phuck, if you would knock off the PA/PC you would be a better debater. H, same for you. Bullying is not debating.
*


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 18, 2011)

Doer said:


> *
> 
> That, sir, is ** ad hominem**. And though Mr. H "likes" your comment, he's well aware of how these attacks begin.*


Heh, you call someone on ad hominem and then poison the well
.*



H, same for you. Bullying is not debating.

Click to expand...

*The point is that what you are doing is not debating as accepted by academic standards, and that is why academics refuse to debate you. This is how most reasonable people eventually respond to conspiracy theorists. You use debate as an excuse to go into your song and dance, and it never changes.


----------



## *BUDS (Dec 18, 2011)

Doer said:


> Quote your sources, please. 97%? Don't believe it. I'm quoting a study, sir.
> I know what I know because I study. Do you? Or do you bow before the "scientists?"
> 
> Are you a sacrifice to the Research Grant Inquisition? Good god, man. I think for
> myself. You start with the potty mouth in the science forum? We are talking reasonably about the minority reports that you wish to bully into quiet.


Your quoting bullshit studies you silly little nerd, "oh dont come on our science forums!!", you little fuckwit what would you know about science? mmmm?. You didnt answer the Q ,do you have more knowledge on climate science than 97% of the worlds scientists? This "no such thing as mmgm " has been invented by big US corp, oil,coal co. etc so they can continue destroying the planet to make a profit and you and plenty of others are falling for thier bullshit.


----------



## *BUDS (Dec 18, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> If you honestly believe that 97% consensus crap this is your lucky day! I happen to own a really nice bridge that connects two boroughs of New York, those being Manhattan and Brooklyn. I'm getting older and I don't get many chances to go up there and enjoy it anymore so I have been considering selling it and I will sell it to you for a very reasonable price. I like to call it the Brooklyn Bridge but once yours you could of course rename it anything you would like. After all, it would be yours so you would have that right so you could rename it after yourself! If interested be sure to PM me.
> 
> Have you not heard about Climategate and now the sequel, Climategate 2? Recently another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University&#8203;&#8212;&#8203;ground zero of &#8220;Climategate I&#8221; in 2009 were released&#8203;. They have been even more damning than the originals.
> 
> ...


Nothing but a true right wing cocksucker this guy.Crap invented by republicans and you believe it. Your posts are always full of shit old man.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 18, 2011)

Doer said:


> *
> 
> Most of it was a simple mis-understanding about which part of which article he means with his brief, un-explained approach of just posting links and snips.
> 
> ...


You're making no sense. You haven't even commented on the articles or the science in the links that I posted. You just seem content to continue to argue that I am not posting links properly or whatever the fuck you're going on about.


----------



## Doer (Dec 18, 2011)

BUBS, you remind me of your picture. Ever the tough guy, with the pointless, factless, insults of the vastly ignorant GW cult..

Phuk, we can have a civil debate if you'd just calm down and stop with the personal attacks and post some links to peer review
and not articles. Make a point and post the link to your science.


----------



## Doer (Dec 18, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Heh, you call someone on ad hominem and then poison the well
> .
> 
> The point is that what you are doing is not debating as accepted by academic standards, and that is why academics refuse to debate you. This is how most reasonable people eventually respond to conspiracy theorists. You use debate as an excuse to go into your song and dance, and it never changes.



We established the snobbery. I suppose these, "accepted by academic standards" and "reasonable people" comments you make are NOT designed to be insulting and bullying? And I suppose the "standards" you attest to, alllow you to call people Deniers, nay sayers, or worse, the similar, but more base venacular of BUDS.

Sounds like the cult of snobbery to me. cn asked for papers about Cloud Effect. What say you, oh Holy High Priest of Real Science?


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 18, 2011)

Doer said:


> "*You are the only shrill commenter I have seen."
> 
> That, sir, is **ad hominem**. And though Mr. H "likes" your comment, he's well aware of how these attacks begin. I decided long ago to just fight this passive aggressive with aggressive. Make the PA types very nervous. And cn, you didn't notice where the personal attacks began?
> 
> ...



Two questions for you, Doer.
1) How is my description of your style as shrill an "ad hominem" attack? "Argumentum ad hominem" has a precise definition, and I don't see how I've done that.

2) What is PA/PC? And how is that important to the discussion?

And an observation. The article you linked does not discuss the cloud effect in any general way ... it seems to be about atmospheric sulfur. About the cloud effect in general, more data suggest it goes the wrong way to support your initial argument (slight positive cooperativity) than the way you imply (strong negative cooperativity). So afaik invoking the cloud effect neither kills nor advances the core discussion. cn


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 19, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Brick Top*
> 
> If you honestly believe that 97% consensus crap this is your lucky day! I happen to own a really nice bridge that connects two boroughs of New York, those being Manhattan and Brooklyn. I'm getting older and I don't get many chances to go up there and enjoy it anymore so I have been considering selling it and I will sell it to you for a very reasonable price. I like to call it the Brooklyn Bridge but once yours you could of course rename it anything you would like. After all, it would be yours so you would have that right so you could rename it after yourself! If interested be sure to PM me.
> 
> ...






*BUDS said:


> Nothing but a true right wing cocksucker this guy.Crap invented by republicans and you believe it. Your posts are always full of shit old man.




No, you are wrong. This old man tells nothing but the truth, unlike you and Al Gore and your ilk. 

The drowning polar bear story was a lie. Polar ice caps and on Greenland are expanding and getting thicker. The temperature rise of the planet ended in 1998 and since 2003 the temperature has been dropping. 

The religious cult of man-made global warming is dead. It's high priests have been caught in numerous lies, found to have withheld data, found to have manipulated data, found to have misrepresented data, known to have lied about there being a consensus. The vanishing Himalayan Glaciers story was a total fabrication. The claim about there being larger numbers of and more powerful hurricanes and typhoons and tornadoes was a complete lie. 

NASA blew massive holes in the religious cult of man-made global warming with their research. The central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. *Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

* *When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.*



The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is *NO GLOBAL WARMING!* Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain. There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it.

Here are some of the email exchanges found in Climategate 2: The Lies of Liberals:

/// The IPCC Process ///
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
*Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.* We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:

*I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.*

<1611> Carter:
*It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.*

<2884> Wigley:
*Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC *[...]

<4755> Overpeck:
*The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] whats
included and what is left out.*

<3456> Overpeck:
*I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
Subsequent evidence [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge  more evidence. What is it?*
​ And here's our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.

<0714> Jones:
*Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital  hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.*

<3205> Jones:
*Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue  on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)*
​ Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government  the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  actually putting pressure on climate "scientists" to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:
<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:
*I cant overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and dont want to be made
to look foolish.*
​ *Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:*

<3655> Singer/WWF:
*we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy*

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:
*[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
global icons [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local reason for the
destruction  cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
unchanging environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change*

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
*In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media*

Kjellen:
*I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming*

Pierrehumbert:
*What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? Thats the sort of thing we need to think about.*
​Right there in the words of the peudo-scientists who are doing their damndest to perpitrate this hoax on mankind you see then dreaming up schemes and ways to distort information, to hide information, to embellish information to make it scare people, trying to dream up some far fetched scenario where a single weather event could be portrayed as what will be normal weather in the future.

In Al Gores video, Climate 101, it shows how to do a simple experiment at home to prove carbon dioxide causes global warming. *But if you watch closely, youll see an inconvenient truth of the worst kind. Watch the portion of the video that begins at 1:00 and ends at 1:20. **You see, he faked not only the experiment but also the results with video editing tricks. Video analysis proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.


*You cannot believe anything that comes from the chicken little - the sky is falling religious cult of man-made global warming alarmists. Time and time again they have been caught in lies, trickery and deceptions. They have never been honest, not once from day one. Anyone who is stupid enough to believe them has to have an IQ that is pretty much the same as the coldest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica, that being &#8722;129.3 °F. 


​


----------



## Doer (Dec 19, 2011)

First off cn, you didn't say that. The guy you defended said that. You accused me of starting the personal attacks. I say you didn't read it closely. I quoted
the attack on me. I don't make personal attacks unitl I get them. I'm AA not PA. I don't have a need to call names. But AA trumps PA at all times, in my experience.

PA is for cowards. Passive Agressive. Politically Correct. It has everything to do with this.

An _*ad hominem*_ (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for _*argumentum ad hominem*_, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[SUP][1][/SUP] _Ad hominem_ reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy

So, MPf, made the attack, I responded and you chastied me. Capice?

So, the Forbes article, you rejected. Fine, I moved to peer review, again, because you asked. I have no interest in the "Pearls before Swine" type debates I see here.

Mr H and the snobbery, calling me a Deiner and a faker, is what pushed me to begin this thread. Still P before S. But, you seemed interested/neutral enough so I pressed on with gathering research. BTW, you still haven't comment on that. So, what did you want? Just more PbS, debate? Are you neutral as you said?

Cloud Effect is the core issue. If we don't know the whats about the atmosphere, how can we know the whys?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 19, 2011)

...is the atmosphere just a 'blanket' for thought projection? Like...salt?


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 19, 2011)

Doer said:


> So, MPf, made the attack, I responded and you chastied me. Capice?


I attacked you? Please. You dismissed every post I made because I linked to what you call 'cheering sections' when realclimate.org and skepticalscience.com not only have links to the peer review studies but some actual climate scientists are active members on those sites. 
So first you dismiss the posts with evidence with a hand wave as not worthy - ad hominem.
Then you call out anyone that accepts the AGW model as shrill, leftists, etc. - ad hominem, poisoning the well
Then you claim I made a personal attack against you? Grow up. You say you want to discuss this as civil adults but you are the one that is keeping that from happening.


----------



## Doer (Dec 19, 2011)

Nothing there is personal. When you say, I'm the only Shrill one. That's personal. ie, *ad hominem. Don't listen, he is shrill.

*I do note that I'm the only one that has posted any science, any peer review that points to the still un-knowns or knowns of Cloud Effect. Those that wish to dismss my science, and not post any science to counter it and can add only the cheering section blurbs are not at the forefront of the debate. Those that wish to bully me, dismiss and dis-credit me personally can kiss my ass. The entire GW movement is PA/PC. Don't go there with me. I'm AA aserbic.

Those that want to shape the debate into their comfort zone, some unstated academic standard, well, I would like to see science not snobbery.

One can see the difference. If someone tars themselves and takes it personal, fine, their problem. But, you attack me personally, I attack back.

Let's go back to when you said, what kind of idiot needs more that these, (what I call Cheering section) links?

An Idiot? I didn't take that personal as you stopped short of calling me an idiot. See the difference? 

I apologize for the "attitude sucks" comment. Can we move on?


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 19, 2011)

Doer said:


> Nothing there is personal. When you say, I'm the only Shrill one. That's personal. ie, ad hominem. Don't listen, he is shrill.


 That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem must be part of an argument. As to you being shrill, that wasn't even an attack, it was an observation based on how you are dismissing everyone before they even post and whining and complaining about your supposed adversaries, virtually the very first post. I normally wouldn't use the term shrill but since you invoked it to describe the scientists, and virtually anyone that accepts AGW, I figure it was appropriate as I was only using your definition. You can't start calling people names and then complain when it is turned around on you. 


> I do note that I'm the only one that has posted any science, any peer review that points to the still un-knowns or knowns of Cloud Effect. Those that wish to dismss my science, and not post any science to counter it and can add only the cheering section blurbs are not at the forefront of the debate. Those that wish to bully me, dismiss and dis-credit me personally can kiss my ass. The entire GW movement is PA/PC. Don't go there with me. I'm AA aserbic.


I guess my links don't contain any science? This is why I will not continue to discuss this with you. My first link had no less than 4 peer-reviewed studies discussing how clouds are at most a small negative FB in some situations but overall a positive one and will not stop warming. My second link was even more detailed and provided more substantiation for a positive FB of clouds. 



> Those that want to shape the debate into their comfort zone, some unstated academic standard, well, I would like to see science not snobbery.


 More personal attacks? 



> One can see the difference. If someone tars themselves and takes it personal, fine, their problem. But, you attack me personally, I attack back.


 The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas. - Carl Sagan. 
I would add, not attacking back. Personal attacks, regardless of who initiated them are not good for debate. Best to ignore the attacks and destroy your adversary with logic and reason. 



> Let's go back to when you said, what kind of idiot needs more that these, (what I call Cheering section) links?
> 
> An Idiot? I didn't take that personal as you stopped short of calling me an idiot. See the difference?


 Let's go back and see how you took this out of context as some kind of insult against you. 
You said, " Those are general, wave the flag sites.
I don't think cn is claiming this level of ignorance....but he can say for himself, I guess."
I replied, "What level of ignorance does one need to go to realclimate.org where actual climate scientists are available to explain and debunk the noise from the deniers?"
We were discussing whether cn was too ignorant for my links. I said NOTHING about you or you being an idiot. You imagined an attack from me that never occurred and you wonder why I am already tired of this thread? 



> I apologize for the "attitude sucks" comment. Can we move on?


I'm not sure I'm willing to move on. I gave you links to sketpicalscience.com and realclimate.org where there are real scientists countering the GW denier's claims. Unless you are willing to actually look at those articles without the hand-waving bias claiming them to be cheering sections, I'm not sure it's worth continuing. Discrediting the source is a typical tactic of the conspiracy theorist. Some sources are not credible and should be viewed with skepticism. You have taken it further and discredited sources without even examining them.




Doer said:


> Nothing there is personal. When you say, I'm the only Shrill one. That's personal. ie, ad hominem. Don't listen, he is shrill.


 That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem must be part of an argument. As to you being shrill, that wasn't even an attack, it was an observation based on how you are dismissing everyone before they even post and whining and complaining about your supposed adversaries, virtually the very first post. I normally wouldn't use the term shrill but since you invoked it to describe the scientists, and virtually anyone that accepts AGW, I figure it was appropriate as I was only using your definition. You can't start calling people names and then complain when it is turned around on you. 


> I do note that I'm the only one that has posted any science, any peer review that points to the still un-knowns or knowns of Cloud Effect. Those that wish to dismss my science, and not post any science to counter it and can add only the cheering section blurbs are not at the forefront of the debate. Those that wish to bully me, dismiss and dis-credit me personally can kiss my ass. The entire GW movement is PA/PC. Don't go there with me. I'm AA aserbic.


I guess my links don't contain any science? This is why I will not continue to discuss this with you. My first link had no less than 4 peer-reviewed studies discussing how clouds are at most a small negative FB in some situations but overall a positive one and will not stop warming. My second link was even more detailed and provided more substantiation for a positive FB of clouds. 



> Those that want to shape the debate into their comfort zone, some unstated academic standard, well, I would like to see science not snobbery.


 More personal attacks? 



> One can see the difference. If someone tars themselves and takes it personal, fine, their problem. But, you attack me personally, I attack back.





> Let's go back to when you said, what kind of idiot needs more that these, (what I call Cheering section) links?
> 
> An Idiot? I didn't take that personal as you stopped short of calling me an idiot. See the difference?


 Let's go back and see how you took this out of context as some kind of insult against you. 
You said, " Those are general, wave the flag sites.
I don't think cn is claiming this level of ignorance....but he can say for himself, I guess."
I replied, "What level of ignorance does one need to go to realclimate.org where actual climate scientists are available to explain and debunk the noise from the deniers?"
We were discussing whether cn was too ignorant for my links. I said NOTHING about you or you being an idiot. You imagined an attack from me that never occurred and you wonder why I am already tired of this thread? 



> I apologize for the "attitude sucks" comment. Can we move on?


I'm not sure I'm willing to move on. I gave you links to sketpicalscience.com and realclimate.org where there are real scientists countering the GW denier's claims. Unless you are willing to actually look at those articles without the hand-waving bias claiming them to be cheering sections, I'm not sure it's worth continuing. Discrediting the source is a typical tactic of the conspiracy theorist. Some sources are not credible and should be viewed with skepticism. You have taken it further and discredited sources without even examining them.


----------



## Doer (Dec 19, 2011)

OK, kiss my ass and don't move on. fuck you with peel it all apart, insist you are right with your silly websites. Now I'm being personal, asshole. See the diff?
Post some science directly and don't just try a supercillious broad brush off. That's GW CULT. If you act it, you are it.

You don't want the apology, don't want to discuss the issues, but just throw up garbage from the cheering section. Argue line by line, post by post about nothing
Don't move on, snotty. Go fuck yourself.

You can't show a 2011 peer reviewed report on Cloud Effectr that proves anything, so you don't. That's my point.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 19, 2011)

The problem is that I have posted science and you still discount it as garbage. Tell me why I should continue? 

Here's an example of the links you couldn't be bothered to click.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 19, 2011)

Doer said:


> First off cn, you didn't say that. The guy you defended said that. You accused me of starting the personal attacks. I say you didn't read it closely. I quoted
> the attack on me. I don't make personal attacks unitl I get them. I'm AA not PA. I don't have a need to call names. But AA trumps PA at all times, in my experience.
> 
> PA is for cowards. Passive Agressive. Politically Correct. It has everything to do with this.
> ...


I'm guessing it's a matter of perspective, Doer. I looked at your post#3 in which you stated that *BUDS was pottymouthing and bullying".
To my eye, these are attacks by you at him, and I don't see that they were warranted. 
In my opinion you have used a confrontational tone right from post #1 with your intonations of "brown shirts" and "the way of the gun" among other fightin' words ... interesting metaphors but I can't determine their relevance ... but i don't need to be a specialist to see that they are good (and intended to be good) at pre-empting, placing anyone who disagrees with you on the defensive. I would frown on anyone who speaks so and still claims to be interested in fair debate. It seems to me, irreducibly, like unfair presumption. That is my perception/opinion regarding that. 

In re the cloud effect, my readings have led me to two conclusions ... both quite tentative since the (easily accessible) published science is thin on the ground and by no means uniform in its conclusions.
1) The data are too noisy to reach a conclusion even about the direction of the cloud effect.
2) I have read from your posts (and correct me if I am wrong) that you are stating that the cloud effect has negative cooperativity, i'e' it works against the likely CO2-promoted warming trend. However the current consensus, weak as it is, assigns a weak positive cooperativity to the cloud/temp function. That is to say, if those folks are right, then cloud trends make things slightly worse, not better. 

Finally, _ad hominem_ attacks. 
You introduced the term on this thread with post #15, in which you responded to Heisenberg's assembly of counterfacts. I see his post as being strictly _ad rem_ and not _ad hominem_. Imo you are accusing Heisenberg of something he did not do. I have been given to understand that you got into a scrape with Heis on another thread, but would it not be best to leave that outside this one? It only makes it difficult when boundaries and compartments for discourse are necessary but not observed. 

If you are willing, and can do so from a source neither side in this debate has reason to reject out of hand (what you call a cheering section), I would be interested in an overview of current thought in re a cloud effect. I won't insist on it being a peer-reviewed source, because most first-run work does not come easily or in a timely way to the free 'Net. In my old field (chemistry) all the good stuff was behind the must-pay firewalls of professional associations. cn


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 20, 2011)

[h=2]Why Most Published Research Findings are False[/h] January 3rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.


Those arent my words  its the title of a 2005 article, brought to my attention by Cal Beisner, which uses probability theory to prove that most claimed research findings are false. While the article comes from the medical research field, it is sufficiently general that some of what it discusses can be applied to global warming research as well. 


I would argue that the situation is even worse for what I consider to the central theory of the climate change debate: that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere causes significant warming of the climate system. Two corollaries of that theory are that (1) the warming we have seen in recent decades is human-caused, and (2) significant warming will continue into the future as we keep using fossil fuels.


The first problem I see with scientifically determining whether the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to be true is that it is a one-of-a-kind event. This immediately reduces our scientific confidence in pinpointing the cause of warming. The following proxy reconstruction of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years suggests global warming (and cooling), are the rule, not the exception, and so greenhouse gas increases in the last 100 years occurring during warming might be largely a coincidence.

Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding _natural_ reasons for climate change. Currently, that kind of research is _almost non-existent_.


A second, related problem is that we cannot put the Earth in the laboratory to run controlled experiments on. Now, we CAN determine in the laboratory that certain atmospheric constituents (water vapor, water droplets, carbon dioxide, methane) absorb and emit infrared energythe physical basis for the so-called greenhouse effect. But the ultimate uncertainty over atmospheric feedbacks  e.g. determining whether cloud changes with warming reduce or amplify that warming  cannot be tested with any controlled experiment. 


A third problem is the difficulty in separating cause from effect. Determining whether atmospheric feedbacks are positive or negative requires analysis of entire, quasi-global atmospheric circulation systems. Just noticing that more clouds tend to form over warm regions does not tell you anything useful about whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative. Atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems involve all kinds of interrelated processes in which cause and effect must surely be operating. But separating cause from effect is something else entirely. 


For example, just establishing that years experiencing global warmth have less cloud cover letting more sunlight in does not prove positive cloud feedbacksimply because the warming could have been the result of  rather than the cause of  fewer clouds. This is the subject that Andy Dessler and I have been debating recently, and I consider it to be the Achilles heel of AGW theory.


After all, it is not the average role of clouds in the climate system that is being debated  we already know it is a cooling effect. Its instead how clouds will change as a result of warming that we are interested in. Maybe they are the same thing (which is what Im betting)but so far, no one has found a way to prove or disprove it. And I believe cause-versus-effect is at the heart of that uncertainty.


A fourth problem with determining whether AGW theory is true or not is closely related to a similar problem medical research has  the source of funding. This has got to be one of the least appreciated sources of bias in global warming research. In pharmaceutical research, experimentally demonstrating the efficacy of some new drug might be influenced by the fact that the money for the research came from the company that developed the drug in the first place. This is partly why double-blind studies involving many participants (we have only one: Earth) were developed.


*But in global warming research, there is a popular misconception that oil industry-funded climate research actually exists, and has skewed the science. I cant think of a single scientific study that has been funded by an oil or coal company.*


*But what DOES exist is a large organization that has a virtual monopoly on global warming research in the U.S., and that has a vested interest in AGW theory being true: the U.S. Government. The idea that government-funded climate research is unbiased is laughable. The push for ever increasing levels of government regulation and legislation, the desire of government managers to grow their programs, the dependence of congressional funding of a problem on the existence of a problem to begin with, and the U.N.s desire to find reasons to move toward global governance, all lead to inherent bias in climate research.
*
*At least with medical research, there will always be funding because disease will always exist.*

*But human-caused warming could end up to be little more than a false alarmas well as a black eye for the climate research community. And lest we forget, possibly the biggest funding-related source of bias in climate research is that research community of scientists. Everyone knows that if the AGW problem is no longer a problem, their source of research funding will disappear.*


Sometimes I get accused of being a conspiracy nut for believing these things. Well, whoever accuses me of that has obviously not worked in government or spent much time dealing with program managers in Washington. There is no conspiracy, because these things are not done in secret. The U.N.s Agenda 21 is there for all to read.


The bottom line is that there could scarcely be a more ill-posed scientific question than whether global warming is human-caused: a one of a kind event, the Earth cant be put into a laboratory to study, cause and effect are intermingled, *and the political and financial sources of bias in the resulting research are everywhere. *


*So, when some scientist says we know that warming is human-caused, I cringe at the embarrassing abundance of scientific ignorance on display. No wonder the public doesnt trust scientific predictions  just as suggested by the 2005 study I mentioned at the outset, those predictions have almost always been wrong!*



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/why-most-published-research-findings-are-false/


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 20, 2011)

Yea, sure, I'm gonna trust Roy Spencer on scientific matters when he ascribes to intelligent design and his biggest argument against AGW is because god wouldn't let it happen.

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems &#8212; created by God&#8217;s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence &#8212; are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

It is clear he is not above going out and trying to make the science fit his belief, which must be unchanging and unchallenged because it's religious, rather than follow the evidence regardless of where it leads.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 21, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> *Why Most Published Research Findings are False*
> 
> January 3rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
> 
> ...


Did you actually read through this? Nearly every paragraph is easily refutable with just basic understanding of science. The article smacks of someone who talking about a fantastic caricature of science they hold in thier head, instead of real world scientific examination.

Climate change is a one of a kind event? He seems awful sure of this considering how much time he spends telling us we don't know anything, not even cause and effect. He doesn't seem to understand how the scientific method is carried out, and mentions nothing about peer review. He then switches gears and accepts a conspiracy with only the weakest of evidence and supports it with the notion "whoever accuses me of that has obviously not worked in government or spent much time dealing with program managers in Washington". Again, not a very scientific explanation. Especially when you consider that this is a globally held scientific consensus, and goes far beyond Washington. What makes it a conspiracy is not secrecy or lack of, but the fact that any evidence supporting global warming gets turned into to support for the conspiracy, via the conspiracy. Most scientist say global warming is real? Well that just shows how big the conspiracy is. <-- classic conspiracy nut logic. This alone suggests the author is incapable of correctly evaluating evidence. Not to mention the use of appeals to popularity and ignorance, and strawmen. (no one is saying we "know" global warming is man made, they say the evidence suggests it)

It seems from the tone of the article that he is not making these statements out of data interpretation, but simply out of wanting to be critical of the cause. None of his criticism makes any sense, is not supported by facts, and has all the earmarks of conspiracy and misunderstanding of how science works.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 21, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Did you actually read through this? Nearly every paragraph is easily refutable with just basic understanding of science.



Sure I read it. But I would say that given the fact that the author holds a PhD, is a climatologist and NASA scientist that rather than write something that only people with his level of intelligence, knowledge and experience could understand he wrote it so the masses could grasp the key points.

Given his credentials I am sure he could write something that would leave you, me and most other people scratching our heads and wondering what the heck he just said. 





> The article smacks of someone who talking about a fantastic caricature of science they hold in thier head, instead of real world scientific examination.


That was a perfect description of the pseudo-scientist alarmists who have been trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people for so long now with their lies supported by manipulated data, falsified data and withheld data that they conspired between them to spread.


----------



## doc111 (Dec 21, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Did you actually read through this? Nearly every paragraph is easily refutable with just basic understanding of science. The article smacks of someone who talking about a fantastic caricature of science they hold in thier head, instead of real world scientific examination.
> 
> Climate change is a one of a kind event? He seems awful sure of this considering how much time he spends telling us we don't know anything, not even cause and effect. He doesn't seem to understand how the scientific method is carried out, and mentions nothing about peer review. He then switches gears and accepts a conspiracy with only the weakest of evidence and supports it with the notion "whoever accuses me of that has obviously not worked in government or spent much time dealing with program managers in Washington". Again, not a very scientific explanation. Especially when you consider that this is a globally held scientific consensus, and goes far beyond Washington. What makes it a conspiracy is not secrecy or lack of, but the fact that any evidence supporting global warming gets turned into to support for the conspiracy, via the conspiracy. Most scientist say global warming is real? Well that just shows how big the conspiracy is. <-- classic conspiracy nut logic. This alone suggests the author is incapable of correctly evaluating evidence. Not to mention the use of appeals to popularity and ignorance, and strawmen. (no one is saying we "know" global warming is man made, they say the evidence suggests it)
> 
> It seems from the tone of the article that he is not making these statements out of data interpretation, but simply out of wanting to be critical of the cause. None of his criticism makes any sense, is not supported by facts, and has all the earmarks of conspiracy and misunderstanding of how science works.


The article does bring up at least one valid point; _"A second, related problem is that we cannot put the Earth in the laboratory to run controlled experiments on." _Scientifically speaking, this is a huge problem. Without a control group and so many variables, a lot of assumptions must be made. I have no idea if climate change is anthropogenic or not, but my take on it is if there is even the slightest chance of it being true we should probably do something about it.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 21, 2011)

doc111 said:


> The article does bring up at least one valid point; _"A second, related problem is that we cannot put the Earth in the laboratory to run controlled experiments on." _Scientifically speaking, this is a huge problem. Without a control group and so many variables, a lot of assumptions must be made. I have no idea if climate change is anthropogenic or not, but my take on it is if there is even the slightest chance of it being true we should probably do something about it.


It is a bit of indirection imo. Astrophysicists cannot put a star in a laboratory either ... but through the intelligent, layered use of induction and small-scale corollary experiment, we have a pretty good understanding of the hydrodynamics of collapsing stellar cores. 
Just because we cannot build a physical model at the requisite scale does not mean we cannot do relevant and predictive science. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 21, 2011)

Lay people seem to have a misunderstanding of what scientific controls mean. It does NOT mean that we have to have laboratory conditions where every single variable is controlled, i.e. experimental controls, but merely that we attempt to eliminate confounding variables. This erroneous idea that unless the science is conducted in a laboratory that it is problematic is a perpetuating myth that needs to be eliminated from the public understanding of science.


----------



## doc111 (Dec 21, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> It is a bit of indirection imo. Astrophysicists cannot put a star in a laboratory either ... but through the intelligent, layered use of induction and small-scale corollary experiment, we have a pretty good understanding of the hydrodynamics of collapsing stellar cores.
> Just because we cannot build a physical model at the requisite scale does not mean we cannot do relevant and predictive science. cn


This is true, but a star and a complex ecosystem are 2 entirely different things. Not to mention our understanding of these things is constantly changing. 



mindphuk said:


> Lay people seem to have a misunderstanding of what scientific controls mean. It does NOT mean that we have to have laboratory conditions where every single variable is controlled, i.e. experimental controls, but merely that we attempt to eliminate confounding variables. This erroneous idea that unless the science is conducted in a laboratory that it is problematic is a perpetuating myth that needs to be eliminated from the public understanding of science.


lol! I would hardly consider myself a lay person. I understand what you're saying, but there is a reason why this debate continues. What do you think is the reason for differing opinions amongst the scientific community? Could it be that there are things which science has barely scratched the surface of understanding? Could it be that the earth is an enormously complex system with an enormous amount of variables. I'm not saying one way or the other. I think the most plausible scenario is that we are having an impact. To say that we aren't is, IMO, ludicrous. The question remains, what level of impact are we having? We know that climate is constantly changing. Many scientists believe we are in period of warming, (coinciding with AGW) which may explain the dramatic effect we seem to be seeing. I'm no climatologist, so for me to argue one way or the other is sort of foolish IMO.


----------



## canndo (Dec 21, 2011)

Anyone who actually uses that shill Spencer as an authority is clearly dragging the bottom of the sesspool of "science". I am fairly certain that he is funded by Exxon in one way or another - not exactly an unbiased opinion. And the moment he is linked with ID "theory", he loses the last shred of credibility. Oh, and he is also on the board of the Marshall Institute, an anti-regulation "think" tank funded by Scaife and Bradley (for those of you who don't track hard right funding - Scaife is kinda like a super Soros only on the right, or didn't you think the right had such creatures?) It is pretty clear he makes his living being paid to be contrary for the right. And you would use his words as any reflection of scientific reality?Another loon paid and mounted by the self interested right in order to churn lies and distrust, nothing new here.


----------



## canndo (Dec 21, 2011)

One more - The "World Natural Health Organization" is neither a scientific group nor are they unbiased and are hardly an authority on global warming. By the way, from what I gather, the "cloud effect" can as easily be a GW inducer, being that water vapor is another green house gas.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 21, 2011)

doc111 said:


> This is true, but a star and a complex ecosystem are 2 entirely different things. Not to mention our understanding of these things is constantly changing.


True. However a star is not simple either. 
I am not saying that we necessarily can model climate effectively. The sheer wealth of models being presented, with the rather broad palette of results/predictions therefrom, do seem to argue that we don't yet have a good handle on the climate prediction problem. Conversely I don't think there is any wisdom in not trying to build the models!


> lol! I would hardly consider myself a lay person. I understand what you're saying, but there is a reason why this debate continues. What do you think is the reason for differing opinions amongst the scientific community? Could it be that there are things which science has barely scratched the surface of understanding? Could it be that the earth is an enormously complex system with an enormous amount of variables. I'm not saying one way or the other. I think the most plausible scenario is that we are having an impact. To say that we aren't is, IMO, ludicrous. The question remains, what level of impact are we having? We know that climate is constantly changing. Many scientists believe we are in period of warming, (coinciding with AGW) which may explain the dramatic effect we seem to be seeing. I'm no climatologist, so for me to argue one way or the other is sort of foolish IMO.


Unfortunately, sticking to rigorous empiricism will only allow us to answer the question in hindsight, far too late to do anything with any damage done except document it. It's a rock close to a hard place imo ... we have an urgent need for climatological/geodynamic models that are at once precise (they provide narrow boundaries for what would happen) and accurate (those narrow boundaries bracket the actual). 
We don't seem to be there at this time, but the urgent need for answers preys on one of the worst human qualities imo: this amazing hunger for the authoritative word ... be it a religious text, the week's horoscope, or the Delphic pronouncements of leading men of Science. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 21, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> Sure I read it. But I would say that given the fact that the author holds a PhD, is a climatologist and NASA scientist that rather than write something that only people with his level of intelligence, knowledge and experience could understand he wrote it so the masses could grasp the key points.
> 
> Given his credentials I am sure he could write something that would leave you, me and most other people scratching our heads and wondering what the heck he just said.


Never the less, I am commenting on what I did understand him saying. Being a climatologists does not exclude a person from being a conspiracy theorist or biased. Actually I think about 3% of them are, hence the 97% agreement status. If he was reporting actual climate data in the article, I would not be qualified to say if it was pseudoscience, but he is using very basic attacks. It only takes a firm understanding of the scientific process to cast serious doubt on what he is saying, and what he is saying has all the signs of being conspiracy logic. In this article he relies on many tricks, and the truth does not need to utilize such ticks.



doc111 said:


> The article does bring up at least one valid point; _"A second, related problem is that we cannot put the Earth in the laboratory to run controlled experiments on." _Scientifically speaking, this is a huge problem. Without a control group and so many variables, a lot of assumptions must be made. I have no idea if climate change is anthropogenic or not, but my take on it is if there is even the slightest chance of it being true we should probably do something about it.


I would want to see specific examples of how not being able to put the earth in a laboratory refutes the data we have. We can test in a laboratory many of the factors and components of climate change, and I think we can have reasonable confidence in this data without making an argument from ignorance. He speaks as if this is not simply a challenge to science, but an unsurpassable roadblock. It comes across as disingenuous, since he is speaking as a scientific expert. 



> This is true, but a star and a complex ecosystem are 2 entirely different things. Not to mention our understanding of these things is constantly changing.


Exactly, because we can study and learn about things outside of a laboratory, we change what we know, and we get better at it. This would seem to support the notion that not being able to put the earth in a lab is not a deal breaker, nor should it discount what we have learned.



> I understand what you're saying, but there is a reason why this debate continues. What do you think is the reason for differing opinions amongst the scientific community?


There is no significant difference in opinion. This debate, or this aspect of it, continues because of people's misunderstanding of the facts and unawareness that scientist have stopped arguing.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 21, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Never the less, I am commenting on what I did understand him saying. Being a climatologists does not exclude a person from being a conspiracy theorist or biased. Actually I think about 3% of them are, hence the 97% agreement status.



As all alarmist propagandists you refuse to accept that the claimed 97% agreement does not exist. Among the various hacked emails were numbers found where even among global warming cult members there is not agreement and that numbers of them do no like how it is inaccurately claimed that they are all in agreement.

But if you want and need to believe that a true consensus exists and that the sky is falling, go right ahead, Chicken Little. Just don't expect those who are not equally gullible as you to believe the same as you.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 21, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> As all alarmist propagandists you refuse to accept that the claimed 97% agreement does not exist. Among the various hacked emails were numbers found where even among global warming cult members there is not agreement and that numbers of them do no like how it is inaccurately claimed that they are all in agreement.
> 
> But if you want and need to believe that a true consensus exists and that the sky is falling, go right ahead, Chicken Little. Just don't expect those who are not equally gullible as you to believe the same as you.



Alarmist propagandist? I have been calling for careful rationale and responsible interpretation of evidence. I have been given sufficient indication that a consensus exists from multiple independent sources, which at the very least makes it reasonable to accept. I don't believe I have called for any alarm and have taken the time to explain why I think the article posted is in error. This in no way makes me right, but it does seem odd to call this behavior alarmist propaganda. Perhaps you are just eager to label me in order to reduce your cognitive dissonance.

I do not believe in a consensus because I want and/or need to. I believe it because their is sufficient evidence to convince me. Science is not saying the sky is falling or the human race is ending. It says that significant changes to the climate are happening that will impact us. A consensus does not indicate that ALL scientists agree. It indicates that there are no significant valid arguments left to be made about what the data says. 

I do not expect anyone to believe the same as me, but that is not a reason to keep quiet when I observe people being irrational and unreasonable. I find it interesting that your entire post did not address any of the criticisms I made of the article, but instead simply labeled me a gullible alarmist propagandist. Is groundless name calling and dismissal the normal way in which you handle opposition?


----------



## doc111 (Dec 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Alarmist propagandist? I have been calling for careful rationale and responsible interpretation of evidence. I have been given sufficient indication that a consensus exists from multiple independent sources, which at the very least makes it reasonable to accept. I don't believe I have called for any alarm and have taken the time to explain why I think the article posted is in error. This in no way makes me right, but it does seem odd to call this behavior alarmist propaganda. Perhaps you are just eager to label me in order to reduce your cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I do not believe in a consensus because I want and/or need to. I believe it because their is sufficient evidence to convince me. Science is not saying the sky is falling or the human race is ending. It says that significant changes to the climate are happening that will impact us. A consensus does not indicate that ALL scientists agree. It indicates that there are no significant valid arguments left to be made about what the data says.
> 
> I do not expect anyone to believe the same as me, but that is not a reason to keep quiet when I observe people being irrational and unreasonable. I find it interesting that your entire post did not address any of the criticisms I made of the article, but instead simply labeled me a gullible alarmist propagandist. *Is groundless name calling and dismissal the normal way in which you handle opposition*?


Yep! Pretty much!


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Alarmist propagandist? I have been calling for careful rationale and responsible interpretation of evidence. I have been given sufficient indication that a consensus exists from multiple independent sources, which at the very least makes it reasonable to accept.



How can you ignore emails between researchers that are allegedly part of your claimed 97% that prove they are not in agreement and that the so-called consensus is a fallacious propagandistic claim used to attempt to create a false reality that will sound convincing enough to fool the masses? 

Why is it that you eagerly will accept their doom and gloom scare tactics but you refuse to accept what they have said to each other, in what they thought would be private and nothing they discussed would ever be revealed to the public? 

If at any time they would be their most honest when discussing in what was believed to be a safe and private way. So why will you refuse to accept what they discussed with each other and instead only believe what they decided among themselves to be revealed for public consumption?


It makes no sense whatsoever. It would be like if in the past people refused to believe what was heard said on Nixon's secret tapes and instead only believed what he claimed when giving a public speech or when questioned and knowing his answers would be made public.









​*31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs.*




Alarmists try to portray the science of global warming as settled by the consensus. There may be a media-based political consensus, but there is much non-consensus in the scientific community  but those who disagree do not get coverage, and in some cases get their funding cut off (which is why the most vocal group of critics of the anthropogenic theory is retired atmospheric science professors and researchers).

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist views CO2 as a symptom of global warming caused by the sun. [http://www.business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece ] He says: *[FONT=&quot]Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot]. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers[/FONT].



*IPCC Cross-Examination*

May, 2010: A cross-examination of the IPCC (referred to as the climate establishment) was conducted Jason Johnston of the University of Virginia School of Law [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612851##] 

[FONT=&quot]A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to *oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions* regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. *Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted* to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, *more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative.* The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; *the possibility that inherent variability in the earths non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming*; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, *substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss*.[/FONT]

*[FONT=&quot]when one looks closely at the scientific literature, it turns out that some of the most crucial (and actually testable) predictions or assumptions underlying predictions of dangerous climate change are not in fact being confirmed by observations[/FONT]*

The entire cross-examination is worth reading.




There was another claimed scientific consensus in the 70's. The scientists involved were as positive of their claims as the alarmists of today. 

Do you remember this? I do. 













The claim was made that; *[FONT=&quot]The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age." 

[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot]

Alarmist scientists were incorrect then. So why would anyone be gullible enough to believe that alarmist scientists are correct now?[/FONT]


The alarmist fraud has taken advantage of a normal temperature change and attempted to blame it on man and make it sound like it would have catastrophic results. Was, for a period of time, the planet getting warmer? Of course it got warmer, it was undergoing a normalization process. It went up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because were coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because were putting more carbon dioxide into the air. The increase stopped in something like 1998 and since something like 2003 the temperature has been decreasing. 



* U.S. and global Temperatures are cooling*
*October 2009 U.S. temperatures according to NOAA were the third coldest in 115 years of record keeping, 4 degrees below the average temperature for this month. link October 2009 also had the most snow in the U.S. than has ever been recorded for that month.
*Germany recorded in 2009 its lowest October temperature in history link. New Zealand had record low October temperatures and record late snows link

Siberia may have had its coldest winter in history in 2009-2010 link European and Asian temperatures in the winter 2009-2010 were well below normal link 

***According to the NCDC U.S. temperatures in October 2009 was on average the third coldest in 116 years, November was the 4th coldest, and February 2010 was the 29th coldest. U.S. temperatures December '09 - February '10 were well below normal link. UK experiences coldest May temps in 15 years link  , October '09 through March '10 was the snowiest on record in the northern hemisphere link  
*In the U.S. temperatures cooled in five of the last seven decades even though CO2 levels increased steadily throughout this period. link link

*In February 2010, the Northern Hemisphere had the second largest area of snow coverage ever recorded link and North America had the most snow cover ever recorded. Snow coverage in the Northern hemisphere has been growing since 1998. Snow in areas where it usually does not snow can only be because temperatures are colder, and not from global warming. The additional snow was not because of higher levels of humidity, according to NCDC February '10 was the 47th driest in 116 years.
July 2010, South America experiences historic cold weather  link 
Argentina experiences coldest winter in 40 years link

Summer 2010, record cold in Australia link 

Cold weather kills 600 rare Penguins in South Africa link 

In spite of all the hot weather of late, according to NOAA 62% of the continental U.S. had below normal temperatures January-July 2010
August 2010, hundreds die in Peru from record cold link October 2010, hundreds of thousands of sheep die in New Zealand from winter weather link 

Early December 2010, snow impacts millions in Europe link Denmark experiences coldest November 2010 temps in 131 years link Sweden braces for coldest November 2010 temperatures in over 100 yearsl link UK midlands expect coldest November temps in 134 years link

December 2010, The central England temperature record in early December was the second coolest since records began in 1649, UK experiences coldest December in history link UK is paralyzed by blizzards. Only essential travel allowed.
Near record cold in Europe, India, and Asia link

*January 2011*, 7,000 buffaloes die from cold in Vietnam link Bitter cold sets records in Korea link 800,000 animals lost from cold in Mongolia link Snow flattens 100,000 homes in China
*February 201*1, Moscow has coldest winter in 100 years link. Record low temperatures in San Francisco and Spokane link Link Minneapolis has most snow emergency days in city's history link New York City and Philadelphia shatter snowfall records link 

Winter 2010-2011 in the US, 39th coldest in 113 years of records. link link Temperatures are dropping an average of 4.1 deg F per decade link

Coldest *March ('11*) in Australia history link&#65279; Global temperatures in first 3 months of '11 are the coolest in the past decade link May '11 Australian ski slopes to open early with early cold link Seattle has coldest April in history in 2011 link Darwin Austalia has coldest May and June 2011 temps in history link

Northern Australia has coolest* May* in history link Record 2011 US snowpacks threaten western states link Record Sierra Mtn snowfall link 
Record 2011 snowpack in Rockies link

*July 2011*, South America gripped by brutal winter link July 2011 New Zealand sets record for coldest day ever link Unusual snows hit South Africa in late July 2011 link&#65279;
*August 2011*, Auckland New Zealand has coldest temperature in history, and first snow since 1939 link&#65279; New Zealand worst blizzards in 50 years link

*Sept '11* Minnesota has record low temperatures and tie earliest snow record link&#65279;Parts of the UK have the coolest summer in 20 years, butterfly population suffers link&#65279; Switzerland has record September snows link

*October '11*, extremely rare early snow in Germany link&#65279; Earliest snows in Ireland since 1964 link New York City has largest October snow since the Civil War link Many records set for earliest snow and most snow in the northeast USA for October, millions without power link Many snow records broken in New England. link Colorado ski resorts have ealiest season opening in history link 80% of Australia cooler than normal in first ten months of 2011 link Record 2011 snow in U.S. link

*November '11* British Columbia ski resort has earliest opening in its history link record Alaska snow link Russia south hit with record low temps link Northern Hemisphere has record snow cover extent for this date link Fairbanks Alaska has record low temps of -41F, 39 degrees below avg temp. link
*December '11*, Australia has coolest start to summer in 50 years, Brisbane coldest temps in 126 years link

The best and most accurate way to measure global temperatures are from satellites that measure atmospheric temperatures. See how atmospheric temperatures have changed since the start of measurement in 1979 link &#65279;&#65279;

*Total global polar sea ice extent is largely unchanged over the past 30 years*
*When adding the sea ice volumes at both poles there is about the same ice as 30 years ago link. Antarctica has 90% of the world's ice and had the most sea ice ever recorded at the end of 2008, over one million square kilometers above the average maximum. The global sea ice extent today (combined sea ice at both Poles) is nearly the same as the average of the last 30 years according to NASA and NSIDC link link View today's Antarctic sea ice extent compared to the 1979-2007 average (National Snow and Ice Data Center) link link While it is true Arctic sea ice volumes have been overall slightly less today than the average of the last 30 years the ice there has been growing the past several years and as of mid September 2009 there was 24% more ice than just two years earlier, which is over 1 million square kilometers of new ice since 2007. There is also substantially more multi year ice in the Arctic in 2009 than just one year earlier link Antarctic sea ice extent in September 2009 is also growing and is 1 million square kilometers more than the previous year. In 2009 the Antarctic had the most Summer ice ever recorded link. The 2010 Arctic sea ice melt has started later than at any time ever recorded. Arctic ice volumes in April 2010 are the largest in nine years and are now close to the average of the last 30.View today's Arctic sea ice extent, AMSR-E link NSIDC link (Nansen) link DMI link 

2010 Antarctic ice extent was the third largest ever recorded. Average snowfall in Antarctica was the most ever recorded link 

See current ice conditions in the Northern Hemisphere link and the Southern Hemisphere link

* Ocean temperatures are cooling**NSIDC/NASA AMSR-E also shows that the overall trend of ocean temperatures since 2002 is one of cooling in spite of a recent short lived El Nino warming event link

The oceans have been cooling which is contrary to climate model predictions link See how Argo is measuring ocean temperatures throughout the globe link Argo research (with its 3,300 ocean buoys) has found ocean temperatures are cooler. link link

The PDO (Pacific) is moving towards a cool period (La Nina). See current ocean surface temperatures from the NOAA link link 

Track mid Atlantic storm formation here, NOAA link 

* Global storms and their intensity are in decline*
*The trend for violent tornadoes is in decline in the US link. U.S. landfall hurricanes are less numerous and powerful than decades ago. Global hurricane, typhoon, and cyclone activity are nearing 50 year lows according to Florida State University link Deaths from severe weather events are in decline link

Global cyclone activity is at 33 year lows at the end of the 2010 hurricane season. Pacific storms lowest since recording began in 1945. link

There have been few hurricanes to reach US shores in the past three years which is highly unusual link 

Global hurricane (tornado) activity in 2010 was at the lowest level in three decades even though 2010 was a warm year overall link 

* Polar Bear populations are of record size*
Some say Polar Bears are threatened but there are more polar bears today than ever recorded, an increase of 300%+ since the 1950s. link link  The scientific name for Polar bears is Ursus Maritimus, which means sea bear. Polar Bears are excellent swimmers and can swim 200 miles or more link. A Polar Bear with a radio tracking collar swam over 400 miles in 9 days and without rest link Polar bears have survived periods when the Arctic melted completely in the past (they moved to land). Polar bear face bright future link

* Solar activity is lower. This has led to cooler temperatures in the past*
So what has changed? CO2 concentrations continue to increase yet temperatures have been falling since 2002? Polar ice is growing. Storm intensity is in decline. One reason may be that solar activity is at the lowest level in almost a Century. link link link See what the sun looks like with and without sunspots link In the past periods with fewer sunspots and lower solar activity were ones with cooler temperatures. It is believed by some scientists that lower solar activity increases cloud formation and this has a cooling effect. If the past is a predictor of the future, these changes in solar activity will cause a 30 year period of cooling temperatures on earth and in fact it appears that this has already begun. See solar activity charts here link

See the combined impact of ocean and solar cycles on global temperatures link 

*Europe, North America and many other areas of the Earth have recently experienced a score of unusually low temperatures. So where is the global warming that we are preparing for? *


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 22, 2011)

You cannot place any faith in much of the data due to where it is collected. 


[h=1]The Impact of Urbanization on Land Temperature Trends[/h] Posted on December 5, 2011 by Anthony Watts 
_by Zeke Hausfather , Steven Mosher, Matthew Menne , Claude Williams , and Nick Stokes_
[Note: this is an AGU poster displayed at the annual meeting, available here as a PDF. I&#8217;ve converted it to plain text and images for your reading pleasure. I'm providing it without comment except to say that Steven Mosher has done a great deal of work in creating a very useful database that better defines rural and urban stations better than the metadata we have available now. - Anthony]

*Introduction
*Large-scale reconstructions of surface temperature rely on measurements from a global network of instruments. With the exception of remote automated sensors, the locations of the instruments tend to be correlated with inhabited areas. This means that urban
ares [sic] are probably oversampled in surface temperature records relative to the total land surface that is actually urbanized.
It has long been known that urbanized areas tend to have higher temperatures than surrounding less developed (or rural) areas due to the concentration of high thermal mass impermeable surfaces (Oke 1982). This has led to some concern that changes in
urban heat island (UHI) effects due to rapid urbanization in many parts of the world over the past three decades may have been responsible for a portion of the rapid rise in measured global land surface temperatures. This concern is reinforced by lower
observed trends in some interpretations of satellite measurements of lower tropospheric temperature over land areas during the same period (Klotzbach et al 2009).

An analysis of the impact of urbanization on temperature trends faces multiple confounding factors. For example, an instrument originally installed in a city frequently will have warmer absolute temperatures than one in a nearby rural area (especially at night), but will not necessarily show a higher trend over time unless the environs change in such a way that the UHI signal is altered in the vicinity of the instrument. Similarly, microsite characteristics that may be unrelated to the larger urban environment can have
notable effects on temperature trends and act counter to or in concert with the ambient UHI signal.
Moreover, the definition of urban areas is subject to some uncertainty, both in terms of how urban form is characterized and at what distance from built surfaces urban-related effects persist. Published station metadata often includes outdated indications of whether a station is urban or rural, and instrument geolocation data can be imprecise, out of date, or otherwise incorrect.
There is also uncertainty over how much explicit correction is needed for urban warming in global temperature reconstructions, and how well homogenization techniques recently introduced in GHCN-Monthly version 3 both detect and correct for inhomogenities
arising from changes in urban form.
To address these issues and obtain a more accurate estimation of the impact of urbanization on land temperature trends, we examine different urbanity proxies at multiple spatial resolutions and urbanity selection criteria through both simple spatial
weighting and station pairing techniques. This study limits itself to unadjusted average temperature data, though we will examine homogenized data in the future to see how much of the UHI signal is removed.
*Methods*
We examine GHCN-Daily version 2.80 temperature data rather than the more commonly used GHCN-Monthly data as it contains significantly more stations, particularly during the past thirty years, and allows for separate examination of maximum and minimum
temperatures. A relatively high spatial density of stations is useful to allow sampling into various urban and rural station subsets while minimizing biases due to loss of spatial coverage. After excluding stations that have fewer than 36 months at any time in the
period of record or at least one complete year of data during the 1979 to 2010 period, we are left with 14,789 stations.

A complete set of metadata is calculated for each station using the station location information provided in station inventories and publically available GIS datasets. These datasets include: Distance From Coast (0.1 deg), Hyde 3.1 historical population data (5
arc minute), 2000AD Grump Population density (30 arc seconds), Grump Urban Extent, Land use classes from the Harmonized Land Use inventory (5 arc minutes), radiance calibrated Nightlights (30 arc seconds), ISA- Global Impervious Surfaces (30 arc
seconds), Modis Landcover classes (15 arc seconds), and distance from the closest airport (30 arc seconds). In addition, area statistics at progressive radii are calculated around each putative site location.
Stations are then divided into two classes based on various thresholds for urbanity and two analytical methods are used to estimate the bias in trend due to urbanity: a spatial method and a paired station approach. The spatial averaging method relies on
solving a set of linear equations for the stations in each class. For each group of stations, urban and rural, a time series of average temperature offsets was created by fitting the model:

where T represents the observed temperature for each station, month and year, L is a local average temperature for each station for each month (incorporating seasonal variation) and G is the desired global (or regional) average, varying by year. This is fitted
with a weighting that is inversely proportional to a measure of station density. With a G calculated for both urban and rural, the trends can be compared.
The pairwise method proceeds with the same classification of stations and the following steps are taken. An urban base pair is selected based on the length of record. To qualify as a base urban pair a station must have 30 complete years of data in the 1979-2010 window.
Ten out of 12 months of data are required to count as a complete year. For every urban base station rural pairs are selected based on distance and data overlap. For every urban base station the rural stations are exhaustively searched and all those rural pairs within 500km are assigned to the base station. Since rural stations may have short records the entire rural ensemble is evaluated for data overlap with the urban base pair. 300 months of overlap are required. If the collection of rural stations has less than 300 months of overlap with its urban pair, it is dropped from the analysis. A weighting function is deÞned in the neighborhood of each urban station, which diminishes with distance and is zero outside a certain radius. An average trend is computed for the rural stations within that radius by fitting the model

where t is time in years, and B is the gradient. This trend is then compared with the OLS trend for the central urban station. The differences in the shapes of the distributions of the trends is a function of the number of stations that form the trend estimation.
Urban trends are trends for individual stations, while rural trends are the result of computing a trend for all the rural pairs taken as a complete ensemble.
*Discussion*
While urban warming is a real phenomenon, it is overweighted in land temperature reconstructions due to the oversampling of urban areas relative to their global land coverage. Rapid urbanization over the past three decades has likely contributed
to a modest warm bias in unhomogenized global land temperature reconstructions, with urban stations warming about ten percent faster than rural stations in the period from 1979 to 2010. Urban stations are warming faster than rural stations on average across all urbanity proxies, cutoffs, and spatial resolutions examined, though the underlying data is noisy and there are many individual cases of urban cooling. Our estimate for the bias due to UHI in the land record is on the order of 0.03C per decade for urban stations.

This result is consistent with both the expected sign of the effect and regional estimates covering the same time period (Zhou et al 2004) and differs from some recent work suggesting zero or negative UHI bias (Wickham et al, submitted).

Stricter urbanity proxies that result in a smaller set of rural stations show larger urban-rural differences in trend. The upper limit on UHI bias between rural and urban stations is on the order of 0.06 to 0.1C per decade. However, these cases are clearly problematic from the spatial coverage aspect, as the number of rural stations becomes vanishingly small when the most stringent filters are applied. Adopting cutoffs that define rural less strictly leads to more reasonable spatial coverage and an estimate of UHI bias in the record that converges on 0.02C to 0.04C per decade across the proxies. The station pair approach avoids this issue by limiting the analysis to areas with both rural and urban stations available, but has limited global coverage and excludes large areas in India and coastal China where rapid urbanization has been occurring in recent decades.
It is likely that homogenization will further reduce the observed UHI-related bias, as many urbanity biases are detectable through break-point analysis via comparison to surrounding rural stations. We are currently in the process of using the Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (Menne and Williams 2009) on GHCN-Daily data to examine the effects in more detail. However, it remains to be seen to what degree UHI bias can be removed via homogenization in areas like coastal China and India where there are few rural stations and where station densities are not particularly high in the current version of GHCN-Daily. In any case, the acquisition of additional station data outside of urban areas in these parts of the world would likely be benefitial.
Acquiring more accurate station location data will allow us to use higher-resolution remote sensing tools to identify urban characteristics below the 5 km threshold, and better test effects of site-specifc vs. meso-scale characteristics on urban warming biases. In addition, validated site locations allows for more refinement in the definition of rural stations as a function of distance from urban cores of various sizes.
*References *
Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); The World Bank; and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 2004. Global Rural-Urban
Mapping Project, Version 1 (GRUMPv1): Population Density Grid. Palisades, NY: Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Columbia University. Available at http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw.[Aug 14, 2011].
Elvidge, C.D., B.T. Tuttle, P.C. Sutton, K.E. Baugh, A.T. Howard, C. Milesi, B. Bhaduri, and R. Nemani, 2007, &#8220;Global distribution and density of constructed impervious surfaces&#8221;, Sensors, 7, 1962-1979
Fischer, G., F. Nachtergaele, S. Prieler, H.T. van Velthuizen, L. Verelst, D. Wiberg, 2008. Global Agro-ecological Zones Assessment for Agriculture (GAEZ 200. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy.
Klein Goldewijk, K. , A. Beusen, and P. Janssen (2010). Long term dynamic modeling of global population and built-up area in a spatially explicit way, HYDE 3 .1. The Holocene20(4):565-573.
Klotzbach, P., R. Pielke Sr., R. Pielke Jr., J. Christy, and R. T. McNider, 2009. An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res.
Menne, M.J., I. Durre, R.S. Vose, B.E. Gleason, and T.G. Houston, 2011: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Database. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, submitted.
Menne, M.J., and C.N. Williams, Jr., 2009. Homogenization of temperature series via pairwise comparisons. J. Climate, 22, 1700-1717.
Schneider, A., M. A. Friedl and D. Potere (2009) A new map of global urban extent from MODIS data. Environmental Research Letters, volume 4, article 044003.
Schneider, A., M. A. Friedl and D. Potere (2010) Monitoring urban areas globally using MODIS 500m data: New methods and datasets based on urban ecoregions. Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 114, p. 1733-1746.
T. R. Oke (1982). &#8220;The energetic basis of the urban heat island&#8221;. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 108: 1&#8211;24.
Wickham, C., J. Curry, D Groom, R. Jacobsen, R. Muller, S. Perlmutter, R. Rohde, A. Rosenfeld, and J. Wurtele, 2011. Inßuence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites IdentiÞed from MODIS ClassiÞcations.
Submitted.
Zhou, L., R. Dickinson, Y. Tian, J. Fang, Q. Li, R. Kaufmann, C. Tucker, and R. Myneni, 2004. Evidence for a signiÞcant urbanization effect on climate in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Ziskin, D., K. Baugh, F. Chi Hsu, T. Ghosh, and C. Elvidge, 2010, &#8220;Methods Used For the 2006 Radiance Lights&#8221;, Proceedings of the 30th Asia-PaciÞc Advanced Network Meeting, 131-142


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 22, 2011)

...Canada's out. ...cash, cash, cash. The 'comments' section has some nifty stuff on models as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/12/12/pol-kent-kyoto-pullout.html


----------



## canndo (Dec 22, 2011)

"Alarmist scientists were incorrect then. So why would anyone be gullible enough to believe that alarmist scientists are correct now?" 

This is an absolutly absurd statement to make. With this attitude, science can never and has never been right about anything because at any moment, why, they could discover something new. So why bother with it at all, right?


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 22, 2011)

canndo said:


> "Alarmist scientists were incorrect then. So why would anyone be gullible enough to believe that alarmist scientists are correct now?"
> 
> This is an absolutly absurd statement to make. With this attitude, science can never and has never been right about anything because at any moment, why, they could discover something new. So why bother with it at all, right?




It is not absurd. They were just as positive of their research findings about a soon to be occurring catastrophic change as the current alarmists are, but look how wrong they were.

Alarmist pseudo-scientists are the scientist versions of the shabby bearded homeless guys you see walking city street carrying signs saying The End Is Nigh! 

They hold a belief and then they perform advocacy research attempting to prove their concrete belief. When someone does that they invariably shape their findings to support their already held concrete belief, and they manipulate data, they exclude data, they do not report everything they discover, they tell the world bits and pieces of what they discovered, making sure they create a scary sounding scenario. 

In other words they do precisely what the emails in Climategate 1 and Climategate 2 have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the pseudo-scientist alarmists have been doing from day one and are continuing to do. 

You also have to consider and factor in the massive funding and prestige that goes with being a pseudo-scientist alarmist. They receive obscenely massive grants and every burp that comes out of their mouths is put in print in every scientific journal and magazine and the uber-liberal mainstream media that is trying it's hardest to sell the myth to the public puts it in every newspaper, magazine and on every uber-liberal news channel broadcast. If the nonexistent problem, the myth, goes away, so do the obscenely massive grants and the fame and prestige. So the pseudo-scientist alarmists are doing everything they can, with the help of the uber-liberal mainstream media, and also governments like the U.S. government that has wasted sickeningly massive amounts of taxpayer money funding the voodoo research, and together they are doing everything within their power to keep a dead issue appear to still be alive.

The pseudo-scientist alarmist side has turned into the scientific version of; "Weekend at Bernie's" where they try to convince people that the dead myth isn't really dead.

The planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now, and it happened way before coal fired power plants and soccer moms driving SUVs. A few years back scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record. 

DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. 

That contrasts sharply with the prevailing view that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago, as had previously been claimed. 

The samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 C (1 F) in the winter. 

They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.

So the planet was warmer, prior to any major influence by man, and glaciers did not completely melt away in the hotter temperatures. 

But now with the planet cooling we're supposed to believe that man is responsible for nonexistent warming and that glaciers and polar ice caps that are expanding and or thickening will melt because of man.

This perfectly shows the pseudo-scientist alarmists work, this is them trying to show their so-called proof of man-made global warming and how and why it is happening and the direct connection man has to it and the key part man plays in it. 







And this is the pseudo-scientist alarmists when they were going to school when they were believed to be highly gifted young children.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 22, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> In other words they do precisely what the emails in Climategate 1 and Climategate 2 have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the pseudo-scientist alarmists have been doing from day one and are continuing to do.


They have not. Only in your conspiracy-addled brain do these selectively-edited, cherry picked quotes prove anything you claim it does. 



> You also have to consider and factor in the massive funding and prestige that goes with being a pseudo-scientist alarmist


 If you understood science and scientists you would know how wrong you are. Scientists dream of being the one to overturn a major consensus. The most money and top prizes in science go to those that show everyone else was wrong. If the warming skeptics are correct, the science will reward them in due time. No one wants to make their life work based on perpetuating a myth even if they are 'uber-liberals.' 


> The planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now, and it happened way before coal fired power plants and soccer moms driving SUVs. A few years back scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record.


Straw man. No one claims the earth has not been hotter in history.


> So the planet was warmer, prior to any major influence by man, and glaciers did not completely melt away in the hotter temperatures.


 No one is claiming man is the only influence on the climate. No one claimed that the glaciers have to melt away entirely in order to influence sea level and thermohaline circulation.



> But now with the planet cooling we're supposed to believe that man is responsible for nonexistent warming and that glaciers and polar ice caps that are expanding and or thickening will melt because of man.


 The only ones that think the planet is cooling are a small minority of people, mostly non-climatologists and have their very own political agenda to claim there is no warming. In fact even most AGW skeptics agree the planet is warming, they just disagree that man is having significant influence. The fact that you proscribe to the most radical and fringe ideas puts you squarely in the conspiracy theorist camp. Not only are you a non-climatologist that rejects the consensus because of ideology and not science, but you don't even agree with most of the real scientists that reject the consensus.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 23, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> They have not. Only in your conspiracy-addled brain do these selectively-edited, cherry picked quotes prove anything you claim it does.


No, that is only how you and other members of the cult try to spin the facts to attempt to regain some shred of credibility.



> If you understood science and scientists you would know how wrong you are. Scientists dream of being the one to overturn a major consensus. The most money and top prizes in science go to those that show everyone else was wrong. If the warming skeptics are correct, the science will reward them in due time. No one wants to make their life work based on perpetuating a myth even if they are 'uber-liberals.'



You attribute far too much nobility to some people based solely on your perception of what someone who chooses their line of work would be like. It is not as if no scientist has never sold their efforts to the highest bidder and then attempted to discover or create what they were paid to discover or create. 





> Straw man. No one claims the earth has not been hotter in history.


It is not a straw man argument. The point is valid. There have been higher levels of Co2 and periods of time, some rather extended periods of time, long before man could have ever done anything to begin to have even the slightest influence on the planet. It's all part of natural cycles, some that take place so many thousands of years apart that man cannot begin to comprehend them or predict them, and that is all that has been going on with the planet. But given the incredible degree of arrogance mankind has developed through the years some now want and need to take credit for cyclical changes that take place, even if they are negative ones. 

Planetary alignment and orbits alter, they change, they are not always the same and when certain orbits and alignments occur, some only every many, many, many thousands of years, they cause alterations that result in climate changes, not only on earth but on other planets. There is evidence that there is planetary warming occurring on some planets in space. Oddly enough there are no coal fired power plants on those planets or soccer moms driving around in SUVs. What is causing their changes to occur is the same thing that is causing changes on earth to occur.




> *NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming*
> 
> By Bob Ellis
> 
> ...


 



> No one is claiming man is the only influence on the climate. No one claimed that the glaciers have to melt away entirely in order to influence sea level and thermohaline circulation.



But the cult pseudo-scientist alarmists do claim that man's influence is altering the planet's temperature, and to a degree that would in time, a fairly short period of time according to some, cause cataclysmic changes. What's more, the cult pseudo-scientist alarmists erroneously claim the issue is settled, that man-made, man-driven global warming is a fact, that it is without question occurring and that there is no debating or denying it. 

While the U.S. Supreme Court is not a scientific group, it disagrees with that position. The justices of the United States Supreme Court became the worlds most august global warming sceptics. Not by virtue of their legal reasoning  the global warming case they decided turned on a technical legal issue  but in their surprising commentary. *Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.
* 
The court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon-dioxide emissions and climate change, reads the 8-0 decision, delivered by the courts acclaimed liberal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 






> The only ones that think the planet is cooling are a small minority of people, mostly non-climatologists and have their very own political agenda to claim there is no warming.



That again is the spin being put out, the damage control attempt being made by the cult pseudo-scientist alarmists and rank and file members of the cult. 

But if you want to bring political agendas into this, than you need to consider the political agenda of the U.N., several other governments who have invested deeply in the creation and advancement of the myth and of course the cult pseudo-scientist alarmists take for example Agenda 21: a global contract that bound governments around the world to a U.N. plan to change the way people "live, eat, learn and communicate," all in the name of "saving the earth" from mankinds mistakes, particularly global warming. It is a a U.N.-crafted convergence of climate "science" and social "justice."

It is an attempted power grab by the U.N., a step towards one world government and a redistribution of wealth in a way that the U.N. and it's evil minions sees as being fair and just. And it's basis, it's justification, it's validation is the false religion of the cult of man-made global warming. 



> In fact even most AGW skeptics agree the planet is warming, they just disagree that man is having significant influence.


Clearly you read and accept only what fits what you want and need to believe and you ignore and reject all else. 

Over the years many cult pseudo-scientist alarmists saw the light and have abandoned the myth and have since said it is false, that nothing is close to being settled and more and more have said it's the sun and planetary influences on it as cyclical orbits change and gravitational pressures change. 




> The fact that you proscribe to the most radical and fringe ideas puts you squarely in the conspiracy theorist camp. Not only are you a non-climatologist that rejects the consensus because of ideology and not science, but you don't even agree with most of the real scientists that reject the consensus.



That is a biased and inaccurate asessment. It is a perfect example of how the cult attempt to discredit and bash anyone who does not bow down before their false idol of man-made global warming. It relies on lies, like the claimed consensus that never was. It also ignores the existing ideology of the cult but then claims that taking a position based on ideology is not scientific. 

In other words, it is a majorly hypocritical statement, but one that is commonly heard from the cult leaders and their minions.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 23, 2011)

November 27, 2011 [h=1]Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming[/h] *By* *Karin McQuillan*

Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science. The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions took over the media and political arena by storm. The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted. We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.

​ Everyone "knows" that global warming is true. The public has no idea of the number of scientists -- precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee -- who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998. We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives. The public need to know the choices being made on their behalf, and to have a say in the matter.  We are constantly told that the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over. It has just begun.

​ What is never discussed is this: the theory of global warming has catastrophic implications for our economy and national security. Case in point: Obama's recent decision to block the Keystone pipeline in order to placate global warming advocates. Key Democrat supporters fear the use of oil more than they care about losing jobs or our dangerous dependence on the Mideast for oil. The president delayed the pipeline by fiat, and the general public has had no say. (For the impact on our economy, see my article, "The Whole Country Can Be Rich.")

​ President Obama has spoken out passionately on the danger of developing oil and gas because of man-made global warming. "What we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe."

​ Obama calls for the debate to end.  He cites hurricanes as proof: "dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real -- it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster."

​ *Happily, our president is wrong. The worst hurricanes were in 1926, the second-worst in 1900. The world's top hurricane experts say that there is no evidence that global warming** affects storms. There is no such thing as a man-made hurricane. Storm cycles and long patterns of bad weather are entirely natural. Yet this good news is suppressed by our politicized media. We hear only one side.*

​ *More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO[SUB]2[/SUB], and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998**.*

​ *It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world**.*

​ *Here is how it has worked. The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists "soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials." Physicists at Europe's most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked. This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof** -- by a team of 63 scientists at CERN -- that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans. But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."*

​ *As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution -- whose previous president declared that "the debate on climate change is over" -- "is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members** who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures. ... The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause."* Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, *"One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective."*

​ *In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." Dr. Giaver:


*​*Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.


**In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?


**The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this "warming" period.*

​ *In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."*

​ Do a Google search: you will find this letter reported in Britain and even India, *but not in America.*

​ Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." *APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."*

​ *Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world's top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak "frankly" on global warming and announce that "as a scientist I remain skeptical**." She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather -- we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.*

​ *Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions** that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.*

​ *Recently we've had a perfect example of the enforced global warming consensus falling apart.* Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming. Predictably, the _Washington __Post_ proclaimed that the BEST study had "settled the climate change debate" and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a "cynical fraud."

​ *But within a week, Muller's lead co-author, Professor Curry, was interviewed** in the British press (not reported in America), saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global "temperature trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all - though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly."*

​ *This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting," Prof Curry said. "Whatever it is that's going on here, it doesn't look like it's being dominated by CO[SUB]2[/SUB]**." In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics' arguments were now taking them much more seriously. They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation - as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.*

​ *Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller's false claims to the media that BEST proved global warming "highly unethical**." Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.*

​ *Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided.* The public doesn't know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. *Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud**.*

​ *This is important. Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate. We still don't understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer. The science of global climate is in its infancy.*

​ Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy. The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its "endangerment" finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions. Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:

​ *Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the 'absurd result' that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [greenhouse gas] regime.* 

​ *Former top scientists at the U.N. IPCC are protesting publicly against falsification of global warming data and misleading media reports. Dr. John Everett, for example, was the lead researcher on Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones at the IPCC and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, and he received an award while at NOAA for "accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries." Here is what he has to say on global warming:*

​ It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios ... I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming...*No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.* 

​ *That is why we must hear from all the best scientists, not only those who say fossil fuel use is dangerous.* It is very important that we honestly discuss whether this theory is true and, if so, what reasonable steps we can afford to take to mitigate warming.  If the theory is not based on solid science, we are free to develop our fossil fuel wealth responsibly and swiftly.

​ *Instead, federal policies are based on global warming fears.* Obama has adopted the California model. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 has shed a million jobs in that state. California now has almost 12% unemployment, ranking 50[SUP]th[/SUP] in the nation.​ The country could be following North Dakota, where oil development has led to a 3.5% unemployment rate, or Texas, which has created 40% of the jobs nationwide since the 2009 economic crash thanks to its robust energy sector. These are good jobs. An entry-level job on an oil rig pays $70,000 a year. A roughneck with a high school diploma earns $100,000 a year in Wyoming's Jonah Fields. Brazil's new offshore oil discoveries are predicted to create 2 million jobs there. We have almost three times more oil than Brazil.

​ *When we treat oil and gas companies like pariahs, we threaten America's economic viability. For global warming alarmists who believe that man-made CO[SUB]2[/SUB]** threatens life on earth, no cost is too high to fight it. They avert their eyes from the human suffering of people without jobs, with diminished life savings, limited future prospects, and looming national bankruptcy.*

​ *This is not all about idealism. There are crasser reasons of money and power for wanting to close the debate. Billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies are spent to fight global warming. The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers to intrude into private business and our individual homes. The government can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you are allowed to use. In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist **Dr. Lindzen**, "[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."*

​ Warming advocates persistently argue that we cannot afford to pause for a reality check; we must not ignore the _possibility_ that global warming theory might be true. Limiting fossil fuels and promoting green energy are presented as a benign, a "why not be on the safe side," commonsense approach.

​ *There is a lot of emotion and little common sense in this argument. If a diagnosis is based on a shaky and partly fraudulent theory, ignores much more convincing evidence**, and has terrible negative side effects, you don't perform major surgery. We do not have to run around like Chicken Little on the off-chance that the sky may be falling.*

​ *There has been a high economic cost to limiting our oil and gas wealth, with much human anguish because of government-imposed economic contraction. Responsible government policy requires honest media coverage, unfettered scientific inquiry, and robust political debate. Our country cannot afford the costs of foolish energy policy based on politicized science and fear.*

​
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1hM9Ik4lB
​


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 23, 2011)

*On principle it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is theory which decides what we can observe.*​ _Albert Einstein._​ ​ *"Governments will lose elections over this issue. From a policy perspective it is a situation where you can only lose because any government will be faced with the reality that their policies don't match the rhetoric. Where does that leave policy-makers? *​ *It leaves them looking very exposed. But that's the price you pay for exaggerating a risk that you actually cannot address. Politicians have cornered themselves. They have dug themselves into such a hole that there is no way out." *
_Dr Benny Peiser, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, November 2006_​ ​ *"The (global warming) alarmists have confused cause and effect. As solar radiation warms the earth, CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the world's oceans."*​ _Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space Research, Pulkovo Observatory, St Petersburg, January 2007.

_​ *"We have the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years. Evidence from ice cores show this happening long in the past."*
Professor Henrik Svensmark, climate scientist, The Danish National Space Centre and author, _The Chilling Stars: A new theory of climate change_.
​ *"Sun spot activity has reached a 1,000 year high."*_
Climate scientists affiliated to the Max Planck Institute, Gottingen, Germany. _​ *"Sea levels have been rising steadily since the peak of the last Ice Age about 18,000 years ago. The total rise since then has been four hundred feet...For the last 5,000 years or so, the rate of rise has been about seven inches per century." 
*​ *"The Medieval and Roman warmings, with their intervening cold periods, present a huge problem for the advocates of man-made global warming. If the Medieval and Roman occurred warmer than today - without greenhouse gases, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm as well?"*​ *"The temperatures at the North and South Poles are lower now than they were in 1930. The Antarctic Peninsula, the finger of land pointing north towards Argentina (and the equator) has been getting warmer...The other 97 percent of Antarctic has been cooling since the mid-1960s."*
S. Fred Singer, Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University and Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute and co-authors _Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. _​ ​ *"C**limate prediction is complex, with many uncertainties. The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such prediction - called 'verification' - is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or more to assess the accuracy of the forecasts."*
_The American Association of State Climatologists. _​ ​ *"There is not such thing as consensus science. If it's a consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't a consensus. Period. The greatest scientists in the world are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."*​ *Environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s." 
*_Michael Crichton, Science writer and author 'State of Fear'._​ ​ *"The positive aspects of global warming appear to have been downplayed." *
_A UK House of Lords report on the science of Kyoto _​ ​ *The European Union has established by fiat that a two-degree rise in global temperatures would be quite dangerous. However, this data is not scientifically sound."*
_Yuri Izrael, Vice President of the International Panel on Climate Change, the body responsible for the Kyoto Protocol. _​ Q. "Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?"​ *A. "Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't" *​ _Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. _​ 
​ *"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." *​ _Mark Twain._​


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 23, 2011)

Read 'em and weep, cult members! 


Only *52 scientists* agreed to IPCC 2007 summary report linking human CO2 to global warming. In contrast, *650 scientists* have publicly announced their disagreement with the theory of man-made global warming. In addition, *31,000 American scientists/researchers* have signed the Oregon Petition stating their direct opposition to the Kyoto global warming agreement. Approximately 17,000 signers have a PhD or a M.S. (additional details of signers listed here).

(If you are interested in an analysis of IPCC scientists who support man-made global warming theory, visit here.)


Quote by John Dewey: &#8220;Scepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind.&#8221;



Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: &#8220;Being a scientist means being a skeptic.&#8221;



Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change&#8230;.As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."



Quote by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer of UK: &#8220;In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.&#8221;



Quote by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic: &#8220;As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.&#8221;



Quote by Andrey Illarionov, economic adviser to Vladimir Putin: &#8220;Ideology on which the Kyoto Protocol is based, is a new form of totalitarian ideology, along with Marxism, Communism and socialism.&#8221;



Quote by Delgado Domingos, environmental scientist: *&#8220;Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense&#8230;The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.&#8221;*



Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: *&#8220;I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.&#8221;*



Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever:*&#8220;I am a skeptic&#8230;Global warming has become a new religion.&#8221;*



Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis:*&#8220;Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.*



Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: *&#8220;Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.&#8221;*



Quote by Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina: *&#8220;The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.&#8221;*



Quote by George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University: "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? *Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid."*



Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: *"Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."*



Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: &#8220;Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn&#8217;t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven&#8217;t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.&#8221;



Quote by Claude Culross, organic chemistry: &#8220;Dire predictions of catastrophe from that bottomless pit of disasters du jour, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are based solely on computer models that amount to poorly crafted mathematical opinions, not experimental proof....There is no proof that man-made carbon dioxide causes additional warming, or that carbon-dioxide reduction would reduce warming.&#8221;



Quote by Ritesh Arya, geologist, specializes in hydrogeology and groundwater resources in the Himalayas: &#8220;There is urgent need to put the phenomenon [global warming], which had not been triggered off suddenly, in the right perspective....There is a hype of global warming created by western mass media and there is a need to redefine the whole concept.&#8221;



Quote by John Takeuchi, meteorologist: &#8220;The atmosphere has periodic warming and cooling cycles. The sun is the primary source of energy impacting the earth's surface. That energy heats the land and the seas, which then warm the air above them. Water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere also affect temperature....Oceans are the main repository for CO2. They release CO2 as their temperature rises - just like your beer. This strongly suggests that warming oceans - heated by the sun - are a major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere.&#8221;



Quote by Peter Dailey, director of atmospheric science, AIR Worldwide: &#8220;There is now a near consensus that global air temperatures are increasing, however, there is no consensus on how this has affected the temperature of the world&#8217;s oceans, and in particular in the Atlantic Ocean, or how much of the recent warming trend is attributable to man&#8217;s activities....For the layman, there is sometimes a tendency to regard every new &#8216;discovery&#8217; or scientific finding from the latest published paper as an inviolate fact....In reality, rarely is there ever a last and final word in studies of complex systems such as earth&#8217;s environment. Rather, science is a dynamic process based on the scientific method in which researchers test hypotheses leading to new discoveries, but also reexamine earlier theories and try to improve, build upon, or extend them.&#8221;



Quote by Mark Paquette, meteorologist, Accuweather: &#8220;The earth's climate is ridiculously complicated, and carbon dioxide is not the only thing that influences the climate that is changing. In fact, probably EVERYTHING in the earth's climate system changes at one time or another. So, earth's changing climate can not be entirely attributed to carbon dioxide levels rising.&#8221;



Quote by Ian McQueen, chemical engineer: "Carbon dioxide is not the bogeyman - there are other causes that are much more likely to be causing climate change, to the extent that it has changed....Carbon dioxide does have a small warming effect, McQueen said, but 32 per cent of the first few molecules do the majority of the warming. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, he said, is currently at 380 parts per million; if that were upped to 560 parts per million, Earth's temperature would only rise about 0.3 degrees.&#8221;



Quote by Art Raiche, former chief research scientist, Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: *&#8220;The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both here in Australia and around the world....The **eco-hysteria that leads the Greens, as well as the left-leaning media, to attack any person who attempts to publish science that contradicts their beliefs is a gross example of the dangerous doctrine that the end justifies the means.&#8221;*



Quote by Kevin Warwick, professor of cybernetics-University of Reading, England, research in artificial intelligence, control, robotics: &#8220;I am afraid that I do not hold with the theory of &#8216;global warming&#8217; &#8211; there will always be climate change....Big thing here is &#8211; do we know what we are doing that is bringing about climate change? At present the answer to this is NO.&#8221;



Quote by Theodore G. Pavlopoulos, retired U.S. Navy physicist and chemist, New York Academy of Sciences: &#8220;CO2 in air has been branded as the culprit for causing the green house effect, causing global warming. However, regularly omitted is another important green house gas also present in air and in much higher concentration. It is water vapor. In the air, it absorbs infrared radiation (heat) more strongly than CO2....The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is considerable lower than that of water vapor; it is just a few percent. Consequently, doubling the CO2 concentration would not significantly increase the combined absorption of the two green house gases of water vapor and CO2.&#8221;



Quote by Muriel Newman, mathematician, a member of the Northland Conservation Board: &#8220;Around the world, as controversy over climate change continues to grow, it remains very clear that contrary to what the politicians tell us, not only is there is no consensus of scientific thought on this matter, but the science is certainly not settled. In fact, in a bizarre twist of fate, at a time when advocates of man-made global warming continue to push government policies to restrict energy use and the burning of fossil fuels in order to prevent &#8216;catastrophic&#8217; warming, the world continues to cool....That is leading to increasing scepticism that the call to sacrifice living standards in order to &#8220;save the planet&#8221; is just political spin designed to persuade the public to accept green taxes.&#8221;


Quote by Dennis Hollars, astrophysicist: * "What I'd do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that's all it's worth....carbon dioxide was an insignificant component of the earth's atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow....'Mars' atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming.&#8221;*



Quote by Larry Bell, University of Houston,one of designers of International Space Station, has forthcoming book, "Climate
Hysteria": &#8220;Cause and effect relationships between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from all sources and global temperatures are inconclusive. Although carbon dioxide levels have generally been observed to increase during warm periods and fall during colder ones, the temperature changes typically lead rather than follow carbon dioxide changes.&#8221;



Quote by W.J. &#8220;Bill&#8221; Collins, professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences-James Cook University: &#8220;As the climate change debate moves from the scientific to the political, it is important to stay with the facts. The bottom line is that humans cannot prevent global warming. Therefore, we should not be forced into emissions trading schemes, or any other scheme that sacrifices Australia&#8217;s economic advantage and standard of living for the wrong reasons....Sure, let us try to lessen our environmental impact and develop a sustainable economy, but we should not be carried away by misconceptions about what is driving climate change. It&#8217;s with the Earth itself.&#8221;



Quote by John Williams, agricultural scientist, researcher, author, and educator, University of Melbourne: &#8220;There is no proof that carbon dioxide is causing or precedes global warming....All indications are that the minor warming cycle finished in 2001 and that Arctic ice melting is related to cyclical orbit-tilt-axis changes in earth&#8217;s angle to the sun.&#8221;



Quote by Roger W. Cohen, physics, American Physical Society fellow: &#8220;I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC's case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is....I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.&#8221;



Quote by Sherwood Thoele, analytical chemist and mathematician: &#8220;I submit that there is no man-made global cooling/warming, that there is no study or research data that makes a good argument to that effect when carefully examined objectively and that the Earth has many different and wide ranging cycles that man cannot control, no matter how much he would like to.&#8221;



Quote by Michael J. Myers, analytical chemist, specializes in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing: &#8220;I am troubled by the lack of common sense regarding carbon dioxide emissions. Our greatest greenhouse gas is water. Atmospheric spectroscopy reveals why water has a 95 percent and CO2 a 3.6 percent contribution to the &#8216;greenhouse effect.&#8217; Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide each year total 3.2 billion tons. That equals about 0.0168 percent of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration of about 19 trillion tons. This results in a 0.00064 percent increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.&#8221;



Quote by Ed Rademacher, chemical engineer: &#8220;Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and, in fact, is a desired....To date, global warming alarmists have not come close to providing any valid scientific data that proves humans are the sole source of changes in so-called global average temperatures. Quite simply, correlation between the carbon dioxide levels and the global average temperatures does not prove a causal relationship.&#8221; 



Quote by Robert A. Perkins, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Alaska, registered civil engineer has 30 years work in arctic and sub-arctic:  &#8220;All the &#8216;science&#8217; that you read about global warming is based on models, not observed facts. Here are some reasons to doubt the models: Expert statistician Akaike proved that the more parameters a model needs to fit the historical data, the less certain the model will predict the future....All the climate models are incredibly complex, hence &#8216;over-parameterized.&#8217; The climate models, however, do not even fit the present data, at least in the Arctic....Finally, none of the published models that &#8216;blame&#8217; human activity for the warming trend account for the known historical variations in global climate.&#8221;


 Quote by Gerhard Lobert, physicist, Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics:  &#8220;As the glaciological and tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred many times in the past, both with the magnitude as well as with the time rate of the temperature change that have occurred in the recent decades.&#8221;



Quote by Norm Kalmanovitch, geophysicist:*&#8220;There is zero warming possible from further increases in CO2....The temperature record shows that the global temperature has been increasing naturally at a rate of about 0.5°C/century since the Little Ice Age. The forcing parameter is based on the full measured 0.6°C/century without subtracting the natural warming of 0.5°C/century giving a forcing parameter that is 6 times larger than can be attributed to the measured increase in CO2....Far less obvious, but the major fatal flaw of the forcing parameter is that it is based on an observation of temperature and CO2 concentration without taking into account the actual physical properties of CO2 and its limited effect on thermal radiation as defined by quantum physics.&#8221;*



Quote by David Stockwell, ecological modeler, published research articles on climate change, authored book about &#8220;niche modeling": *&#8220;It would be recognized that the IPCC is just another review, and an unstructured and biased one at that. Its main in-scope goal is to find a human influence on climate, and the range of reasons for climate change are out-of-scope, creating a systematic bias against natural explanations for climate change.* I think climate models are inadequately validated, confidence in the skill of models to forecast global warming is vastly exaggerated, and current skill is not enough to serve useful purposes.&#8221;



Quote by Tom Kondis, chemist, a consultant with practical experience in absorption and emission spectroscopy: &#8220;To support their argument, advocates of man-made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth's surface like molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously flawed....*The fictitious &#8216;trapped heat&#8217; property, which they **aggressively promote with a dishonest &#8216;greenhouse gas&#8217; metaphor, is based on their misrepresentation of natural absorption and emission energy transfer processes and disregard of two fundamental laws of physics.&#8221;*



Quote by Bob Ashworth, chemical engineer, 16 U.S. patents, has written 55 technical papers, American Geophysical Union, authored a 2008 technical analysis of global warming: *&#8220;The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science, never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain.* Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate, will hurt the economies of the world, and will be harmful to the production of food because less carbon dioxide means reduced plant growth.&#8221;



Quote by Greg Benson, earth scientist, geologic study/geologic modeling:*&#8220;The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has changed greatly since fossilized life began on Earth nearly 600 million years ago. In fact, there is only 1/19 as much CO2 in the air today as there was 520 million years ago. That high CO2 was hardly the recipe for disaster.&#8221;* 



Quote by Dave Dahl, chief meteorologist of Minnesota&#8217;s ABC Channel 5: &#8220;Many peer-reviewed scientific papers are now looking at the real possibility that the sun may play the main role in climate variation here on earth....Recent studies show that the unusually &#8216;quiet&#8217; sun may be one of the reasons for the unusually cold winter that was experienced across much of the Northern Hemisphere. An extremely low number of solar flares and sunspots may be linked to the current cooling trend globally.&#8221;



Quote by Dan Pangburn, mechanical engineer, author of a climate research paper: &#8220;For most of earth&#8217;s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present....The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change. Actions to control the amount of non-condensing greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere are based on the mistaken assumption that global warming was caused by human activity.&#8221;



Quote by Colin Robinson, founder of the Department of Economics- University of Surrey UK, Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society: &#8220;In an echo of earlier times, the climate change prophets have in recent years tried to silence counter views and suppress dissent. August members of the Royal Society, a body once noted for its cultivation of debate in science, are now leaders of the &#8216;science is settled&#8217; camp: the only debate they consider to be legitimate is about choice among the different forms of the centralized action they believe is required to deal with the problems they foresee.&#8221;



Quote by Geoffrey Kearsley, geographer, environmental communication-University of Otago, director of Wilderness Research Foundation:* &#8220;It is said that we are now beyond the science and that the science of global warming has been finalized or determined and that all scientists agree. Skeptics and deniers are simply cynical pawns in the pockets of the big oil companies. This is unfortunate, to say the least. Science is rarely determined or finalized; science evolves and the huge complexity of climate science will certainly continue to evolve in the light of new facts, new experiences and new understandings.&#8221;*


Quote by Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut, staff physicist at MIT: &#8220;The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue,&#8221; Chapman wrote. &#8220;All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead."



 Quote by Jeffrey A. Glassman, physicist and engineer, former division Chief Scientist - Hughes Aircraft Company, expert modeler of microwave and millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere: &#8220;CO2 concentration is a response to the proxy temperature in the Vostok ice core data, not a cause....The Vostok data support an entirely new model. Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. Fires, volcanoes, and now man deposit CO2 into the atmosphere, but those effects are transient. What exists in steady state is CO2 perpetually pumped into the atmosphere by the oceans....Atmospheric CO2 is a dynamic stream, from the warm ocean and back into the cool ocean. Public policy represented by the Kyoto Accords and the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions should be scrapped as wasteful, unjustified, and futile.&#8221;



Quote by Jon Hartzler, retired science professor St. Cloud State University: &#8220;We are left with what we call correlations, like increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature. This is not proof, only suggestive in science....The Chinese laugh at the Kyoto Protocol and the &#8216;civilized&#8217; world trying to fix &#8216;global warming.&#8217; Our puny little effort (but very costly) when China refuses and puts their economy first makes us seem insignificant.&#8221; 



Quote by Mike Thompson, Chief Meteorologist of Kansas City news station, former U.S. Navy meteorologist: *"It is easier to silence scientific dissent by utilizing the politics of personal destruction, than to actually debate them on the merits of their arguments. That should tell you something about the global warming debate...there is none right now....it's either you believe, or you are to be discredited."* 


Quote by Arnold Kling, economist, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board: &#8220;I am worried about climate change. In one respect, I may be more worried than other people. I am worried because I have very little confidence that we know what is causing it....One of my fears is that we could reduce carbon emissions by some drastic amount, only to discover that--oops--it turns out that climate change is being caused by something else.&#8221; 



Quote by Klaus P. Heiss, formerly of Princeton University and Mathematica, space engineer, NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Naval Research, International Astronautics Academy: &#8220;The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously. Man-made CO2 grew exponentially; however, global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975, during the time span as the global industrial production almost exploded....The entire atmospheric carbon dioxide, of which man-made CO2 is only a fraction of, is not to blame for global warming....Carbon dioxide is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years. But what then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate fluctuations. One is the sun's activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year cycles occur and sunspots.&#8221;



Quote by Patrick Frank, chemist, author of more than 50 peer-reviewed articles: &#8220;So the bottom line is this: When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they&#8217;re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the U.S. congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert Gore.&#8221;



Quote by Jonathan DuHamel, geologist: &#8220;I am a geologist familiar with the scientific literature on climate change, but I have yet to see any proof or compelling evidence supporting the assertion that human carbon-dioxide emissions have produced measurable temperature change,&#8221;...The current warm period is well within natural variations.&#8221;



Quote by Ferdinand Engelbeen, chemist and process engineer: &#8220;Why &#8216;skeptical&#8217;? As I have some experience with models, be it in chemical processes, not climate, I know how difficult it is to even make a model of a simple process where most, if not all, physico-chemical parameters and equations are exactly known....To make a climate model, where a lot of parameters and reactions are not even known to any accuracy, for me seems a little bit overblown. And to speak of any predictive power of such models, which are hardly validated, is as scientific as looking into a crystal ball.&#8221;



Quote by Kevin Lemanowicz, Chief Meteorologist of broadcast station in Massachussetts: "Did you know that if the greenhouse effect didn't exist, life on this planet would be frozen? Further, I'm sure you remember from grade-school science that carbon dioxide is vital for life. Plants need it, and, in turn, give us oxygen. No CO2 means no plants, which means little oxygen for us. Certainly not enough to live on. Why, then, is CO2 called "pollution"? Is it really bad for us?"



Quote by Glenn Speck, chemist, Isotek Environmental Lab, 35 years testing air, water, fuel, and soil for chemicals, including CO2: *&#8220;The public has been repeatedly misled that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. Totally false.* Unfortunately, man-made climate change, or anthropogenic global warming as it&#8217;s more commonly known, has become a political issue rather than a scientific one.&#8221;


Quote by John Lott, Jr., economics, senior research scientist, University of Maryland: &#8220;Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but &#8216;there has been no net global warming since 1998.&#8217; Indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling [...] Mankind is responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes warming (e.g., the Sun).&#8221;



Quote by William Hunt, research scientist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, served as a wildlife biologist and a geologist: *&#8220;Scientists and activists alike have jumped on the [global warming] bandwagon. It&#8217;s become a fad, a trend, a wave of enthusiasm and the scientists are going along with the fad to get research grants and the media limelight.*...The facts, such as we can observe and calculate them, do not support the idea of man-made global warming. Natural processes completely eclipse anything that man can accomplish- a minor rainstorm expends more energy than a large nuclear explosive releases and the lowest category of hurricane expends more energy than all of the nuclear weapons ever produced in a short time.&#8221;



Quote by Al Lipson, meteorologist former lead forecaster at the Weather Channel and Accuweather: &#8220;[Promoters of climate fear] want to make money. Billions of dollars are being funneled into research...I feel mans&#8217; influence on climate is a micro influence Nature has a tendency to balance itself on a macro scale....Extreme weather events happen. Quit spinning research to foster monetary and political agendas. That's dishonest science.&#8221;



Quote by Peter Friedman, professor mechanical engineering-University of Massachusetts, member of the American Geophysical Union: &#8220;Several respected climate scientists have told me that there would be even more vocal skeptics if they were not afraid of losing funding, much of which is controlled by politically correct organizations.&#8221;



Quote by R. W. Bradnock, scientist, former head of geography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King&#8217;s College London, field-based research on sea level and environmental change: &#8220;In my own narrow area of research, I know that many of the claims about the impact of &#8216;global warming&#8217; in Bangladesh, for example, are completely unfounded. There is no evidence that flooding has increased at all in recent years. Drought and excessive rainfall are the nature of the monsoon system. Agricultural production, far from being decimated by worsening floods over the last twenty years, has nearly doubled.&#8221;



Quote by Frederick Seitz, past president, U.S. National Academy of Sciences: &#8220;It is one thing to impose drastic measures and harsh economic penalties when an environmental problem is clear-cut and severe....*It is foolish to do so when the problem is largely hypothetical and not substantiated by observations....we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes.&#8221;*


Quote by Topper Shutt, chief meterologist, Washington D.C. Channel 9: &#8220;I try and remind our viewers that climate is always in a state of flux and yes, the world has warmed over the last 25 years but claiming that Katrina is a product of global warming is absurd. We have had much stronger hurricanes hit the United States in the past, the Labor Day or Keys hurricane of 1935 and Camille in 1969 to name just two. There is much more development now on our shores.&#8221;



Quote by Terry Wimberley, professor of Ecological Studies of Florida Gulf Coast University, Division of Marine Sciences and Ecological Sciences: &#8220;Scientists do not dispel the problem of global warming -- that is real -- but rather the CO2 theory of global warming, which unfortunately is not verified by geological and climate records going back thousands of years or by observed fact. The CO2 theory of climate change is based upon a computer simulation model and flawed data that has been widely criticized in scientific literature."



Quote by Francis T. Manns, geologist, manages Artesian Geological Research: &#8220;As a stratigrapher/paleogeographer, I have been aware throughout my career of the wide variations in the climate of Earth as recorded in the rocks. Climate change is the norm for the planet....I am unaware of any CO2 research that demonstrates a temperature anomaly that corresponds to CO2 flux in the atmosphere. On the contrary, everything I read from the refereed side of science shows CO2 to trail warming."



Quote by William L. Wells, chemist/chemical engineer, adjunct professor of chemistry-Murray State University: "Many in Congress promoting these measures for CO2 control mandates fail to appreciate that the atmosphere is global, hence emissions must be considered world-wide. One source indicates that China has plans to add 500 coal-fired plants in the next decade, while India is right behind with 200 plants on the drawing board. Restricting U.S. anthropogenic emissions, only a small part of the CO2 released into the environment, is a way of cutting off our economic noses to spite our faces....Without global reductions there is very little that the US can do to impact CO2 levels in the atmosphere, besides, of course, political posturing."



Quote by Fred W. Decker, professor of Meteorology-Oregon State University: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.&#8221;



Quote by Viv Forbes, soil scientist and geologist, chairman-Australian based The Carbon Sense Coalition: &#8220;There is no evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving surface temperature, and there is plenty of evidence to show that current levels of temperature and carbon dioxide are neither extreme nor of concern....It is unbelievable that many in politics and the media are whipping up public hysteria about &#8216;global warming&#8217; when the best evidence suggests that for the 100 years ending in the year 2000, the century of coal, steel, electricity, the internal combustion engine, jet planes, two world wars and a population explosion, the average surface temperature rose by only 0.6 deg, and there has been NO increase in temperature since 1998."



Quote by Vincent U. Muirhead, professor emeritus of aerospace engineering, researched gas dynamics, University of Kansas: *&#8220;The new green left (environmentalist) propaganda reminds me of the old red left (communist) propaganda. The dirty word is now carbon rather than capitalism. The game is simply to intrude and control everything.**&#8221;*



Quote by Louis A.G. Hissink, field geologist, editor of The Australian Institute of Geoscientists Newsletter: &#8220;Recent discoveries by NASA in the area of space exploration show that the earth is connected to the sun electromagnetically where tens of millions of amperes of electric current are routinely measured during polar aurora displays by satellites - this enormous source of energy, and thus heat, is completely ignored as a factor affecting the earth's thermal balance in global climate models. It is this electromagnetic connection that underpins the solar factor that modulates the earth's climate.&#8221;



Quote by Rosa Compagnucci, author of two IPCC reports in 2001, researcher with the National Science and Technology Commission, Department of Atmosphere Sciences - University of Buenos Aires: "Is global warming something unusual, say, the last two thousand years?...There was a global warming in medieval times, during the years between 800 and 1300. And that made Greenland, now covered with ice, christened with a name [by the Vikings] that refers to land green: 'Greenland.&#8217;&#8221;



Quote by Karl Bohnak, meteorologist: &#8220;Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of earth&#8217;s natural &#8216;greenhouse&#8217; effect. Carbon dioxide gets all the attention because that is what is released in the burning of fossil fuels. Yet it accounts for less than 4 percent of the total greenhouse effect. For the anthropogenic global warming argument to work, water vapor must increase along with CO2. CO2&#8217;s contribution - natural and man-made - is just not enough to raise global temperatures as much as climate models predict.&#8221;



Quote by David Gee, geologist, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress: &#8220;So my question is extremely simple, we know temperature goes up and down. We know there is tremendous amount of natural variations, but for how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"



Quote by Leighton Steward, geologist, twice chaired the Audubon Nature Institute and is currently the chairman of the Institute for the study of Earth and Man at SMU: &#8220;We [on earth] are at one of the lowest points of CO2 levels today....CO2&#8217;s ability to trap heat declines rapidly, logarithmically, and reaches a point of significantly reduced future effect explaining why correlations with CO2 don&#8217;t hold. A far more consistent and significant correlation exists between the planet&#8217;s temperature and the output of energy from the sun."



Quote by Wayne Hocking, physics professor, University of Western Ontario, who heads the Atmospheric Dynamics Group: &#8220;For this to be effective, we need to be there for 20, 30, 40 years, have a long-term data set and then we can start to make useful predictions....researchers do not know enough about the atmospheric changes and how they influence each other to draw any conclusions about global warming. We know there is so much complexity involved, we want to tread more cautiously.&#8221;



Quote by Chris Landsea, former IPCC scientist: &#8220;I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process [IPCC process] that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.&#8221;



Quote by Roger Pielke Sr., climatologist, former NOAA researcher, former professor Colorado State: &#8220;The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.&#8221;



Quote by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic: &#8220;The climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about nature or scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, about one &#8212; recently born &#8212; dirigistic and collectivistic ideology, which goes against freedom and free markets.&#8221;


Quote by Jack Schmitt, geology scientist and U.S. astronaut: &#8220;As a geologist, I love Earth observations, but it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a 'consensus' that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. 'Consensus,' as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.&#8221;


Quote by Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist and mathematician: &#8220;The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.&#8221;



Quote by Peter Friedman, professor mechanical engineering-University of Massachusetts, member of the American Geophysical Union: &#8220;The IPCC &#8216;policy summaries,&#8217; written by a small group of their political operatives, frequently contradict the work of the scientists that prepare the scientific assessments. Even worse, some of the wording in the science portions has been changed by policy makers after the scientists have approved the conclusions.&#8221;



Quote by Joanne Simpson, former elite NASA climate scientist: &#8220;Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly&#8230;.As a scientist I remain skeptical.&#8221;



Quote by John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters: *&#8220;Climate models are useless*....My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit...*Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.**&#8221;*


Quote by Kiminori Itoh, member of IPCC process, award-winning environmental physical chemist: *"Warming fears are the &#8220;worst scientific scandal in the history&#8230;When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.&#8221;*


Quote by Geoffrey Kearsley, geographer, environmental communication-University of Otago, director of Wilderness Research Foundation: "Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas by a huge factor. The link between CO2 and temperature change is erratic; often, carbon follows heat rather than the uncritical popular perception that heat is induced by carbon. The oceans are a vast reservoir of dissolved CO2; as they warm, they release it and reabsorb it as they cool. Which causes what? There is much more yet to learn.&#8221;



Quote by Stanley Goldenberg, U.S. Government atmospheric and hurricane scientist : *&#8220;It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don&#8217;t buy into anthropogenic global warming.&#8221;*



Quote by Hajo Smit, meteorologist and former IPCC member: &#8220;Gore [Al] prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp [changed to skeptic camp]&#8230;Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.&#8221;



Quote by Mark L. Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy: *"...consensus in science is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true.** And I don't even grant that there is a consensus among scientists; it's just that the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical.* To many of us, there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide produced by humans has any influence on the Earth's climate."


Quoted by Peter Stilbs, physical chemist, chairs climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry-Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm: &#8220;There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years."



Quote by William Hunt, research scientist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, served as a wildlife biologist and a geologist: &#8220;The problem with computer [climate] modeling is that only a tiny percentage of the literally millions of variables involved can be written into a program. It&#8217;s currently impossible for us to accurately model Earth&#8217;s climate and we are not aware of all of the variables yet.&#8221;



Quote by Terry Wimberley, professor of Ecological Studies of Florida Gulf Coast University, Division of Marine Sciences and Ecological Sciences: &#8220;More important [than CO2] is the interaction of solar activity (solar winds) with penetrating cosmic rays into the earth&#8217;s atmosphere. When cosmic ray activity is great a large volume of rays penetrate the earth's lower atmosphere and contribute to cloud formation and cool the earth. However, when there is a lot of solar activity, solar winds tend to blow away just enough of the cosmic rays to thwart cloud formation at the lower levels resulting in fewer clouds and global warming. This phenomenon can be documented over hundreds if not thousands of years - well before humans were able to affect atmosphere.&#8221; 



Quote by Jonathan DuHamel, geologist: &#8220;CO2 is a minor player in the total system, and human CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to total natural greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, lowering human CO2 emissions will have no measurable effect on climate, and continued CO2 emissions will have little or no effect on future temperature....While controlling CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels may have some beneficial effects on air quality, it will have no measurable effect on climate, but great detrimental effects on the economy and our standard of living.&#8221;



Quote by Mike Thompson, Chief Meteorologist of Kansas City news station, former U.S. Navy meteorologist: "It's a slow process, but it is scary, because if someone can control your energy sources, they can control you. We are already being told what light bulbs we can and cannot use...through legislation. We are being forced to fund research into alternative energies sources that are inefficient, and that cause the price of food, energy, and everything else to rise...through legislation...rather than allow free enterprise to allocate funds to those energy sources that will survive through good old American innovation!"



Quote by Francis T. Manns, geologist, manages Artesian Geological Research: Manns disputes the CO2 caused ocean acidification fears. &#8220;Ocean pH is not governed by physico-chemical rules. Marine organisms control their calcium carbonate properties organically behind membranes....Objective scientists realize that coral, foraminifera and shellfish have deep mechanism that have evolved over 100s of millions of years as CO2 has fluctuated far wider than we see in the atmosphere today."



Quote by Viv Forbes, soil scientist and geologist, chairman-Australian based The Carbon Sense Coalition: &#8220;The output of a complex computer simulation of the atmosphere is not &#8216;evidence&#8217;. It is a fluttering flag of forecasts, hung on a slim flagpole of theory, resting on a leaky raft of assumptions, which is drifting without the rudder of evidence, in cross currents of ideology emotion and bias, on the wide deep and restless ocean of the unknown.&#8221;



Quote by Randy Cerveny, oversees Arizona State University meteorology program; named to key post UN&#8217;s World Meteorological Organization for developing a global weather archive for UN: "I don't think [global warming] is going to be catastrophic...our grandkids are going to have a lot better weather information than we did, and they will be able to answer a lot of the questions we're just in the process of asking."



Quote by Paul Berenson, physicist, former executive secretary of the Defense Science Board, U.S. Department of Defense: &#8220;The analytical models used to predict higher atmospheric CO2 content and temperature have not been validated, and do not predict the measured values from the last 200 years; e.g., the cooling of roughly 1 degree C from about 1940 to 1975. They are not valid because they do not include major effects on the climate such as clouds, rain, electric currents, cosmic rays, sun spots, etc.&#8221;



Quote by David Packham, former principle research scientist with Australia&#8217;s CSIRO, an officer in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology: &#8220;I find that I am uncomfortable with the quality of the science being applied to the global warming question. This lack of comfort comes from many directions: A lack of actual measurements for terrestrial radiation and the use of deemed values for particulate radiation absorption; the failure to consider the role of particulates from biomatter burning; the lack of critical thought and total acceptance of the global warming models as the conclusive evidence."



Quote by Thomas B. Gray former head Space Services branch at the NOAA and a researcher in NOAA&#8217;s Environmental Research Laboratories: &#8220;Nothing that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over geologic time...The claims of those convinced that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data.&#8221; 



Quote by Colin Robinson, founder of the Department of Economics- University of Surrey UK, Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society: &#8220;One does not have to be a &#8216;climate change denier&#8217; to see that a degree of skepticism about the present consensus might be in order....Most likely, now &#8211; as in the past &#8211; many analysts have become carried away by the results of their models, which purport to look into a far distant future, and have convinced themselves that they must embark on a crusade to enlighten others.&#8221;



Quote by Claude Culross, organic chemistry: &#8220;Fossils from our Holocene Era reveal a northern tree line approaching the Arctic Ocean. Surely it was warm enough then to preclude pack ice, and perhaps summer ice, from natural causes, and at only three-quarters of today&#8217;s carbon-dioxide level....Climate that seems unusual, but falls within the natural envelope of past climate, is no proof of man-made global warming.&#8221;


Quote by F. James Cripwell, physicist, former scientist with UK&#8217;s Cavendish Laboratory: &#8220;I am reminded of a quite well-known commercial in North America from Wendy&#8217;s, &#8216;Where&#8217;s the beef?&#8217; When it comes to the [UN] IPCC claim that the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming, where&#8217;s the science?....on the differences between astronomy and astrology, both use the same data of the relative positions and motions of the earth, sun, moon, planets and stars; both have long complex calculations; both result in numerical answers. In the case of astronomy, the numbers have a scientific meaning; in the case of astrology, they do not. It seems to me that this claim of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in a linear addition to the radiative forcing is more akin to astrology than it is to astronomy.&#8221;x



Quote by Mike MiConnell, hydrologist/geologist, professional Earth scientist U.S. Forest Service: &#8220;Our understanding on the complexities of our climate system, the Earth itself and even the sun are still quite limited. Scaring people into submission is not the answer to get people to change their environmental ways...if Earth was suffering under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced addition of CO2, the troposphere should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons do not support this fundamental presumption even though we are seeing higher CO2. We ought to see near lockstep temperature increments along with higher CO2 concentration over time, especially over the last several years. But we're not.&#8221;



Quote by David Bellamy, biologist: *&#8220;Global warming &#8212; at least the modern nightmare vision &#8212; is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.&#8221;*


 Quote by Lynwood Yarbrough, biochemist and molecular biologist, served as a consultant for the National Institutes of Health: &#8220;I consider myself a scientific skeptic and want to be convinced by the data before I accept something as &#8216;true.&#8217; As a biologist, I am aware of a number of cases in which science has been led in directions not based on hard evidence. Examples include Malthus and the Malthusian Theory, Lysenkoism in the old Soviet Union, and eugenics in the U.S. and elsewhere.&#8221;



Quote by Christopher de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. *People are being misled by people making money out of this.*" 



 Quote by Patrick Frank, chemist, author of more than 50 peer-reviewed articles: &#8220;But there is no scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all. Nevertheless, those who advocate extreme policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions inevitably base their case on GCM projections, which somehow become real predictions in publicity releases....&#8220;General Circulation Models [GCM] are so terribly unreliable....even if extreme events do develop because of a warming climate, there is no scientifically valid reason to attribute the cause to human produced CO2."



Quote by Henrik Svensmark, scientist, Danish National Space Centre: &#8220;&#8230; those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork.&#8221;


Quote by Greg Benson, earth scientist, geologic study/geologic modeling: &#8220;Geologists and paleo-climatologists know that in the past the Earth's temperature has been substantially warmer than it is today, and that this warming has occurred under purely natural circumstances. Until we can say precisely how much of the current global warming and greenhouse gas increase is the result of this normal temperature cycle, we will not be able to measure how much human activity has added to this natural trend, nor will we be able to predict whether there will be any lasting negative effects.&#8221;

 


 Quote by Arun D. Ahluwalia, geologist, Punjab University: &#8220;The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn&#8217;t listen to others. It doesn&#8217;t have open minds&#8230; I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.&#8221;


Quote by William M. Briggs, climate statistician: &#8220;After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet....The skill of climate forecasts---global climate models---upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates.&#8221;




Quote by B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India: "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles." 




Quote by Marcel Leroux, climatologist, director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon: "Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"



Quote by Nir Shariv, physicist, Racah Institute of Physics: *&#8220;Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.&#8221;*


Quote by David Evans, scientist, former global warming researcher, now a skeptic: "Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling."



Quote by William F. McClenney, professional geologist and former Certified Environmental Auditor, former global warming proponent: *&#8220;I believed [global warming theory]. It made sense....he then conducted extensive climate research and wrote a detailed analysis announcing that he had reversed his views....&#8220;did the math and realized that you just can&#8217;t get to global warming with CO2.&#8221; *


Quote by Michael F. Farona, chemist/biochemist, emeritus professor of Chemistry, University of Akron and University of North Carolina: &#8220;What is the relationship between an increased level of carbon dioxide and temperature? Can it be predicted that an increase of so many parts per billion of carbon dioxide will cause an increase of so many degrees? I have not seen any answers to the questions posed above, leading me to adopt a somewhat skeptical view of blaming global warming on human activities. What puzzles me is the reluctance of climatologists to provide scientific data supporting their dire predictions of the near future if we don't change our ways.&#8221;




Quote by Oliver K. Manuel, professor of nuclear chemistry, the University of Missouri: &#8220;...[there is an] irrational basis of the current scare over global warming...Compared to solar magnetic fields, however, the carbon dioxide production has as much influence on climate as a flea has on the weight of an elephant.&#8221;


Quote by Peter R. Leavitt, President-Weather Information, served on the National Research Council&#8217;s Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate: &#8220;Progress in science is driven by skepticism. Dogmatism more often inhibits progress than fosters it.... There are numerous reasons to support a skeptical viewpoint. Most of the proponents of AGW rely on computer models to make their case. Very little substantive work has been done in showing that the magnitude of the influence of CO2 on climate change suggested by the various models can be derived directly through the application of first principles. There is considerable evidence that there are grievous shortcomings in the quality of the data especially with regards to the accuracy and representativeness of the surface temperature record acquired from both inland and ocean areas and upon which the various models depend."



Quote by José Ramón Arévalo, professor of Ecology-University of La Laguna, Spain: &#8220;Climate warming is more an ideology,....so, as an ideology is perfect to me, the problem is when administrators become members of this sect, and then they have to spend millions in demonstrating their ideology.&#8221; 


Quote by Walter Cunningham, NASA astronaut/physicist, Apollo 7: &#8220;NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science.&#8221;




Quote by James A. Peden, former atmospheric physicist with U.S. Space Research and Coordination Center: "As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate. I&#8217;ve studied the atomic absorption physics to death, it simply doesn&#8217;t add up. Even if every single IR photon absorbed by a CO2 molecule were magically transformed into purely thermal translational modes , the pitifully small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn&#8217;t add up to much additional heat."


Quote by William Kininmonth, former head of Australia's National Climate Centre, consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation: "These specific computer models have a much exaggerated response to carbon dioxide and their response has been misinterpreted as a potential for "runaway global warming....This has led to unfounded claims of "tipping points" and "irreversibility" of the climate trends, and that the danger from anthropogenic global warming is even greater than IPCC has projected....In reality, runaway global warming is an illogical concept."




Quote by Martin Hertzberg, retired U.S. Navy meteorologist: &#8220;Not only is it false that human activity has any significant effect on global warming or the weather in general, but for the record, global warming is over. The fear-mongering hysteria about human-caused global warming is completely unjustified and is totally counterproductive to our Nation&#8217;s essential needs and security.&#8221;


Quote by Paul Reiter, scientist, Pasteur Institute: &#8220;I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So let's talk malaria. I wondered how many had taken anti-malaria tablets because they had seen Al Gore's film, 'An Inconvenient Truth', which claims that Nairobi was established in a healthy place "above the mosquito line" but is now infested with mosquitoes &#8212; naturally, because of global warming. Gore's claim is deceitful on four counts. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer. Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria.&#8221;



Quote by Augusto Mangini, paleoclimate expert, University of Heidelberg: "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong...The earth will not die." 



Quote by Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University: &#8220;CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another&#8230;.Every scientist knows this, but it doesn&#8217;t pay to say so&#8230;Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver&#8217;s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.&#8221;



Quote by Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia: "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."


Quote by Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences : "Even if the concentration of &#8216;greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact."




Quote by Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography: "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"



Quote by Hendrik Tennekes, internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes: "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit...I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." 



Quote by Robert Durrenberger, climatologist, past president American Association of State Climatologists: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that &#8216;real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."


Quote by R. W. Bradnock, scientist, former head of geography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King&#8217;s College London, field-based research on sea level and environmental change: &#8220;There remain many academics from a wide range of fields who question the evidence, and who believe that the catalogue of woes directly attributed to &#8216;global warming&#8217; cannot be reduced simply to an increase in the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 parts per million by volume to 384 ppm.&#8221;



Quote by Geoffrey Kearsley, geographer, environmental communication-University of Otago, director of Wilderness Research Foundation: &#8220;The longer trends tell us that by 2020, we will be experiencing an unusually low-energy sun. Apparently, these are exactly the conditions that preceded the Maunder Minimum and ushered in the Little Ice Age. The science goes on. &#8220;There is an increasing body of science that says that the sun may have a greater role. If it does have, then global warming is likely to stop, as it appears to have done since 1998, and if the current sunspot cycle fails to ignite, then cooling, possibly rapid and severe cooling, may eventuate.&#8221;



Quote by Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum - University of Oslo, past expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction." 




Quote by Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics: "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

 

Quote by Frederick Seitz, Past President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences: "This treaty [Kyoto] is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful...agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries." 



Quote by Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer, climate/atmospheric science consultant: *"To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

* 


 Quote by Don Aitkin, University of Canberra, founder and past chairman of the Australian Mathematics Trust: &#8220;Is the warming unprecedented? Probably not. There is abundant historical and proxy evidence for both hotter and cooler periods in human history. Is it our fault? Again, maybe. The correlation of increasing warmth with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations is particularly weak; that with solar energy and with ocean movements is much stronger.&#8221; 



Quote by Boris Winterhalter, retired scientist of marine geology at University of Helsinki: "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."



Quote by Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico:&#8220;The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.&#8221;

 

Quote by Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR): "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."  



Quote by Geoffrey G. Duffy, Scientist, Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland: &#8220;Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.&#8221;



Quote by Peter R. Leavitt, President-Weather Information, served on the National Research Council&#8217;s Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate: "The peer review process as applied to AGW studies is deeply flawed. It lacks transparency and accountability.&#8221;


Quote by Michael J. Myers, analytical chemist, specializes in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing: *&#8220;&#8216;Scientific&#8217; computer simulations predict global warming based on increased greenhouse gas emissions over time. However, without water's contribution taken into account they omit the largest greenhouse gas from their equations. How can such egregious calculation errors be so blatantly ignored? This is why man-made global warming is &#8216;junk&#8217; science.&#8221;

*

Quote by Habibullo Abdusamatov, Head of the Space Research Laboratory, Russia: &#8220;Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy &#8212; almost throughout the last century &#8212; growth in its intensity.


Quote by Roger W. Cohen, physics, American Physical Society fellow: &#8220;At this point there is little doubt that the IPCC position is seriously flawed in its central position that humanity is responsible for most of the observed warming of the last third of the 20th century, and in its projections for effects in the 21st century.&#8221;



Quote by David Wojick, UN IPCC expert reviewer, co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: *"In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this....The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates." *


Quote by Miklós Zágoni, Hungarian environmental researcher, physicist, reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic: &#8220;Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor:more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG [greenhouse gas] content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.&#8221; 



Quote by Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: &#8220;The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.&#8221;

 

Quote by Wolfgang P. Thuene, former analyst and forecaster for the German Weather Service, German Environmental Protection Agency: &#8220;All temperature and weather observations indicate that the earth isn&#8217;t like a greenhouse and that there is in reality no &#8216;natural greenhouse effect&#8217; which could warm up the earth by its own emitted energy and cause by re-emission a &#8216;global warming effect&#8217;. With or without atmosphere every body looses heat, gets inevitably colder....the most perfect thermos flask can&#8217;t avoid that the hot coffee really gets cold. The hypothesis of a natural and a man-made &#8216;greenhouse effect&#8217;, like eugenics, belongs to the category &#8216;scientific errors.&#8221;


Quote by Robert DeFayette, chemist and nuclear engineer, NASA&#8217;s Plum Brook Reactor, served as consultant to the Department of Energy: &#8220;I freely admit I am a skeptic....Until a few months ago, scientists believed we had 9 planets, but now we have 8 because Pluto was demoted....At the time of Columbus, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat but obviously that was wrong. In the late 18th century, &#8216;Neptunists&#8217; were convinced that all of the rocks of the Earth&#8217;s crust had been precipitated from water, a British geologist characterized the supporting evidence as &#8216;incontrovertible....In each of these cases there was &#8216;scientific consensus&#8217; that eventually was rejected.&#8221;



Quote by Dennis Hollars, astrophysicist: &#8220;Man-made global warming is basically flawed science at this point. We do not have sufficient temperature data to even decide if there is a planetary scale warming, let alone what the cause might be. In the &#8217;70s it was global cooling that was the scare - by many of the same people who are pushing warming now, using models that are not even close to reality.&#8221;




Quote by George Reisman, economist, emeritus professor-Pepperdine University: &#8220;Global warming is not a threat. But environmentalism&#8217;s response to it is....Even if global warming is a fact, the free citizens of an industrial civilization will have no great difficulty in coping with it&#8212;that is, of course, if their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement and by government controls otherwise inspired.&#8221;



Quote by Victor Pochat, president of the Argentine Institute of Water Resources and professor of water resources planning at Universidad del Litoral: &#8220;....it is not clear that increases of a few degrees in average temperature of the planet is directly related to human activity but could be due to cyclical effects....Scientists that deserve credit for their background say global warming is a climatic variability associated to cycles of warming and cooling of the Earth.&#8221;




Quote by Don Aitkin, University of Canberra, founder and past chairman of the Australian Mathematics Trust: &#8220;Are we likely to see rising sea-levels? Not in our lifetimes or those of our grandchildren. It is not even clear that sea-levels have risen at all. As so often in this domain, there is conflicting evidence. The melting of polar or sea ice has no direct effect.&#8221;



Quote by Robert Woock, senior geophysicist at Stone Energy, past president-Southwest Louisiana Geophysical Society: &#8220;I do not see any evidence in nature or data to suggest that we are in any anthropologic climate cycle....We have certainly created local climes, hot cities and deforestation that affect certain areas, but these are reversible to a large degree.&#8221;



Quote by Jarl R. Ahlbeck, scientist, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member: &#8220;So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.&#8221;



Quote by Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University: &#8220;Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.&#8221;




Quote by Patrick Frank, chemist, authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles: &#8220;But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.&#8221;



Quote by Richard Keen, climatologist, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences University of Colorado: *&#8220;Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC&#8230;.The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium&#8230;which is why &#8216;global warming&#8217; is now called &#8216;climate change.&#8217;&#8221; *



Quote by G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia&#8217;s Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO): &#8220;I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. *When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?&#8221;*



Quote by Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, nuclear physcist: &#8220;The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil....I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.&#8221;



Quote by John Takeuchi, meteorologist: *&#8220;Politicians have come to see global warming as a way to raise revenue by rationing CO2 production with schemes such as the &#8216;cap and trade&#8217; legislation now in Congress. The taxes assessed for producing CO2 could be huge. But global warming as proclaimed by Al Gore and Co., is a hoax.&#8221;

*

Quote by Kenneth P. Green, environmental scientist, the American Enterprise Institute: &#8220;While I believe that Earth has experienced a
mild, non-enhanced greenhouse warming which will continue in the foreseeable future, I think the chaotic nature of the climate system makes projections of the future climate no better than science fiction....I am intensely skeptical of the entire process of predictive climate modeling, from its ability to meaningfully predict the climate in the future, to its ability to tell us how much of activity A would result in climate change B. *These models have so many parameters that can be arbitrarily &#8216;tuned&#8217; as to make them little more than a tool for mathematizing the fantasy scenarios of the programmers who set up and run the programs.&#8221;*



Quote by Don Aitkin, University of Canberra, founder and past chairman of the Australian Mathematics Trust: &#8220;How reliable are the computer [climate] models on which possible future climates are based? Not very. All will agree that the task of modeling climate is vast, because of the estimates that have to be made and the rubbery quality of much of the data.&#8221;



Quote by Perry Ong, director of the Institute of Biology at the UP College of Science, Phillipines: &#8220;Climate change has become a convenient excuse when there are other [environmental] issues that need to be addressed....If we disproportionately blame ourselves for [climate change], our response will be different....we should look at the [bigger picture] and address other issues....there are 12 serious environment problems that need to be addressed in order to effectively deal with climate change....issues are: The destruction and conversion of forest, ocean, fresh water systems and other natural habitats; overharvesting of wild foods; the loss of biodiversity; excess fossil fuel extraction; soil erosion and swelling human population.&#8221;



Quote by Pal Brekke, solar physicist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre: *&#8220;Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.&#8221;*



Quote by Frederick Seitz, Past President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences: The IPCC &#8220;is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty....the 1990 IPCC Summary &#8220;completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists &#8212; in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed &#8216;unusual warming&#8217; based on the now-discredited hockey stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activities, which are likely to dominate any human influence.&#8221;



Quote by Sherwood Thoele, analytical chemist and mathematician: &#8220;Because CO2 is slightly soluble in water and will come back to the Earth with precipitation, nature corrects for any excess, just as it does with other excess materials from volcanoes and forest fires. Nature recycles all of what it considers excess very efficiently.&#8221;



Gerhard Lobert, physicist, Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics: &#8220;The hypothesis that the global warming of the past decades is man-made is based on the results of calculations with climate models in which the main influence on climate is not included. The most important climate driver (besides solar luminosity) comes from the interplay of solar activity, interplanetary magnetic field strength, cosmic radiation intensity, and cloud cover of the Earth atmosphere.&#8221;



Quote by Jon Hartzler, retired science professor from St. Cloud State University: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.&#8221; 



Quote by Colin Robinson, founder of the Department of Economics- University of Surrey UK, Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society: &#8220;Human myopia cannot be overcome simply by well-meaning attempts to build [climate] models that purport to peer decades and centuries ahead. Action taken now, in anticipation of supposed long run trends, may concentrate on the wrong issues and make matters worse rather than better.&#8221;



Quote by Topper Shutt, chief meterologist, Washington D.C. Channel 9: &#8220;Global warming is such a politically charged issue that we are losing our perspective on the issue and more importantly losing an open forum from which to discuss the issue. If we lose the right or comfort level to openly discuss and debate this issue we will not be able to tackle it efficiently and economically.&#8221;



Quote by Don Aitkin, University of Canberra, founder and past chairman of the Australian Mathematics Trust: &#8220;Why is there such insistence that AGW has occurred and needs drastic solutions? This is a puzzle, but my short answer is that the IPCC has been built on the AGW proposition and of course keeps plugging it, whatever the data say. The IPCC has considerable clout. Most people shy off inspecting the evidence because it looks like science and must therefore be hard. The media have been captured by AGW (it makes for great stories), the environmental movement and the Greens love it, and business is reluctant to get involved.&#8221;


Quote by John McLean, climate data analyst, Australian Climate Science Coalition: *"The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement ['it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years'] is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers [of IPCC report] just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis."*xx



Quote by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer of UK : &#8220;Not only is the Kyoto approach to global warming wrong-headed, *the climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal. The IPCC should be shut down.&#8221;*


 Quote by Jay Lehr, science director Heartland Institute: &#8220;The European Union and environmental advocacy groups use global warming hysteria to advance their own special agendas. The European Union recognizes any significant reduction in CO2 emissions by the United States will significantly reduce its economic output, thereby bringing it closer to the inferior output of European nations.&#8221;


Quote by Vincent Gray, climate scientist, expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports: *"The [IPCC] &#8216;Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so." * 


Quote by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic: (The IPCC is) &#8220;not a scientific body capable of accurately assessing the facts about global warming&#8221;.


Quote by Harlan Watson, U.S. negotiator at UN Climate Change convention: &#8220;The Kyoto protocol was a political agreement. It was not based on science.&#8221;



Quote by Kirill Kondratyev, scientist, Russian Academy of Sciences: &#8220;The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming.&#8221;


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 23, 2011)

Some of those quotes make some good points, but many of them have nothing to do with anything. &#8220;Being a scientist means being a skeptic.&#8221; isn't saying anything about climate change. Being a skeptic means accepting evidence, it doesn't justify general distrust or denialism. Many make use of strawmen, false dichotomy, ect. I can compile a similar list saying the holocaust didn't happen, that evolution isn't real, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and that Bigfoot needs more funding for study.

We already knew 3% of climatologists disagree. We already knew that scientists outside of their expertise misunderstand. We already knew that your brain is impressed by arguments from authority and popularity. None of this caused us to 'weep' before, why should it now that you have demonstrated it verbosely?


----------



## canndo (Dec 23, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> It is not absurd. They were just as positive of their research findings about a soon to be occurring catastrophic change as the current alarmists are, but look how wrong they were.


Interpretation: "How can we trust science when it once told us that the eath was the center of the universe, then it said that the sun revolved around the earth and now Bwahaha, they say the earth revolves around the SUN!" The point of science is that it hones in on the truth through iterative examinations of the facts and evidence before them - the scientific method.

Shall we claim that astronomy is all wrong because we continue to discover that the universe is larger than once supposed? Shall we call geology hogwash because we tend to find that the earth is older than we once thought? No, but this is the line of reasoning you use.




> They hold a belief and then they perform advocacy research attempting to prove their concrete belief. When someone does that they invariably shape their findings to support their already held concrete belief, and they manipulate data, they exclude data, they do not report everything they discover, they tell the world bits and pieces of what they discovered, making sure they create a scary sounding scenario


That isn't science and yet, for the most part the "science" of your nay saying representation operates exactly that way. You quote Spencer while at the same time complaining about financialy or ideologicaly biased scientific findings. This sort of "science" is discovered and discarded through honest research and as has been said, scientists dream of nothing more than being the one who casts aside an entire established belief. I assure you, legitimate scientists would like nothing more than to be able to prove that global warming is a hoax but attempting to do so from an Exxon fund is likely to result in the very bullshit that Spencer and his type so consistantly manage.

Finally you mention obscene amounts of grant money. I noticed you didn't comment on the GCC and it's stated purpose in an earlier thread. What I said was that all the grant money for global climate research pales in comparison to the amount of money vested in the status quo. Much of the "other side's" money was spent on advertisement and disinformation rather than legitimate research but still, the status quo is worth tens of trillions, global warming, billions at most.


----------



## canndo (Dec 23, 2011)

One more thing Brick top? I am interested in this debate but am unwilling to weed through the mountains of cut and paste chaff. Are the deniers denying CO2 increases as well?


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 23, 2011)

> Heisenberg said:
> 
> 
> > Many of those quotes have nothing to do with anything.
> ...


----------



## mame (Dec 23, 2011)

> t is clear that you drank enough of the Kool-Aid that there is no hope for you, that there is no way that you will ever accept anything other than what you want to believe. It would be simpler for me to teach my cat quantum physics than to get you to accept the fact that scientists who were part of what you preach say it is false, that there was data manipulation, that computer models were known to be flawed, that there is no physical evidence matching the predictions, that after information was reviewed and in what should have been the form it was presented, that others then changed it and rewrote it and there was not another review checking and verifying the changes and what was released were not the actual findings and those who made the findings protested but the cult leaders did not care, they were going to release their sermon the way they wanted it preached and that there are other reasons behind the warming that stopped in 1998 and that since 2003 there has been a period of cooling.


There's a lot of claims in there that you should probably cite, just sayin'.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 23, 2011)

Honestly, a few years ago, I personally questioned AGW. I spent quite a bit of time going through the evidence including wading through scientific papers and trying to learn as much of the details as I could. Of course I and everyone else understands that much of our climate are d/t natural cyclical change but the massive amounts of co2 is in fact affected the speed at which the earth is warming. Of course the earth has been warmer previously and plants and animals will be fine but the issue is about mankind's place on this earth. The catastrophe that is predicted doesn't have to do with the harm to the polar bears, although they will be affected, it has to do with sea level rises and how even a small amount will have devastating effects on people. Only a few feet and gone are the barrier islands of most coastlines. Gone are most ports and many major coastal cities that already have areas that are below sea level. Venice, Italy is already struggling with the rise in sea level in only the last 20 years. Just think about the millions of people that will have to relocate inland, it will be magnitudes worse than Katrina and will happen all over the globe. The severe weather that we are already seeing increase will just make matters that much worse. Combine this with any number of other major catastrophes, an earthquake, more tornadoes like this year, a major coronal mass ejection wiping out electronics and communication, along with our already destabilized economy and political problems and you have the making of real global disaster. 

I am personally opposed to many of the political 'solutions' that have been proposed. The skeptics are correct about many of the proposals offered to mitigate the problem. Regardless of the fact that quite of bit of the science has been co-opted and abused by leftist extremists under the guise of environmentalism does not change the facts of the science. This is my biggest problem with rants such as Brick Tops and others. They fail to separate the fact that this issue has indeed been used by opportunists to promote an agenda and the fact that there actually is some reason for concern. I very much understand that denying the facts of the science is one way to counter the extremists politics but I believe it is misguided because it places their own ideology over evidence. Be skeptical of the politics, be skeptical of the science, but follow the evidence where ever it leads.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 23, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> That's right, alarmist. Just discount and discredit any and all information that is like a wooden stake through the heart of a vampire to your religion.


This sort of jargon is exactly what we would expect to hear from a conspiracy slanted denier. Again, where have I called for any alarm? It's interesting that to you, apparently, accepting climate change is an alarming prospect. It has scary implications for sure, but no one is calling for panic or fear, quite the contrary, we are calling for understanding, fastidious inquiry, and contentious procedure. The idea of a shadowy secret government conspiracy operating on a global scale is much more alarming, yet I would never use that fact to discount the notion, if there was sufficient rationale to make the claim.




> There you go with the 3%, meaning there is 97% consensus, when those percentages are lies. In the quotes you tried to just dismiss where were scientists where were former cult members who said there was no consensus, that a small group who simply decided on what sort of front they wanted to portray dreamed up the consensus nonsense.


Exact numbers aside, there is a clear consensus. There is sufficient evidence to believe this, as pointed out early in the thread. We don't believe it just because a bunch of scientists said so. A consensus does not depend on the participants permission, it is the result of a transparent methodological process which can and has been repeated by many independent groups whom have all converged on the same avenue of explanation.



> You should really change your username to Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels because he told Adolph Hitler that if you repeat a lie enough times it eventually becomes the truth, and the bigger the lie the more believable it will be. And that is precisely what your cult does and what you do. You keep repeating the same lies over and over in hopes that people will eventually accept them for being truths. But the facts do not support what you say. People who were involved with what you claim say it is untrue and that it never was true.
> 
> It is clear that you drank enough of the Kool-Aid that there is no hope for you, that there is no way that you will ever accept anything other than what you want to believe. It would be simpler for me to teach my cat quantum physics than to get you to accept the fact that scientists who were part of what you preach say it is false, that there was data manipulation, that computer models were known to be flawed, that there is no physical evidence matching the predictions, that after information was reviewed and in what should have been the form it was presented, that others then changed it and rewrote it and there was not another review checking and verifying the changes and what was released were not the actual findings and those who made the findings protested but the cult leaders did not care, they were going to release their sermon the way they wanted it preached and that there are other reasons behind the warming that stopped in 1998 and that since 2003 there has been a period of cooling.


Drank the Kool-aid? It's as if you are reading from the denialist's handbook of buzzwords. Climategate it'self is such a sensational and superficial name to latch onto. The organization which was hacked, the CRU, and it's emails were investigated by three independent groups, the latest's report can be found here. All three studies found nothing scandalous, nothing that would effect our idea of what climate change means, unless you cherry pick, quote mine and spin in sensationalism.

Then we have the latest analysis, The Berkley Earth Temperature Study, carried out by yet another independent group, which confirms exactly what the other three independent groups reported. There is no need for list of scientists and there mostly impertinent quotes to prove converging analysis, no need for red herrings such as trumped up email gossip to discount invalid criticism, and no need for thought terminating cliches and logical exploits to make our case. These are the steps in the song and dance of a denialist.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Again, where have I called for any alarm?


You do all you can to create a facade of credibility for the myth and the cult behind. That makes you a cult member and an alarmist.






> Exact numbers aside, there is a clear consensus.



That is not what is said among those who are or were members of the cult and were writers of sections of the IPCC reports and or were reviewers. There were more who disagreed with the released reports than agreed with them, and those who disagreed were the ones who wrote the originals and the one who agreed were the ones who altered the originals so they said what they wanted them to say rather than saying what was actually found. 52 agreed and 650 publicly pronounced their disagreement. In another case among the 23 independent reviewers [of IPCC report] just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis. That was a whopping grand total of 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with it's hypothesis. FOUR!, ONLY FOUR! Do those FOUR equate to the 97% you alarmists continually claim to be in agreement, or is it the 52 that equate to the 97% you alarmists continually claim to be in agreement?



> Drank the Kool-aid? It's as if you are reading from the denialist's handbook of buzzwords. Climategate it'self is such a sensational and superficial name to latch onto. The organization which was hacked, the CRU, and it's emails were investigated by three independent groups, the latest's report can be found here. All three studies found nothing scandalous, nothing that would effect our idea of what climate change means, unless you cherry pick, quote mine and spin in sensationalism.



Look at the background of those who proclaimed nothing improper occurred.

Professor Geoffrey Boulton:

He spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the
University of East Anglia, right there where the center of the storm was. There is clearly a conflict of interest there. He has been accurately quoted as having said "the argument over climate change is over." There is clearly another conflict of interest. He is biased, he would protect those who he totally agrees with. He tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change, which is more proof of his bias and further proof of a conflict of interest. Even though it has been totally debunked he still lectures that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050. Again, a major bias, again a conflict of interest. He signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity. That was before his being part of the review so there is even more proof of his bias and a major conflict of interest since he went on record saying that alarmist scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity before anything was reviewed. He often refers to anyone who questions or disagrees with his belief of man-made global warming as being a denier. Everything he is on record for saying clearly proves that he could be accurately described as being a global warming doommonger. But you point to his clearing the colluding conspiring cult pseudo-scientists as if it should be believable. After all, since Professor Geoffrey Boulton leads the Global Change Research Group in the University of Edinburgh, the largest major research group in the Universitys School of Geosciences. But surely he wouldnt allow his deep professional commitment to global climate change research to bias his findings. Would he?

Then there was Professor Peter Clarke. Peter Clarke is a physics professor whose CV includes nothing to do with climate change. When I have used information or quotes from certain people you deemed them to not be valid sources because their credential, in your mind, have nothing to do with climate change.

There was also David Eyton, an engineer with British Petroleum. He has no background in climate change research. (Just a little BP trivia, when the Gulf spill caused a change of CEO for BP the new CEO is a guy I went to school with from 7th grade through high school. We used to play hockey together.) David Eyton's was responsible for Research and Development, Technical Service Work, Digital and Communications Technology and Procurement and Supply Chain Management for BPs Upstream business. Hardly the credentials of a climate scientist or any other field of science related to climate science and therefore hardly one to judge misdeeds of the cult pseudo-scientists.

I wonder how you will spin how an inquiry into the review you claim proved no wrong doing found that it"


it did not adequately test the science;
it only examined three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports;
it did not study hundreds of thousands more unpublished e-mails from the CRU;
it failed to investigate whether e-mails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws;
none of CRU's critics were interviewed by the two inquiries; and
the membership of the Panel had excluded reputable critics of climate science.

I also can only assume that there was nothing questionable about the University of East Anglia solicited and paid for the review. That would be like if President Nixon solicited those who would be involved in investigating his part in Watergate and if President Nixon paid for the investigation. 

So the cult member and unqualified members of the review board said nothing improper occurred. That is proof that the University of East Anglia got what it paid for, absolution. 





> Then we have the latest analysis, The Berkley Earth Temperature Study, /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> That's right, you do have that ... the Muller - Berkley study, right? Well his findings were almost instantly found to be bunk and his co-author admitted the flaws and in the end Muller himself caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.
> ...


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 23, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> You do all you can to create a facade of credibility for the myth and the cult behind. That makes you a cult member and an alarmist.


Only in your odd caricature of reality is this thought terminating cliche useful. To the rest of us, I am appealing to reason. That's hardly doing all I can. You can't seem to decide if I am a willing participant in this cult or a gullible victim. You seem to switch when the insult suits you. Again, no climatologists or scientific organization is calling for panic or alarm, just awareness and appropriate procedure. No one is appealing to fear, that stems from your delusion. 




> That is not what is said among those who are or were members of the cult and were writers of sections of the IPCC reports and or were reviewers. There were more who disagreed with the released reports than agreed with them, and those who disagreed were the ones who wrote the originals and the one who agreed were the ones who altered the originals so they said what they wanted them to say rather than saying what was actually found. 52 agreed and 650 publicly pronounced their disagreement. In another case among the 23 independent reviewers [of IPCC report] just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis. That was a whopping grand total of 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with it's hypothesis. FOUR!, ONLY FOUR! Do those FOUR equate to the 97% you alarmists continually claim to be in agreement, or is it the 52 that equate to the 97% you alarmists continually claim to be in agreement?


Cherry picking disagreement is not refuting a consensus. 

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
[The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
​The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies 
(NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences



> Look at the background of those who proclaimed nothing improper occurred.
> 
> Professor Geoffrey Boulton:
> 
> ...


To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved, any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long.


In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called &#8220;trick&#8221;1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU&#8217;s "Professor Jones&#8217;s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists&#8217; rigor and honesty are not in doubt".

In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above

*Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists

The emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world
*



> Then we have the latest analysis, The Berkley Earth Temperature Study, /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> That's right, you do have that ... the Muller - Berkley study, right? Well his findings were almost instantly found to be bunk and his co-author admitted the flaws and in the end Muller himself caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.
> ...


Conspiracy Theory 101: Any evidence against the conspiracy gets turned into evidence supporting the conspiracy, via the conspiracy.

You say how unreliable the temperature data is, yet you use this data to try to prove recent cooling and that it was warmer in the past. Which is it? The BEST report confirmed the other Independent reports, so I suppose each organization must be corrupted, yet these are the same models which criticisms, such as cloud effect, are based on. Denialists like to discount any information involving AGW unless they perceive it can help them make a case, then it's suddenly useful data. You are playing a game of whack-a-mole where the rules change when you need an advantage. You are simply doubling down on all the conspiracy angles and repeating well refuted criticisms, and you shroud it all in a thoroughly unpleasant and purposely prejudice attitude of righteousness.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Again, no climatologists or scientific organization is calling for panic or alarm, just awareness and appropriate procedure. No one is appealing to fear, that stems from your delusion.



I suppose you will say that because the article says things like; "scientists say" and; "Chris Thomas, a biologist from University of Leeds." and; "The head of the UN Environment Program, Klaus Toepfer, warned" that since none were specifically called climatologists that their doomsday scenario message is meaningless and it does not show how the cult is attempting to scare people into drinking the cult Kool-Aid. Right?





> *Dire global warming predictions*
> 
> 
> January 8, 2004 - 4:05PM
> ...


.





> Cherry picking disagreement is not refuting a consensus.
> 
> The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
> 
> ...




What you alarmists like to do is attempt to make it appear that any group the cult can get to sign on is 100% in agreement with the cult. In the many quotes I posted there were scientists of all kind, a good number of them that were former cult members, and one of the complaints they had is the facade created that shows a massive group of scientific groups and minds are in agreement, when in fact they are not. But the small number of those at the top who handle the cult's propaganda make sure that any mention of discent is not allowed to reach the public, especially in the U.S. There were specific examples of how cult psuedo-scientists have been proven to be wrong, but you cannot find that information in the U.S. It was not mentioned in the uber-liberal mainstream media that is culpable in the perpetuation of the myth, and it will not even be found on the Internet using search engines, like Google for example. 

But then the easiest thing for me to do in reponse to your list above is use one of your tactics and just say it is meaningless and dismiss it. You believe doing so works for you, so if it works for you, it has to work for me. 







> To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved, any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long.



It is becoming more and more evident that you did not bother to read the quotes I posted. In them there are scientists of various types who did erite sections of IPCC reports and later were upset and clearly stated that what was released was not their true findings. 

There were other quotes from IPCC report reviewers who reviewed the findings of the various scientists and then gave their stamp of approval only to then have the small group of cult high priests rewrite sections of what had been reviwed and publish their rewritten versions, that were not resubmitted for review, and that altered what had been found and what had been said so it better fit what the cult agenda wanted it to fit, and those reviewers did complain. 

You have to search for that sort of information because the uber-liberal mainstream media helps the cult leaders to suppress as much discent as possible. And when something cannot be suppressed a smear campaign is used and every dirty trick imaginable is used to discredit the one or ones who discented and in some cases their funding has been cut off.






> In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called trick1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."



Penn. State investigated one of it's own and found them innocent. Oddly enough when the University of East Anglia solicite for people tp investigate it's part in Climategate1, and paid for the investigation (and likely for the results it brought) it was also cleared of all allegations of wrongdoing. 

What we have here is sort of the fox guarding the hen house. If you assign somebody a duty and doing so put that person into a position where he or she then can exploit the situation for his own benefit then you let the fox guard the henhouse. When a group or institution investigates itself or one or some of it's members you cannot expect the results to be honest. There is to much as stake, to much money and prestige so those given the duty to investigate will exploit the situation for their advantage or benefit.

You know damn well that if the situation were reversed and say NASA, who says the sun and planetary influences are responsible for the warming that ended in 1998, had someone accused of falsifying data or results or witholding some data from their equations so they would get the results they desired and NASA investigated itself and said nothing unacceptable was found you, and the rest of the cult, would refuse to accept it, you, and the rest of the cult, would a complete investigation by qualified outsiders with no connections in any way to NASA, past or present. 

But the cult sure did accept the findings when investigators checked out the University of East Anglia hand direct ties to it and indirect ties to it and others had clearly been very public and vocal about believing in and supporting the very things they were supposed to be investigationg irregularities in.

Cult members would scream conflict of interest if an investigation of scientists who say the cult is wrong if the investigation was performed like the University of East Anglia investigation and the Penn State investigation. 




> In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRUs "Professor Joness actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".


True enough, but it is not as if there was nothing negative said in the findings.

"Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others.."

"In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes)." 

"In the context of Freedom of Information (FOIA), much of the responsibility should lie with UEA. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. We found _prima facie_ evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics." 

"The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred..."

*Follow-up inquiry* "13. The report by the SAP, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, was published on 14 April 2010. Although welcomed by most of the scientific community,[22] *it received some criticism for being rushed as the review took less than a month to complete.*"


Gee, the investigation lasted less than one month! They sure must have looked in every nook and cranny and uverturned every rock and looked in every closet and drawer and made forensic tests checking every single hard drive to find what was deleted etc, etc, etc. 

An investigation into something so broad and widespread with so many pieces of email taking less than a month? The only way that could happen is if those doing the investigating had their results worked out before they began their alleged investigation. I wonder hwo deeply they delved into things considering Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, who was at the center of the probe, emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little?

Clearly those investigating must have simply figured what was deleted was trivial and didn't matter. 



> In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".


"13. The report by the SAP, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, was published on 14 April 2010. Although welcomed by most of the scientific community,[22] *it received some criticism for being rushed as the review took less than a month to complete.*"

As I said, golly gee, they investigated for less than one month. There is no way in the world that investigating for less than one entire month that they could possibly have missed anything or decided ahead of times that certain things were not worth looking into, or having at least a rough draft of their final report written before they began their sham investigation. 


When you don't actually look for something, you won't find it. Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, who was at the center of the probe, emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, the investigation team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

Yep, sounds like a heck of a thorough investigation there. If Nixon had been investigaed as thoruoghly he would have ended up cleared of any wrondoing and finished his secon term of office and his legecy would have been very different than what it is. 





> In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".


See my previous statement about Penn. State investigating one of it's own.



> In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists rigor and honesty are not in doubt".


Conflict of interest. A university investigating it's own. As if they would risk the embarassment, the loss of prestige, the loss of funding and all he rest that would go with it. If the investigation had been perofrmed by some outside group with absolutely no ties, past or present, to the university and if there had actually been a full and complete in depth unbiased investigation performed, and then reported fully and accurately what was found that could be believable. But when you have partners in crime investigate each other, nothing bad will ever be found.




> In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."



Look back through my messages, you know, the ones that you do not read and you only glance at long enough to know how to word how to dismiss or attempt to discredit them, and find the one that mentioned the EPA and the massive U.S. governemt commitment, including financial, to the global warming scam and also how it would at times dictate what information should or should not be shared. 

The EPA was complicite, the EPA is as culpable as the rest. No wonder it said, nothing to see here folks! 





> In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".



OK, so according to law Prof. Jones would not have been legally required to release any information. Then clearly he paniced for nothing when he "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little, as he admitted to doing.

You do not delete; "loads of emails" when fearing someone might bring a Freedom of Information Act request and you want to make sure they would get very little, unless there was something in the deleted emails that you know would be highly damaging and totally damning. 

Think about it a bit, as in logically and rationally. Why would someone panic and delete "loads of emails" if there was nothing extremely damaging in them? It would be like a guy whose girlfriend was shot to death going out in a boat on the ocean and dismantling a guy and spreading it's pieces around in over 1000 feet of water if it wasn't the gun used to murder hs girlfriend. It would make absolutely no sense to do that and it would make absolutely no sense to panic and delete "loads of emails" if there was not something highly damaging in them to be found. 

What do you think he deleated "loads of," internet porn he was passing around with his cult buddies and he just didn't want to be embrassed if it would be found? It was evidence that if found would sink the cult's battleship. 







> Conspiracy Theory 101: Any evidence against the conspiracy gets turned into evidence supporting the conspiracy, via the conspiracy.
> 
> You say how unreliable the temperature data is, yet you use this data to try to prove recent cooling and that it was warmer in the past. Which is it? The BEST report confirmed the other Independent reports, so I suppose each organization must be corrupted, yet these are the same models which criticisms, such as cloud effect, are based on. Denialists like to discount any information involving AGW unless they perceive it can help them make a case, then it's suddenly useful data. You are playing a game of whack-a-mole where the rules change when you need an advantage. You are simply doubling down on all the conspiracy angles and repeating well refuted criticisms, and you shroud it all in a thoroughly unpleasant and purposely prejudice attitude of righteousness.


Again, if you had read my messages in full rather than just discount them and only scan them enough to have some idea of how to reply and appear factual you would have seen that the truth has been found in several ways. One is through newer more accurate technology and also factoring in things that the cult refused to factor in. That is why a number of the quotes you simply ignored and dismissed that were from cult scientists and former cult scientists say they now no longer believe what in the past they believe to be the cause. More has been discovered and a more complete puzzle has been assembled and it shows that the picture the cult thought was one thing is actually something else. 




> You say how unreliable the temperature data is, yet you use this data to try to prove recent cooling and that it was warmer in the past. Which is it?



Since you basically just said that no matter where the data comes from it is unreliable than the only fair and equitable thing to do is to say that the data of neither side of the argument is accurate and neither side has clearly shown anything, let alone proven anything, so since there is nothing factual proven and all data is inaccurate then there is no use iscussing what then would be a non-issue. 

But then there is that pesky little thing about the cults computer model that created the infamous hockey stick, the one where you can punch in virtually any data and it always results in a hockey stick graph. It was proven that totally random data can be used and the results are a hockey stick graph, and the cult relied heavily on the hockey stick, until it was proven to be a joke, and possibly a case of intentional unprofessional unscientific computer programming to assure the desired results. 

I have never heard of anything on the other side that has been proven to be so inaccurate so it would still appear that the cult is behind in the credibility race. 


I was wondering about something. You pulled the Berkley info like a knife but when I responded to how it turned out to be fraudulant you didn't bother to say anything, you simply tried to forget that you had even mentioned it, you made no attempt whatsoever to defend it. Why? Is it because you already knew it was bogus when you mentioned it and just hoped I wouldn't know, and when you had painted yourself into a corner you remembered that those who fight and run away, live to fight another day, so rather than end up on a slab in the morgue you figured it was time to retreat and try another tactic?




> Then we have the latest analysis, The Berkley Earth Temperature Study,





> That's right, you do have that ... the Muller - Berkley study, right? Well his findings were almost instantly found to be bunk and his co-author admitted the flaws and in the end Muller himself caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.
> 
> I already posted information that proved the study was more falsified junk science.
> 
> ...



Remember that? Do you care to comment on it now, or will you again attempt to ignore it and hope that it just goes away?


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 24, 2011)

I don't feel those statements are calling for an unnecessary alarm, and personally I don't find them particularly alarming. Saying AGW can and probably will have devastating impacts on our future is not saying the sky is falling, as you characterized it. It is simply a prediction that can be made by examining the data. You speak as if people are being instructed to turn cannibal. I don't see anything unreasonable about those statements since they are presented as speculation. Is this the alarm you were speaking of? Is this what you suppose the motivation is behind the propaganda? To make mildly concerning predictions about what could happen decades from now under certain conditions, when many of us will be already be dead? I would think a global propaganda machine could do better than that, and I think anyone who is alarmed at these statements isn't thinking very efficiently about them.

I do believe journalists and media put a doom and gloom spin on global warming, just as they like to put a sensational spin on most everything. I don't see any evidence or conjecture that would indicate this is the result of a conspiracy, just superficial and inadequate reporting skills and standards which manifest on a number of unrelated topics. Alarmism has become a staple of news reporting, but we are talking about a scientific consensus, not the media circus. I see deeply concerning evidence-based information in climate reports, I do not see fear mongering or rash paranoia. I do not see any rationale behind labeling those who support the consensus a cult. I see far more alarmism in your statements and terminology.

I brought up the BEST study, which you inexplicably perceived as a weapon, because it is the latest and confirmed other studies. It is yet one more independent study that supports the consensus, which makes it a legitimate and pertinent topic to bring up. I was not surprised at your criticism of it, you are a denier. This isn't simply a game of who gets the last word. All of your arguments, earth being warmer in the past, a cooling trend starting, the broken hockey stick, are old, tired and well refuted. It's all indicative of the conspiracy dynamic, the endless game of whack-a-mole you apparently enjoy playing, and get upset when I don't. There has certainly been enough information provided by both of us for people to decide for themselves should they chose to research it. You seem to think my motivation is to trump you, to prove you wrong, when it is simply to defend science and represent reason.


----------



## Doer (Dec 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I I do not see any rationale behind labeling those who support the consensus a cult.


But, there is rational behind labeling those that disagree, "Deniers?" This is the voted consensus of those that agree with the current political correctness,
consensus? I see a lot of point by point arugements, very little science, a lot of name dropping, UN dirty laundry, etc.

Buit it is the Cult that label heretics deniers.

And those that take an above the fray, academic viewpoint can be the first to lay labels. It's part of the problem and why? There is only one conclusion.

This, obviously ,isn't a problem with scientists or Atmospheric Science Methods, but with the global liberal elitists turning a blind eye to what imposittions their juggernaut.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 24, 2011)

Doer said:


> But, there is rational behind labeling those that disagree, "Deniers?" This is the voted consensus of those that agree with the current political correctness,
> 
> consensus? I see a lot of point by point arugements, very little science, a lot of name dropping, UN dirty laundry, etc.
> 
> ...


Do you refuse to call 9/11 conspiracy theorists, deniers? How about those that disagree with the consensus of historians wrt Hitler's genocide? You use the same rhetoric as other groups of deniers, so yes, there is rational behind the label. Legitimate scientific work is often ridiculed and denounced quite harshly when it goes against the consensus, however the champions of those fringe ideas do not automatically go to the press and blogs crying "unfair," and thinking it is a conspiracy to keep them down. No, they fight the criticism with more and better science. They keep researching, struggling for a break that might prove them right. Often that break comes from a totally unexpected area, other times it take just one other notable person that takes notice and helps convince others. That's the problem from your side, you aren't doing the science to bring about a change in scientific opinion, you are taking a page from the creationists and evolution, and merely criticizing and trying to find holes in the established ideas.


----------



## Unnk (Dec 25, 2011)

my lord people still believe in this nonsense 



im more worried about my house collapsing then this nonsense



you want facts we got a country full of lazy people waiting for someone to tell them what to do and what to beleive


form your own opinion rather than using that mind of yours as a place holder for some one elses beliefs


----------



## Unnk (Dec 25, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Do you refuse to call 9/11 conspiracy theorists, deniers? How about those that disagree with the consensus of historians wrt Hitler's genocide? You use the same rhetoric as other groups of deniers, so yes, there is rational behind the label. Legitimate scientific work is often ridiculed and denounced quite harshly when it goes against the consensus, however the champions of those fringe ideas do not automatically go to the press and blogs crying "unfair," and thinking it is a conspiracy to keep them down. No, they fight the criticism with more and better science. They keep researching, struggling for a break that might prove them right. Often that break comes from a totally unexpected area, other times it take just one other notable person that takes notice and helps convince others. That's the problem from your side, you aren't doing the science to bring about a change in scientific opinion, you are taking a page from the creationists and evolution, and merely criticizing and trying to find holes in the established ideas.


dude really your making CRAZZZZZZY stretches

911 holocaust?


hes not a denier the fact is Global warming was embeleshed i saw first hand and i use to be a fervent beleiver 

till i saw the scumbaggery that was be had 


bricktop by far as a person of character is one of the best i know on this site


and calling someone a conspirist just makes you look bad you know what it means to conspire to come together under a unified goal



edit ps... you do alot of lumping together since where does it say you cant understand science with out believing global warming

its a theory THEORY and a shotty ass one at that get over it


----------



## Doer (Dec 25, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Do you refuse to call 9/11 conspiracy theorists, deniers? How about those that disagree with the consensus of historians wrt Hitler's genocide? You use the same rhetoric as other groups of deniers, so yes, there is rational behind the label. Legitimate scientific work is often ridiculed and denounced quite harshly when it goes against the consensus, however the champions of those fringe ideas do not automatically go to the press and blogs crying "unfair," and thinking it is a conspiracy to keep them down. No, they fight the criticism with more and better science. They keep researching, struggling for a break that might prove them right. Often that break comes from a totally unexpected area, other times it take just one other notable person that takes notice and helps convince others. That's the problem from your side, you aren't doing the science to bring about a change in scientific opinion, you are taking a page from the creationists and evolution, and merely criticizing and trying to find holes in the established ideas.


Cloud Effect. I've posted specific science abouit the satalite data not aligning with any positive feedback model.

And I don't label these people/groups you mention with Cultish monikers. That's passive agressive. And elitist dismissive.

IAC, it's a false argument, since those events you metioned happened and GW is not an event and didn't happen.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 25, 2011)

Doer said:


> Cloud Effect. I've posted specific science abouit the satalite data not aligning with any positive feedback model.
> 
> And I don't label these people/groups you mention with Cultish monikers. That's passive agressive. And elitist dismissive.
> 
> IAC, it's a false argument, since those events you metioned happened and GW is not an event and didn't happen.


These people wouldn't get the moniker if they didn't act as such. Don't forget how you started this thread with your OP name calling...bully, smug, tyrannical, pigs, snobs, right before you predict character assassination and 'mud slinging.' How ironic. 



> it's a false argument, since those events you metioned happened and GW is not an event and didn't happen.


 Well isn't that the exact same argument they use when labeled as conspiracy theorists? Remember it wasn't that 9/11 didn't happen, it was who orchestrated it, much harder to discount the arguments from Loose Change if you don't study the details and claims very carefully. Some of the recent Holocaust denial has been getting creative as well. It wasn't that the Nazi's didn't have work camps, it was the systematic extermination they deny. It was disease that swept through that that killed the Jews. They claim no evidence for gas chambers, they were delousing chemicals or something like that. These things are much harder to disprove unless you do the work.

You might be different but most of the people that sign up for denying AGW are just not going to understand much of the science. It's not that they're not capable, just that it takes a lot more effort to get familiar with the details than most people are willing to put in. I see it all of the time with evolution. People think they understand it but by their very questions or criticisms, it is obvious they don't. From personal conversations I have had with other "skeptics' most have never even heard of the Malankovitch cycles or know whether we should naturally be in a window of heating or cooling based on things like ENSO, PDO and solar irradiance. IOW, what should the earth be doing right now if man wasn't around, the null hypothesis of AGW. If they don't understand or learn the details enough to make an informed decision, they must rely on an authority. Even without a consensus, how would a normal person pick an authority to side with? Even if the opinion in the scientific community was split 50:50, then no one should be able to pick a side and say who's right, yet that's exactly what skeptical lay persons are doing with a clear minority. Like I said, you might be different, I know you have science education and may have taken the time to learn all of the details but from reading your posts, I don't believe you have. I'm sorry if I formed that opinion incorrectly but I just need you to understand my POV. If you can at least understand my POV, I don't think you would need to be so hostile toward me and I will not toward you. I have not been PA when I used these terms, I formed these opinions with good reason as I just outlined. 

Now back to the civilized discussion. You have not refuted one thing I brought to the table about cloud effect. You asked, I presented, and I feel you have ignored it all. Everything points to a positive FB, i.e more warming. Sure, it's not conclusive and more study is being done, but it is hardly the dagger in the heart of AGW as you seem to imply. Look, if you end up being right, I will be the first to tell you so, but I am looking at all of the evidence.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 25, 2011)

I have watched with some sadness as this thread has descended into a brawl. 
I will speak to the part where Brick Top shouted (large fonts, use of color). 

A decade is a short timespan at the scale of climatology, and the weather data on which climatology is built are very noisy on such short timespans. It's like looking at a stock price chart and deciding next week's trend from this week's performance. So in my estimation (and assuming that the Berkeley authors' claim of a totally flat decade was the result of sound work) such short-term vacillations would be more notable for their absence than presence, and using one such to either champion or debunk a theory is lousy science ... but good politics. 

A strange thing about noisy data like stock prices and weather data is that they spark our unique human talent for apophenia/pareidolia. We see trends where perhaps none exist, and we overextend our experience of trends real and apophenetic into ... a System. Millions who played the machines in Vegas, or who staked the nest egg on eTrade, entered completely convinced of the goodness of their System. they got ground down by the slings and arrows of outrageous randomness. Interestingly, many still believe in their System, demonstrating that random fact is no match for sheer bullheaded conviction. 

The downside of this is that the creation of skewed, semi-plausible reinterpretations of noisy data is easy, like laying razor wire.
The disposal of these Systems for wresting unwarranted clarity from murky information is hard, unrewarding work ... like clearing razor wire. 
Unlike making Systems, which is a sport for everyman, the hopelessly un-mediagenic cleanup is left to actual scientists. Jmo.
cn


----------



## Doer (Dec 26, 2011)

You are right, of course. There is a real downside to the information age. It's easy, far too easy, to take up banners for politcal purposes. The ends justify the means it seems for both sides of the political specturm. How often does the News get it wrong? The News correct themselves rarely and grudgingly. Mis-conceptions abound. They do interlock into roadblocks, razor wire, if you will. 

So, you don't need a conspiracy theory. It's more like a wildfire. Everyone has their cocktail party micro-world. That's what matters to most people. Have the correct opinions. Impress the correct people.

In my micro-world, in my liberal state, I can't even have the harsh conversations we have here, I'd be shouted down as a denier. Maybe a drink tossed in my face by some drunken do-gooder. When they are RIGHT, they are right. I know the base opinions of them all. Like homogenized milk. No real thought, just cozy mantra regurg.

Then I go to a conservative state where my dad lives and his micro-world is ex-military conservative. I know the base opinions of them all. Like homogenized milk. No real thought, just cozy mantra regurg. There I can't talk about equal rights or MMJ, I'd be shouted down as a fool.
Or punched up by some drunken Clan wannabe.

So, althoough the real scientists can stick to the middle of the road, for science, they still have their micro-world to go along in....to get along in..to get ahead with.


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 26, 2011)

When Mother Earth is done with us humans, she'll shake us off like the little fleas we are.........


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 26, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> When Mother Earth is done with us humans, she'll shake us off like the little fleas we are.........



_"Nature is ever at work building and pulling down, creating and destroying, keeping everything whirling and flowing, allowing no rest but in rhythmical motion, chasing everything in endless song out of one beautiful form into another."_ John Muir (1838-1914) Naturalist and explorer

​


​
...fckn screwed-up copy and pasties!


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 26, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> _"Nature is ever at work building and pulling down, creating and destroying, keeping everything whirling and flowing, allowing no rest but in rhythmical motion, chasing everything in endless song out of one beautiful form into another."_ John Muir (1838-1914) Naturalist and explorer
> 
> ​
> 
> ...


I think mine was inspired by George Carlin, pretty sure it was one of his lines


----------



## Unnk (Dec 26, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> I think mine was inspired by George Carlin, pretty sure it was one of his lines


i know the bit your talkin about

[video=youtube;eScDfYzMEEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw[/video]


----------



## canndo (Dec 27, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> When Mother Earth is done with us humans, she'll shake us off like the little fleas we are.........


No one cares about "mother earth", we care about our ability to live here, a completely different situation.


----------



## Kursed Satan (Dec 27, 2011)

so what? i live in canada and its fucking cold in the winter, so bring it on global warming


----------



## Doer (Dec 28, 2011)

Kursed Satan said:


> so what? i live in canada and its fucking cold in the winter, so bring it on global warming


You know, that's an interesting point. Because, if it is warming, there will be regiions that will certainly benefit. Canada would gain
profit from a year round Northern Passage.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 28, 2011)

Doer said:


> You know, that's an interesting point. Because, if it is warming, there will be regiions that will certainly benefit. Canada would gain
> profit from a year round Northern Passage.



...this has been a strange year in weather here. I mean, unseasonably warm. We've had other years without snow for the holidays etc... but the warmth is a bit 'off' to me.

*also makes for hellish snow roads in the north. That's the lifeline for the reserves.


----------



## canndo (Dec 28, 2011)

There is a contingent of anti's who are claiming that the warming trend halted in the late 90's - they, quite simply, are misinformed. 2010 tied for the hotest year on record.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

The next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 now that would handily make this the warmest decade.


----------



## Doer (Dec 29, 2011)

canndo said:


> There is a contingent of anti's who are claiming that the warming trend halted in the late 90's - they, quite simply, are misinformed. 2010 tied for the hotest year on record.
> 
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/
> 
> The next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 now that would handily make this the warmest decade.


Well, the BEST study found some serious problems with available datasets in general. They also found 1/3 of the stations reported cooling during the study period. 

And obviously the author of this article knows on which side his bread is buttered. The problem is GW is supposed to be a runaway negative feedback in the Cloud Effect. And closed loop feedback was discounted early, on very little evidence. It was inconvienent. The political banner was taken up and the march was on. 

But, Cloud Effect studies continued, data gathered. Later satalite data was added. When satalite data was added, the models didn't line up. More research into the Effect have shown mixed results. The more data and modeling, the more new effectors are uncovered. Now, even gravity waves have been shown to possibly affect global albedo. The CLOUD study at CERN showed even more effectors, such as the concentration of suphuric acid mist.

Now try as they might, there is only a weak negative feedback that can data corralate in some models. No one can show a corralated model of runaway negative feedback. That's hardly proof of GW, much less AGW.


----------



## canndo (Dec 29, 2011)

Doer said:


> Well, the BEST study found some serious problems with available datasets in general. They also found 1/3 of the stations reported cooling during the study period.
> 
> And obviously the author of this article knows on which side his bread is buttered. The problem is GW is supposed to be a runaway negative feedback in the Cloud Effect. And closed loop feedback was discounted early, on very little evidence. It was inconvienent. The political banner was taken up and the march was on.
> 
> ...


No one is talking about WHY it is warmer, cloud effect, changes in albedo, sunspots or whatever. I can't see where NASA would really care "which side of it's bread is buttered".


----------



## Doer (Dec 29, 2011)

canndo said:


> No one is talking about WHY it is warmer, cloud effect, changes in albedo, sunspots or whatever. I can't see where NASA would really care "which side of it's bread is buttered".


As to the author of the article, NASA staff or not, he has deliver to what NASA will accept and get paid for the butter for his bread. Most of us do that.

However, I notice the clear bias. That's the politics, though NASA, since they found ocean cooling at every depth in a 3 year study, are on the fence,
unoffically, it seems to me. 

Now to be far, he is quoting the bias of the GISS guy's buttered bread, but that's how you become a "fair" journalist. 

"If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," said James Hansen, the director of GISS.

The linkiing of these two concepts say, DONE DEAL. That's bias to quote it that way and not follow up with a "real" journalist's, "Studies continue to show a yet unproven link...", or some such.

But, "studies" have shown, one man's bias is another man's straight reporting. It depends on your bias.

And Canndo, if we don't know WHY , or even IF (questionable data integrity,) we don't know WHAT affects the atmosphere. The heat isn't going into the oceans. So, I believe we don't know why the atmosphere behave this way or that. It's the crux of what we are talking about.


----------



## canndo (Dec 29, 2011)

Doer said:


> As to the author of the article, NASA staff or not, he has deliver to what NASA will accept and get paid for the butter for his bread. Most of us do that.
> 
> .


Doer, I don't publicly lie for my employer. I wonder sometimes at those who dismiss articles or studies they don't agree with as lying in order to be paid. If that is truely the case then we can not believe anything any reporter, scientist or writer claims as they are all paid to expound on some aspect of reality. Moreover, those who so easily accuse others of lying for financial gain are often those who would indeed do it themselves. The world is not made up of the truth and those who lie about it, it is a much more complicated mix. I have stated that if we weigh lies by how much money is behind the lie the GW naysayers will lose every single time as there is far more money vested in the status quo than in any opposing viewpoint.


----------



## Doer (Dec 29, 2011)

canndo said:


> Doer, I don't publicly lie for my employer. I wonder sometimes at those who dismiss articles or studies they don't agree with as lying in order to be paid. If that is truely the case then we can not believe anything any reporter, scientist or writer claims as they are all paid to expound on some aspect of reality. Moreover, those who so easily accuse others of lying for financial gain are often those who would indeed do it themselves. The world is not made up of the truth and those who lie about it, it is a much more complicated mix. I have stated that if we weigh lies by how much money is behind the lie the GW naysayers will lose every single time as there is far more money vested in the status quo than in any opposing viewpoint.


Wow, how the bias flies. I said nothing about lying. I, therefore never implied that world is made up of the truth and those who lie about it. Nor do I then deserve the condecension of, "it is a much more complicated mix." Bias compounds bias. But, you do think we are suppose to turn in work acceptable to our
employers, right?


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 29, 2011)

Doer, I perceived canndo's response as to the point. When you say "turn in work acceptable to one's employer", the immediate/obvious way for me to interpret that is: when there is a conflict between an emerging apparent fact and established doctrine in alignment with the employer's policies, whatever they may be ... the requirement is to go with policy and not truth. No conflict? No issue. If you mean something otherwise ... imo it becomes incumbent on you to be quite clear about what you mean. Instead you chose to lambaste canndo for what I see as a completely honest interpretation of your post. So ... before I give in to the temptation to disagree with you on how I am reading your posts, why don't you tell us ... what do you really mean? cn


----------



## Doer (Dec 30, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Doer, I perceived canndo's response as to the point. When you say "turn in work acceptable to one's employer", the immediate/obvious way for me to interpret that is: when there is a conflict between an emerging apparent fact and established doctrine in alignment with the employer's policies, whatever they may be ... the requirement is to go with policy and not truth. No conflict? No issue. If you mean something otherwise ... imo it becomes incumbent on you to be quite clear about what you mean. Instead you chose to lambaste canndo for what I see as a completely honest interpretation of your post. So ... before I give in to the temptation to disagree with you on how I am reading your posts, why don't you tell us ... what do you really mean? cn


Lambaste??? What is going on here? I mention journalistic bias and foilks act like that doesn't ever happen. It's just a side track. I never said lying. How can piutting charged words in my mouth be "a completely honest interpretation." Let's drop it. No one seems prepared to discuss editorial policies. What is truth? You act only truth is reported. Of, course, in every professional journalistic endevour, there is a review. And of course, the requirement is go with policy. It's not lying, it's bias. It's editorial. Get it? Edit? It's the grand tradition of freedom of the press. Nothing wrong with it. It's only incorrect if we forget.

Side track. The isssue is HOW the atmosphere behaves. WHAT are the effectors? WHY do it do what it do? Questionable dataset make make for historical insignificance. Cloud Effect is still unknown for HOW, WHAT and WHY.


----------



## canndo (Dec 30, 2011)

Doer said:


> Wow, how the bias flies. I said nothing about lying. I, therefore never implied that world is made up of the truth and those who lie about it. Nor do I then deserve the condecension of, "it is a much more complicated mix." Bias compounds bias. But, you do think we are suppose to turn in work acceptable to our
> employers, right?


"As to the author of the article, NASA staff or not, he has deliver to what NASA will accept and get paid for the butter for his bread. Most of us do that." - Shall we examine the bounds of "acceptable to his employer"? I doubt you are talking about margin width or elements of style. Either the data indicates that the earth is warming, or it does not. Should an employer expect a particular response in spite of the data, that would likely be suborning untruth or lying. I suspect but do not know, that NASA and most scientific organizations expect the truth, without bias. There are many scientists who would not work for any organization that does othewise.


----------



## Doer (Dec 30, 2011)

My bad for bringing in a discussion on bias. There are a lot of sublties regarding editorial policy in action. Stance projection is an arcane art that has nothiing to do with truth or lies. It's stance. 

But, let's stick to the point about Cloud Effect and WHY the atmosphere behaves as it does. In other words, we don't know, right? 

We are still calmly studying it.


----------



## canndo (Dec 30, 2011)

Doer said:


> My bad for bringing in a discussion on bias. There are a lot of sublties regarding editorial policy in action. Stance projection is an arcane art that has nothiing to do with truth or lies. It's stance.
> 
> But, let's stick to the point about Cloud Effect and WHY the atmosphere behaves as it does. In other words, we don't know, right?
> 
> We are still calmly studying it.



I have done some looking into this cloud effect and there are some who maintain that this effect is not self regulating because water vapor is a green house gas. More clouds means more water vapor in the atmosphere and thus more trapped heat, the change in albedo from cloud cover may not be enough to overcome this effect. Furthermore, if you are dealing with essential albedo, then the loss of polar and other ice can also offset the cloud cover. Now there are others who claim that the cloud effect is the cause of global warming - this seems akin to those who claim that co2 increases follow warming rather then preceeding it.

http://www.prwatch.org/spin/2011/08/10943/study-about-clouds-effect-global-warming-debunked


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611184722.htm

(by the way, stance has nothing to do with data)

We know as much as we need to know currently to see that our climate is warming. We know for a fact that Co2 is increasing and has increased over the period of time we as humans have been burning fossil fuels. We know what the composition of the atmosphere was long before we started measuring it directly and we can surmise what the mean temperatures were several millions of years ago down to the present. This is all data and this data tends to support the notion that our climate is warming, and man has a major part to play in that warming. Some can argue that other mechanisms play a part but that is irrelevent. classicaly, global warming deniers fall into several categories - formost are the ones who are not schooled in climatology but happen to have a phd in some other field. There are others who, like creationists, do not contribute to the debate with their own research but rely on poking holes in other's research as though if they can prove other's findings false, their own hypothisis must be true - false logic and lazy science. Finally there are the incremental deniers. Their reasoning is far fetched. "there is no global warming, and if there is, man didn't do it, and if he did, we can do nothing about it anyway so why try" this approach is so full of logical falsehoods that it is tough to know where to start but the point is that we can tell simply by that incrementalism that they have an ideological basis for their opinion that has nothing to do with the findings of genuine science.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 30, 2011)

Canndo ... afaik the ice-core data show a lag of hundreds of years between global temperature (isotopic) and atmospheric pCO2. This datum is key to keeping me "on the fence" in re AGW. You're suggesting it has been debunked. I would appreciate a link if so ... cn


----------



## Unnk (Dec 31, 2011)

lol its a logical false hood to take the agnostic stance?


choosing to say we dont know is actually a better choice then just agreeing wildley to the bilion of theory's out there


and canndo i was school in climatology infact my school was one of the first use doppler for research


now that said....


my choise in saying that we dont know and may not know isnt logical falsehood 

its logical deduction that if theres amillion A's that could have caused B

Then B could be about because of one A or the combination of some the A's

by a's i mean theorys

\


----------



## canndo (Dec 31, 2011)

Unnk said:


> lol its a logical false hood to take the agnostic stance?
> 
> 
> choosing to say we dont know is actually a better choice then just agreeing wildley to the bilion of theory's out there
> ...


Note that I didn't say that, I said incrementalism is not logicaly sound - if for no other reason than it is inherently based upon the presumption that man is exempt from the mechanism.


----------



## Doer (Dec 31, 2011)

Yes, yes. It still skirts the issue. The side that has decided, has decided to excoricate, label and be-little and marginalize those that say we don't know. Such an attitude.

That's very obvious in these threads. If we as much as question the other sides fervent belief that the earth is warming, we are treated like cults have treated non-believers throughout history. If it was just scientific debate, no one would be sending out survey for consensus. That is simply creating momentum behind a global political agenda.

So, I see a lot of duck dodge and weave, But still, there is a difference of professional opinion about the parameters and strengths of various Cloud Effects and we could easily be in the last of the inter-Ice Age warming cycle. Ice is a big part of cloud effect. Water vapor is the largest component, by far of the atmosphere that could be called a "greenhouse gas.' But, you realize, even that term is not proven. There are only conjectures as to what gasses could cause the greenhouse effect and nothing is known about how Cloud Effect could mitigate that and be a closed loop system in the long run.

I too would like to see more about the CO2 cycles and warming cycles. I don't think we can so easily dismiss this point..


----------



## cannofbliss (Dec 31, 2011)

the short answer would be climates will change in order to achieve equilibrium...


----------



## canndo (Jan 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> Yes, yes. It still skirts the issue. The side that has decided, has decided to excoricate, label and be-little and marginalize those that say we don't know. Such an attitude.
> 
> That's very obvious in these threads. If we as much as question the other sides fervent belief that the earth is warming, we are treated like cults have treated non-believers throughout history. If it was just scientific debate, no one would be sending out survey for consensus. That is simply creating momentum behind a global political agenda.
> 
> ..



If you follow the history of the debate itself you will encounter organizations such as the now dismantled Global Climate Coalition. This group of prominant energy producers and car manufacturers used the "pioneering" methods of the cigarette manufactures in it's stated purpose of "introducing doubt" into the "debate" about global warming just as the cigarette manufacturers instilled doubt about the detrimental effects of cigarettes. This purposeful churning of scientific findings held the findings and facts about the dangers of cigarettes at bay for 10 years or more until medical evidence was finally overwhelming. What you claim is the global political agenda was initiated by those with perceptions that they had the most to lose - energy producers and auto manufacturers. They knew full well that casting doubt into an otherwise purely scientific debate would result in a political storm that would inhibit reasonable discourse and give them many more years of the status quo.


----------



## canndo (Jan 3, 2012)

cannofbliss said:


> the short answer would be climates will change in order to achieve equilibrium...


Indeed, in order to achieve that equilbrium in response to man made pressure. Eventually even that equilibrium breaks down after a tipping point event such as melting permafrost or co2 saturation of the oceans which now serve as a carbon sink to name but two.


----------



## Doer (Jan 3, 2012)

Dire predictions indeed. Sea levels rise 3-4 feet. All world gov't must unite. Also:

Greenland and vast areas of the Antartic peninsula become nicer.
Canada China, and Russia get all weather ports
A surpurb trade short-cut happens for the NorHemi, The NorthWest Passage

Equalibrium is established just in time as the new global conflicts heat up between
the North and South hemi concerning cross-equtorial polution.

We live here. And I belive the heart of this WORRY is group guilt in the
Judeo culture. eye-e posted a great quote over in the Gnostic thread.

I also believe in a very Eastern concept. "Everything, always works out for the best."
Of course, there are tangled karma threads to get to "always."

If there is GW or even (gasp) AGW, then perhaps only our excess heat and CO2 production
will save civilization from the coming Ice Age. I believe that cycle is well established.

No worries and nothing to get shook about in any case.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> and nothing to get shook about



...strawberry-ish fields forever


----------



## Doer (Jan 4, 2012)

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn't matter much to me.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
> It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
> It doesn't matter much to me.


...not too bad


----------



## Weedasaurus (Jan 12, 2012)

climate change sucks.


----------



## Brick Top (Jan 12, 2012)

Weedasaurus said:


> climate change sucks.


So does "Jason, "Freddie" and The Bogyman, but luckily just like the re-badged Anthropological Global Warming, now called "climate change," "Jason, "Freddie" and "The Bogyman" don't exist either.


----------



## canndo (Jan 12, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> So does "Jason, "Freddie" and The Bogyman, but luckily just like the re-badged Anthropological Global Warming, now called "climate change," "Jason, "Freddie" and "The Bogyman" don't exist either.



Except that no serious body of scientists maintains that Jason, Freddie or the Boogyman do exist. Follow the money, the big money is behind the nay sayers.


----------



## Doer (Jan 24, 2012)

canndo said:


> Except that no serious body of scientists maintains that Jason, Freddie or the Boogyman do exist. Follow the money, the big money is behind the nay sayers.


How can you believe big money is not behind the cult, also? It's a big money, global federalism play. The smart money is wait and see.


----------



## Doer (Sep 20, 2012)

And of course, it is no longer scientific debate. It is strong arm and ridicule of any contra research to the DONE DEAL. I'm sure the turd wars will go on, while the real research continues into Cloud Effect. But, broad avenue of investigation have already been co opted. 

Paleo-everything is currently polluted, imo. IAC, the world is cooling, significantly because of Cloud Effect. And alas, it gets harder to track down the peer review. It's being hidden by the popular press turd. NPR is a slimy contributor. So, just the Forbes article for now. Still digging.

The ice sheets are growing as many glaciers are gaining mass even as the pin up girl glaciers are losing and the the Wonder will be there may be a Northern passage but no Southern one if the Antarctica ice merges up to Terra Del Feugo.

It is quite possible that all this Ice mass swaps around. We just have not been observing that long or well and the datasets are No Good.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" &#8211; Richard Feynman (meaning that the current Understand is always under scientific assault)


Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
----------------------------------------


"NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012." 

Bad science tries to fit the result to the agenda. That's why it is bad. And when it is contrived and shouted about, it's really BAD. 

A simple clue, I think.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 20, 2012)

*BUDS said:


> 97% of world climate scientists say it does exist and is getting worse, 3% (on the payroll of oil,coal co. etc)say there is no global warming. I dont know where you get this 1/3 bullshit. Also just a Q, do you know more about climate change than the scientists?


no, thats incorrect. 

climatologists (people who actually study the climate and it's changes over time) are NOT arguing for "man made climate change" they are in fact split on the issue with some arguing that it's POSSIBLE that human action is effecting the global climate, while others dismiss the idea as poppycock since we are still on an upswing from a minor glaciation 1200 years ago. 

the earth has been MUCH warmer, and MUch cooler in the past all without any help from man, so most climatologists are arguing that we need more research (and more grants) while the 5 quadrillion assholes who couldnt tell an ice core from an otter pop that have jumped on the climate bandwagon chirp and fret about the need for more funding and research (in their dubious specialties of course) to determine the effects of global warming on the migratory and mating habits of the english ground squirrel, and the "increase" in summer glacial melt in northern polar regions. 

protip: glaciations happen in one hemisphere then the other, as a result of axial wobble, not the cookfires of primitive hominnids in the Ngorro Ngorro valley. when we have an ice age up here in the northern hemisphere they have a heatwave in the south, and vice versa.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 20, 2012)

Doer said:


> And of course, it is no longer scientific debate. It is strong arm and ridicule of any contra research to the DONE DEAL. I'm sure the turd wars will go on, while the real research continues into Cloud Effect. But, broad avenue of investigation have already been co opted.
> 
> Paleo-everything is currently polluted, imo. IAC, the world is cooling, significantly because of Cloud Effect. And alas, it gets harder to track down the peer review. It's being hidden by the popular press turd. NPR is a slimy contributor. So, just the Forbes article for now. Still digging.
> 
> ...


Sea ice is thin ... much area, little volume. It has very little to do with the grounded, thick icecaps and glaciers. They're the ones to watch, and shelf ice (land ice that has made it to deep water) has been having a bad few decades. cn


----------



## Doer (Sep 20, 2012)

Oh the mass, sure. But, the albedo. The Cloud Effect. And as the good Dr. K has pointed out, the hemispheric heat pump, swap cycles are barely known. Tied to wobble, sure, the Sun? Sure. Gravity waves in upper cloud decks, maybe.

Cloud Effect is the mechanism. And it is very reassuring that the sea ice is spreading albedo and not golloping mass. That would mean the oceans are <gulp> cooling. At the air/water interface, it's closed loop, it seems.

The entire satellite dataset began only 30 years ago and is a square peg. Now, we need the square hole, as it were.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Sep 28, 2012)

Doer said:


> Oh the mass, sure. But, the albedo. The Cloud Effect. And as the good Dr. K has pointed out, the hemispheric heat pump, swap cycles are barely known. Tied to wobble, sure, the Sun? Sure. Gravity waves in upper cloud decks, maybe.
> 
> Cloud Effect is the mechanism. And it is very reassuring that the sea ice is spreading albedo and not golloping mass. That would mean the oceans are <gulp> cooling. At the air/water interface, it's closed loop, it seems.
> 
> The entire satellite dataset began only 30 years ago and is a square peg. Now, we need the square hole, as it were.


you forgot to mention that over the last 8 years the mean surface temp on mars is up by just under 2 degrees F! we must reduce carbon emissions to stop *Anthropogenic Extraterrestrial Climate Change!*


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 28, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> you forgot to mention that over the last 8 years the mean surface temp on mars is up by just under 2 degrees F! we must reduce carbon emissions to stop *Anthropogenic Extraterrestrial Climate Change!*


Right, because even if that was true, the cause of change in Mars surface temperatures is exactly the same reason the Earth's change... 

Do any of these supposed changes on Mars take into account the eccentric orbit of Mars or the albedo of the surface?


----------



## Doer (Sep 29, 2012)

Me! Me. I do. A very, Round stable orbit is lacking for Mars. Also, Mars lost it's molten iron core. (Well sir, there's your problem, right there) Smaller and less dense than Earth, it could not hold on to it's bio-sphere. It doesn't have that big moon to drag tidal heating constantly around the planet.

No liquid core, then no magnetic field, space weather strips the upper atmosphere. The lower and lower pressure from atmospheric loss leads to sublimation of water into vapor and the radiation sterilizes the surface. Open loop.

The only way to terra-form Mars, IMO is to bring an appropriate mass into Orbit to heat it, first. This is not mainstream. But, I am familiar with the other proposals. None have solved this, Even in the epic work, Red Mars, they did not solve this one. Oh, they dug giant deep holes to release the higher temps in the crust to the atmosphere.

But, if you don't heat the core, that is a dead end.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> Me! Me. I do. A very, Round stable orbit is lacking for Mars. Also, Mars lost it's molten iron core. (Well sir, there's your problem, right there) Smaller and less dense than Earth, it could not hold on to it's bio-sphere. It doesn't have that big moon to drag tidal heating constantly around the planet.
> 
> No liquid core, then no magnetic field, space weather strips the upper atmosphere. The lower and lower pressure from atmospheric loss leads to sublimation of water into vapor and the radiation sterilizes the surface. Open loop.
> 
> ...


 in Mining the Oort, and Birth of Fire the premise was to bring water as ice from the outer solar system to add a thermal vault to the planet so it could save the heat it does receive from the sun. this seemed fairly sensible as the oceans of earth really do a bangup job of moderating temps down here. 

but then we may just need to bring a team of twenty of so pyromancers to mars and have them work a few major incantations to up the FUL levels on the planet to balance it's abundant YA. once you got that down its simple alchemy and you got some real shit going down on the red planet. 

also, we need more homunculi. i ate the last one.


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

Luddite. (and a few more characters)


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> Luddite. (and a few more characters)


im not a luddite. 

im a NEO-LUDDITE! i like to keep that shit on the fresh tip with shiny new things to hate when i light the factory on fire. 

except now it's an i-Pod mill, or a Microsoft prison workhouse. 

gotta stay current or your Luddism fails. 

or does it...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

lol this is one big thread of circle jerking by deniers


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

OK ,what are we in denial of, this time?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> OK ,what are we in denial of, this time?


the vast majority of scientific journals on this

but i dont doubt your ability to cherry pick the ones you like


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> the vast majority of scientific journals on this
> 
> but i dont doubt your ability to cherry pick the ones you like


so it's science by consensus? 

does everybody get a vote, or only those who publish in journals approved by you? 

when you can explain how man made global warming is effecting the climate on mars then maybe ill listen to your theory on how humans are responsible for the current glacial retreat thats been going on since 800ad.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> so it's science by consensus?
> 
> does everybody get a vote, or only those who publish in journals approved by you?
> 
> when you can explain how man made global warming is effecting the climate on mars then maybe ill listen to your theory on how humans are responsible for the current glacial retreat thats been going on since 800ad.


no its science by evidence and peer review you side is very lacking in that regard

mars is not earth it has no atmosphere, no moon (to keep a steady precession) a different orbit and the pretence that we have an accurate temperature on mars but are unable to do the same for earth with all the measurements we're undertaking speaks volumes about the straws your grasping at


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> no its science by evidence and peer review you side is very lacking in that regard
> 
> mars is not earth it has no atmosphere, no moon (to keep a steady precession) a different orbit and the pretence that we have an accurate temperature on mars but are unable to do the same for earth with all the measurements we're undertaking speaks volumes about the straws your grasping at


mars DOES have an atmosphere, and it has TWO moons. we actually have excellent temperature readings on mars, due to the global surveyor, several probes, and even a few rovers. 

mars does have a different orbit. obviously. if it had the same orbit we would be fucked by *Anthropogenic Global Impact Warming. *

this does not change the fact that the earth's northern hemisphere has been undergoing a glacial retreat since a glacial peak around 800ad (when greenland stopped being green) while the southern hemisphere is experiencing an increase in glaciation. 

meanwhile the increase in temps on mars are likewise the result of 

variations in solar energy output from the maunder cycle. 
variations in the orbit of mars (earth wanders and wobbles a bit too, just not quite as much) 
a constant and measurable process of cooling and warming based on the interactions of the various forces at play, the greatest of them being the sun. 

here on earth we add in:

volcanic disturbances
biological action sequestering or releasing energy into the environment
human activity
human hubris
human gullibility
human greed
human stupidity
human credulity
human egos
al gore's constant lies and exaggerations
and the tyranny of orthodoxy. 

so in a way youre right, most of the "climate change" is being driven by people, but its the HYPE they are driving, not the facts. "climate change" as a concept, as far as anyone has proven yet, is solely a product of human creation, and has no basis in reality or the physical universe.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> mars DOES have a negligible atmosphere, and it has TWO tiny moons/captured asteroids. we actually have excellent temperature readings on mars, due to the global surveyor, several probes, and even a few rovers. as compared to our many satellites and ground based weather stations


so how much historic data do we have on mars?


> mars does have a different orbit. obviously. if it had the same orbit we would be fucked by *Anthropogenic Global Impact Warming. *
> 
> 
> > theres room in this orbit for more than earth although i was never suggesting that it should be on earths orbit (lovely strawman you got there)
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 1, 2012)

More bullshit from someone that obviously is using the title "Doctor" as irony or maybe just an honorarium. Your beliefs are counter to what actual scientists have measured, you know the ones that go out into the field and actually measure shit like ice core samples rather than rely on internet rumor and innuendo to support their theories. 
Greenland used to be green in 800 AD? LOL! Where did you come up with this gem?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> More bullshit from someone that obviously is using the title "Doctor" as irony or maybe just an honorarium. Your beliefs are counter to what actual scientists have measured, you know the ones that go out into the field and actually measure shit like ice core samples rather than rely on internet rumor and innuendo to support their theories.
> Greenland used to be green in 800 AD? LOL! Where did you come up with this gem?


the norse setlements on greenland were doing great until the mini iceage which peaked around 800 ad in the northern hemisphere. this was the cooling that occurred BEFORE the medieval warm period. and yes, before 800 ad-ish greenland was quite habitable. before it froze over. it was called Thule on maps, which for hundreds of years were regarded as fanciful imaginings. till greenland was "rediscovered" by europeans. 

this increased glaciation is what drove the visigoths down from the north around 400 ad-ish to cause so many problems fro imperial rome. reports from contemporary authors indicate that the visigoths had been migrating south for some time, ahead of advancing snows and cold winters looking for a warmer place to live. 

and let us not forget that after the medieval warm period dark ages monks recorded their failed attempts to invoke jesus to stop the advancing glaciers in switzerland, scandinavia and other areas of europe with glacial problems.

the climate has, does and will continue to cycle. 
determining if human emissions play a part in accelerating these changes, and whether or not this is a good thing remains to be determined.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> the norse setlements on greenland were doing great until the mini iceage which peaked around 800 ad in the northern hemisphere. this was the cooling that occurred BEFORE the medieval warm period. and yes, before 800 ad-ish greenland was quite habitable. before it froze over. it was called Thule on maps, which for hundreds of years were regarded as fanciful imaginings. till greenland was "rediscovered" by europeans.
> 
> this increased glaciation is what drove the visigoths down from the north around 400 ad-ish to cause so many problems fro imperial rome. reports from contemporary authors indicate that the visigoths had been migrating south for some time, ahead of advancing snows and cold winters looking for a warmer place to live.
> 
> ...


so many words yet so little evidence... sing it again but this time make it seem like you mean it
"The Medieval Warm Period was not as uniformly warm as we once thought&#8212;we can start calling it the Medieval Period again," said the study's lead author, William D'Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Our record indicates that recent summer temperatures on Svalbard are greater than even the warmest periods at that time."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-09-high-arctic-tops-year-high.html#jCp


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> the vast majority of scientific journals on this
> 
> but i dont doubt your ability to cherry pick the ones you like


Well, do you know what a Parmisian Shot is? It ain't cherries.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> Well, do you know what a Parmisian Shot is? It ain't cherries.


translation = "quick look that way"


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> so many words yet so little evidence... sing it again but this time make it seem like you mean it
> "The Medieval Warm Period was not as uniformly warm as we once thought&#8212;we can start calling it the Medieval Period again," said the study's lead author, William D'Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Our record indicates that recent summer temperatures on Svalbard are greater than even the warmest periods at that time."
> 
> Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-09-high-arctic-tops-year-high.html#jCp


well weather done changed! stop the presses! 

you suffer from the normalcy bias. im old enough to remember when these same assholes were predicting the coming doom by iceages, and we would all have to move down to mexico or freeze. in some cases its EXACTLY THE SAME DUDES! using the same "data" to prove opposite results. 

maybe you missed the gist of what i am saying so ill use BIG WORDS!

Last glacial advance ended around 1300 ad. we have had a warming trend since then IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE!

Most reputable actual climatologists with degrees in climatology not ethno-botany or women's studies agree that the trend should continue for another 20-40 years, maybe even 100 years before it peaks, and begins to once again get cooler up here in the northern hemisphere. 

meanwhile the exact same trend will occur in the southern hemisphere but in the opposite direction. 

this all presumes to occur WITHOUT any human influence since this cycle has occurred since long before the industrial revolution, and some ice cores show it occurred while dinosaurs roamed the earth and we still lived in caves with baby mammoth vacuum cleaners.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> well weather done changed! stop the presses!
> 
> you suffer from the normalcy bias. im old enough to remember when these same assholes were predicting the coming doom by iceages, and we would all have to move down to mexico or freeze. in some cases its EXACTLY THE SAME DUDES! using the same "data" to prove opposite results.
> 
> ...


whats that?
a wall of text with zero evidence to back it up?
yeah you're still full of shit


----------



## Doer (Oct 1, 2012)

Are you familiar with the Pollyanna Shot? Where you have to end everything with a gratuitous insult?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> Are you familiar with the Pollyanna Shot? Where you have to end everything with a gratuitous insult?


translation = "look over there"

if you have something to say about something why dont you just say it? preferably with evidence

i thought you set the tone of the thread very well at the beginning


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> the norse setlements on greenland were doing great until the mini iceage which peaked around 800 ad in the northern hemisphere. this was the cooling that occurred BEFORE the medieval warm period. and yes, before 800 ad-ish greenland was quite habitable. before it froze over. it was called Thule on maps, which for hundreds of years were regarded as fanciful imaginings. till greenland was "rediscovered" by europeans.
> 
> this increased glaciation is what drove the visigoths down from the north around 400 ad-ish to cause so many problems fro imperial rome. reports from contemporary authors indicate that the visigoths had been migrating south for some time, ahead of advancing snows and cold winters looking for a warmer place to live.
> 
> ...


Where's your evidence? Just making claims without citations again I see. How about if you present evidence that Greenland was not covered in an ice sheet since I'm inclined to believe the experts that have studied this, especially the paleoarcheologists that demonstrate it is over 100,000 years old by multiple methodologies.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> whats that?
> a wall of text with zero evidence to back it up?
> yeah you're still full of shit


that was a wall of text? 

i guess this is just TLDR. 

sorry youre so intellectually lazy.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> that was a wall of text?
> 
> i guess this is just TLDR.
> 
> sorry youre so intellectually lazy.


[h=1]"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
[/h]for all your bravado i didnt realise you were that naive


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Where's your evidence? Just making claims without citations again I see. How about if you present evidence that Greenland was not covered in an ice sheet since I'm inclined to believe the experts that have studied this, especially the paleoarcheologists that demonstrate it is over 100,000 years old by multiple methodologies.




yes, once upon a tiime greenland was green and NOT covered by ice. the norse had several settlements there, including the inland valleys (now under massive ice sheets, but 1000+ years in the cooler will do that) 

and in that distant time greenland was called Thule. it was on maps used by the greeks the romans, and the cartheginians. 

Strabo in his _Geography_ (c. 30), Book I, Chapter 4, mentions Thule in describing Eratosthenes' calculation of "the breadth of the inhabited world" and notes that Pytheas says it "is a six days' sail north of Britain, and is near the frozen sea." But he then doubts this claim, writing that Pytheas has "been found, upon scrutiny, to be an arch falsifier, but the men who have seen Britain and Ierne (Ireland) do not mention Thule, though they speak of other islands, small ones, about Britain." Strabo adds the following in Book II, Chapter 5:
Now Pytheas of Massilia tells us that Thule, the most northerly of the Britannic Islands, is farthest north, and that there the circle of the summer tropic is the same as the Arctic Circle. But from the other writers I learn nothing on the subject&#8212;neither that there exists a certain island by the name of Thule, nor whether the northern regions are inhabitable up to the point where the summer tropic becomes the Arctic Circle.​ Strabo ultimately concludes, in Book IV, Chapter 5, "Concerning Thule, our historical information is still more uncertain, on account of its outside position; for Thule, of all the countries that are named, is set farthest north."







*Ancient Greeks had a legend of Hyperborea, a land of perpetual sun beyond the &#8220;north wind.&#8221; Hecataeus (c. 500 BC) says that the holy place of the Hyperboreans, which was built &#8220;after the pattern of the spheres,&#8221; which lay &#8220;in the regions beyond the land of the Celts&#8221; on &#8220;an island in the ocean&#8221; believed to be Thule.
*
 

*In 330 B.C., Greek explorer Pytheas of Massalia, while sailing the North Atlantic, discovered what he believed to be Thule. His book About the Oceans gave an account of the journey, but it remains lost.
.
*
*Cleomedes referenced Pytheas&#8217; journey to Thule, but added no new information.
.*
*Virgil, c. 37 B.C., coined the term Ultima Thule (Georgics, 1. 30) meaning &#8220;farthest land&#8221; as a symbolic reference to denote a far-off land or an unattainable goal.
.
*
*In the 1st century B.C., Greek astronomer Geminus of Rhodes claimed that the etymology of Thule came from an archaic word for the polar night phenomenon &#8211; &#8220;the place where the sun goes to rest&#8221;.
.
*
*Dionysius Periegetes in his De situ habitabilis orbis also touched upon the subject, as did Martianus Capella.
.
*
*Roman historian Tacitus, in his 98 A.D. book chronicling the life of his father-in-law, Agricola, describes how the Romans knew that Britain (which Agricola was commander of) was an island. He writes of a Roman ship that circumnavigated Britain, and discovered the Orkney Islands and says the ship&#8217;s crew even sighted Thule. However their orders were not to explore there, as winter was at hand.
.*
*A novel in Greek by Antonius Diogenes entitled The Wonders Beyond Thule appeared c. A.D. 150 or earlier. **Gerald N. Sandy, in the introduction to his translation of Photius&#8217; 9th-century summary of The Wonders Beyond Thule, surmises that Thule was &#8220;probably Iceland.&#8221;
.*
*Latin grammarian Gaius Julius Solinus in the 3rd century A.D., wrote in his Polyhistor that Thule was a 5 days sail from Orkney:*
&#8230;Thule, which was distant from Orkney by a voyage of five days and nights, was fruitful and abundant in the lasting yield of its crops.
&#8230;Ab Orcadibus Thylen usque dierum ac noctium navigatio est; sed Thyle larga et diutina Pomona copiosa est.
​
 

*In the 4th century A.D., Avienus in his Ora Maritima** added that during the summer on Thule night lasted only two hours, a clear reference to the midnight sun.
*
 

*The 4th century Virgilian commentator Servius also believed that Thule sat close by to the Orkney Islands:*
&#8230;Thule; an island in the Ocean between the northern and western zone, beyond Britain, near the Orkneys and Ireland; in this way Thule is with the sun in Cancer, in perpetual daylight without night, it is said.
&#8230;Thule; insula est Oceani inter septemtrionalem et occidentalem plagam, ultra Britanniam, iuxta Orcades et Hiberniam; in hac Thule cum sol in Cancro est, perpetui dies sine noctibus dicuntur&#8230;
​
 

*Early in the fifth century A.D., Claudian, in his poem, On the Fourth Consulship of the Emperor Honorius, Book VIII, rhapsodizes on the conquests of the emperor Theodosius I, declaring that the &#8220;Orcades [Orkney Islands] ran red with Saxon slaughter; Thule was warm with the blood of Picts; ice-bound Hibernia [Ireland] wept for the heaps of slain Scots.&#8221; This implies that Thule was Scotland. But in Against Rufinias, the Second Poem, Claudian writes of &#8220;Thule lying icebound beneath the pole-star.&#8221;
.*
*The known world came to be viewed as bounded in the east by India and in the west by Thule, as expressed in the Consolation of Philosophy (c. A.D. 524) by Boethius.*&#8230;
&#8230;For though the earth, as far as India&#8217;s shore, tremble before the laws you give, though Thule bow to your service on earth&#8217;s farthest bounds, yet if thou canst not drive away black cares, if thou canst not put to flight complaints, then is no true power thine.​
 

*In 551 A.D. Jordanes, in his Getica wrote that Thule sat under the pole-star.
.*
*Seneca the Younger wrote of a day when new lands will be discovered past Thule. This was later quoted widely in the context of Christopher Columbus&#8217; discovery of America:*
&#8230;There will come an age in the far-off years when Ocean shall unloose the bonds of things, when the whole broad earth shall be revealed, when Tethys shall disclose new worlds and Thule not be the limit of the lands.
&#8230;Venient annis saecula seris, quibus Oceanus vincula rerum laxet et ingens pateat tellus Tethysque novos detegat orbes nec sit terris ultima Thule..

​

b8ut yeahh im just blowin smoke, i really dont know shit since im not a mathlete and dont have a phd behind my name. and since you obviously cant recognize a reference from literature in my nome du plume, p[erhaps you should re-evaluate you declarations as to who may or may not be ignorant. 

you may bow begin criiticising my typing, spelling and grammar.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Where's your evidence? Just making claims without citations again I see. How about if you present evidence that Greenland was not covered in an ice sheet since I'm inclined to believe the experts that have studied this, especially the paleoarcheologists that demonstrate it is over 100,000 years old by multiple methodologies.


View attachment 2357410

yes, once upon a tiime greenland was green and NOT covered by ice. the norse had several settlements there, including the inland valleys (now under massive ice sheets, but 1000+ years in the cooler will do that) 

and in that distant time greenland was called Thule. it was on maps used by the greeks the romans, and the cartheginians. 

Strabo in his _Geography_ (c. 30), Book I, Chapter 4, mentions Thule in describing Eratosthenes' calculation of "the breadth of the inhabited world" and notes that Pytheas says it "is a six days' sail north of Britain, and is near the frozen sea." But he then doubts this claim, writing that Pytheas has "been found, upon scrutiny, to be an arch falsifier, but the men who have seen Britain and Ierne (Ireland) do not mention Thule, though they speak of other islands, small ones, about Britain." Strabo adds the following in Book II, Chapter 5:
Now Pytheas of Massilia tells us that Thule, the most northerly of the Britannic Islands, is farthest north, and that there the circle of the summer tropic is the same as the Arctic Circle. But from the other writers I learn nothing on the subjectneither that there exists a certain island by the name of Thule, nor whether the northern regions are inhabitable up to the point where the summer tropic becomes the Arctic Circle.​ Strabo ultimately concludes, in Book IV, Chapter 5, "Concerning Thule, our historical information is still more uncertain, on account of its outside position; for Thule, of all the countries that are named, is set farthest north."







*Ancient Greeks had a legend of Hyperborea, a land of perpetual sun beyond the north wind. Hecataeus (c. 500 BC) says that the holy place of the Hyperboreans, which was built after the pattern of the spheres, which lay in the regions beyond the land of the Celts on an island in the ocean believed to be Thule.
*
 

*In 330 B.C., Greek explorer Pytheas of Massalia, while sailing the North Atlantic, discovered what he believed to be Thule. His book About the Oceans gave an account of the journey, but it remains lost.
.
*
*Cleomedes referenced Pytheas journey to Thule, but added no new information.
.*
*Virgil, c. 37 B.C., coined the term Ultima Thule (Georgics, 1. 30) meaning farthest land as a symbolic reference to denote a far-off land or an unattainable goal.
.
*
*In the 1st century B.C., Greek astronomer Geminus of Rhodes claimed that the etymology of Thule came from an archaic word for the polar night phenomenon  the place where the sun goes to rest.
.
*
*Dionysius Periegetes in his De situ habitabilis orbis also touched upon the subject, as did Martianus Capella.
.
*
*Roman historian Tacitus, in his 98 A.D. book chronicling the life of his father-in-law, Agricola, describes how the Romans knew that Britain (which Agricola was commander of) was an island. He writes of a Roman ship that circumnavigated Britain, and discovered the Orkney Islands and says the ships crew even sighted Thule. However their orders were not to explore there, as winter was at hand.
.*
*A novel in Greek by Antonius Diogenes entitled The Wonders Beyond Thule appeared c. A.D. 150 or earlier. **Gerald N. Sandy, in the introduction to his translation of Photius 9th-century summary of The Wonders Beyond Thule, surmises that Thule was probably Iceland.
.*
*Latin grammarian Gaius Julius Solinus in the 3rd century A.D., wrote in his Polyhistor that Thule was a 5 days sail from Orkney:*
Thule, which was distant from Orkney by a voyage of five days and nights, was fruitful and abundant in the lasting yield of its crops.
Ab Orcadibus Thylen usque dierum ac noctium navigatio est; sed Thyle larga et diutina Pomona copiosa est.
​
 

*In the 4th century A.D., Avienus in his Ora Maritima** added that during the summer on Thule night lasted only two hours, a clear reference to the midnight sun.
*
 

*The 4th century Virgilian commentator Servius also believed that Thule sat close by to the Orkney Islands:*
Thule; an island in the Ocean between the northern and western zone, beyond Britain, near the Orkneys and Ireland; in this way Thule is with the sun in Cancer, in perpetual daylight without night, it is said.
Thule; insula est Oceani inter septemtrionalem et occidentalem plagam, ultra Britanniam, iuxta Orcades et Hiberniam; in hac Thule cum sol in Cancro est, perpetui dies sine noctibus dicuntur
​
 

*Early in the fifth century A.D., Claudian, in his poem, On the Fourth Consulship of the Emperor Honorius, Book VIII, rhapsodizes on the conquests of the emperor Theodosius I, declaring that the Orcades [Orkney Islands] ran red with Saxon slaughter; Thule was warm with the blood of Picts; ice-bound Hibernia [Ireland] wept for the heaps of slain Scots. This implies that Thule was Scotland. But in Against Rufinias, the Second Poem, Claudian writes of Thule lying icebound beneath the pole-star.
.*
*The known world came to be viewed as bounded in the east by India and in the west by Thule, as expressed in the Consolation of Philosophy (c. A.D. 524) by Boethius.*
For though the earth, as far as Indias shore, tremble before the laws you give, though Thule bow to your service on earths farthest bounds, yet if thou canst not drive away black cares, if thou canst not put to flight complaints, then is no true power thine.​
 

*In 551 A.D. Jordanes, in his Getica wrote that Thule sat under the pole-star.
.*
*Seneca the Younger wrote of a day when new lands will be discovered past Thule. This was later quoted widely in the context of Christopher Columbus discovery of America:*
There will come an age in the far-off years when Ocean shall unloose the bonds of things, when the whole broad earth shall be revealed, when Tethys shall disclose new worlds and Thule not be the limit of the lands.
Venient annis saecula seris, quibus Oceanus vincula rerum laxet et ingens pateat tellus Tethysque novos detegat orbes nec sit terris ultima Thule..

​

b8ut yeahh im just blowin smoke, i really dont know shit since im not a mathlete and dont have a phd behind my name. and since you obviously cant recognize a reference from literature in my nome du plume, p[erhaps you should re-evaluate you declarations as to who may or may not be ignorant. 

you may bow begin criiticising my typing, spelling and grammar.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> View attachment 2357410
> 
> yes, once upon a tiime greenland was green and NOT covered by ice. the norse had several settlements there, including the inland valleys (now under massive ice sheets, but 1000+ years in the cooler will do that)
> 
> ...


fuck the spelling and grammer where the fuck is the data? anecdotes does not equal a temperature comparison to modern times


EDIT i cant help look at those maps and at the uk and wonder about their accuracy


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 1, 2012)

> *Thule* (/&#712;&#952;ju&#720;li&#720;/;[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Greek: &#920;&#959;&#973;&#955;&#951;, _Thoul&#275;_), also spelled *Thula*, *Thila*, or *Thyïlea*, is, in classical European literature and maps, a region in the far north. Though often considered to be an island in antiquity, modern interpretations of what was meant by _Thule_ often identify it as Norway.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Other interpretations include Orkney, Shetland, and Scandinavia. In the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, Thule was often identified as Iceland or Greenland. Another suggested location is Saaremaa in the Baltic Sea.[SUP][5][/SUP]


I see, so a land marked on a map by different cultures that could actually reference different land masses, without any clear identifying features, including ice, somehow proves that Greenland ice sheet did not exist. Brilliant. As my lack of recognizing your nom de plume, if the only thing you can claim I am ignorant about is a science fiction novel, then so be it.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 1, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I see, so a land marked on a map by different cultures that could actually reference different land masses, without any clear identifying features, including ice, somehow proves that Greenland ice sheet did not exist. Brilliant. As my lack of recognizing your nom de plume, if the only thing you can claim I am ignorant about is a science fiction novel, then so be it.


very well, as soon as i invent a tiime machine i will travel back 1200 years and take pictures of thule with norsemen walking around in cutty sarks and sandals instead of furs. once i get back ill post those pics up and then you can say i faked em. 

or maybe you can deign to read this. 

http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jul/thegreenlandviki1186

nords in greenland in the tenth century? warm summers in greenland? living on th einner fjords far from the sea? 

see i used my time machine to go back to '97 and fabricate this article and the archeological sites they were excavating. im just that badass.

the classical literature describes an even older settlement as well which may be fancy, or may be fact, but the climatological data still shows greenland was in fact not always cold, and has been inhabited, then abandoned and lost, then found and inhabited again. 

when taken in conjunction with roman amphorae in brazil, copper mines in the northeast of the US and ancient stories of a distant land to the west (hybrasil, thule, etc...) it is not unthinkable that greenland could have been "discovered", lost, then "rediscovered" more than the TWICE currently officially recorded. but then if it hasnt been documented yet i suppose it remains in a state of quantum indeterminism, so despite historical records of otherwise reliable sources in antiquity, we cant decide if the cat is alive or dead yet.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 1, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> very well, as soon as i invent a tiime machine i will travel back 1200 years and take pictures of thule with norsemen walking around in cutty sarks and sandals instead of furs. once i get back ill post those pics up and then you can say i faked em.
> 
> or maybe you can deign to read this.
> 
> ...


Funny how if you keep reading you see, "nestled up *against the ice sheet* and sheltered from fierce winds. A persistent high-pressure zone over the ice cap made for warm summers on the fjords by deflecting coastal storms out to sea." 

Of course a persistent ice sheet doesn't help your argument so I don't wonder why you left it out. No one has claimed that the entirety of Greenland was covered in an ice sheet but you certainly seem to have claimed it was a lush, green island and the ice sheet is relatively new. Greenland summers are not new, the fiords are not new. The ice sheet is thinning and exposing areas that even those Vikings weren't privy to. You lie. You have no evidence to support your claim a glacial peak in 800 CE and have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Probably because there isn't any.


----------



## Carne Seca (Oct 2, 2012)

Actually, folks. He's right on the money. He has cited enough evidence to back up his claim. Everyone agrees we're going through a warming trend. Not everyone agrees on the reason. Personally, I feel it's a natural trend exacerbated by human excess. How this ends up is anyone's guess.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 2, 2012)

Carne Seca said:


> Actually, folks. He's right on the money. *He has cited enough evidence to back up his claim.* Everyone agrees we're going through a warming trend. Not everyone agrees on the reason. Personally, I feel it's a natural trend exacerbated by human excess. How this ends up is anyone's guess.


when did he do that?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 2, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Funny how if you keep reading you see, "nestled up *against the ice sheet* and sheltered from fierce winds. A persistent high-pressure zone over the ice cap made for warm summers on the fjords by deflecting coastal storms out to sea."
> 
> Of course a persistent ice sheet doesn't help your argument so I don't wonder why you left it out. No one has claimed that the entirety of Greenland was covered in an ice sheet but you certainly seem to have claimed it was a lush, green island and the ice sheet is relatively new. Greenland summers are not new, the fiords are not new. The ice sheet is thinning and exposing areas that even those Vikings weren't privy to. You lie. You have no evidence to support your claim a glacial peak in 800 CE and have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Probably because there isn't any.


paleoclimatology (not a new discipline, in fact an old one, they been taking ice cores since i was a tot) has demonstrated that every glacier on earth has gone through several radical advances and retreats, many which were present long ago are not even identifiable as glaciers any more, and several glaciers are new enough that the shine is still on them. 

i even remember an article dealing with the nature of the wood used in making stradivarius violins which argued that a severe re-glaciation caused slower growth and tighter grain in the wood used to make them which was claimed by the author to be part of why they sound so distinctive and last so well. 

not having a vast library of old magazines (my house would be full if i kept them all) and no longer having a pass to the local university library i cant dig up all the references i recall, and not everything is online. this does not equate to having no evidence, in fact i could drag up numerous sources for many things but of course if strabo is too unreliable then clearly aristotle, galen and publius rufus would never pass muster. i shudder to think how you would react to something written by someone even farther removed from your accepted list of sources.

also note this was DURING the "little ice age" after the medieval warm period not the earlier cold spike that drove the visigoths south. 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/archibald-on-stellar-to-climate-linkage/





but then im probably just blowin smoke. there was never no ice ages, thats all just climate denier mythology.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 2, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> paleoclimatology (not a new discipline, in fact an old one, they been taking ice cores since i was a tot) has demonstrated that every glacier on earth has gone through several radical advances and retreats, many which were present long ago are not even identifiable as glaciers any more, and several glaciers are new enough that the shine is still on them.
> 
> i even remember an article dealing with the nature of the wood used in making stradivarius violins which argued that a severe re-glaciation caused slower growth and tighter grain in the wood used to make them which was claimed by the author to be part of why they sound so distinctive and last so well.
> 
> ...


when your information comes from sources so old that the internet doesnt hold any reference to them what so ever then it might be time for you to update your knowledge to something a bit more current...
"never no ice ages," really thats what your going with?

david archibald has been shown to put out bad papers a couple of times he cherry picks and fits data to get results he wants

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/#more-477
http://n3xus6.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/dd.html

and antony watts is a paid up lacky of the heartland institutie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism

so your info is out of date magazines and 2 disinfo agents


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 2, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> paleoclimatology (not a new discipline, in fact an old one, they been taking ice cores since i was a tot) has demonstrated that every glacier on earth has gone through several radical advances and retreats, many which were present long ago are not even identifiable as glaciers any more, and several glaciers are new enough that the shine is still on them.


We are not discussing glaciers in general but specifically the Greenland ice sheet. The one that has been there 110,000 years. When you use words like 'long ago' and 'new' when discussing geological formations, to me they are nothing more than weasel words. New is relative considering the deep time of the earth. 


> i even remember an article dealing with the nature of the wood used in making stradivarius violins which argued that a severe re-glaciation caused slower growth and tighter grain in the wood used to make them which was claimed by the author to be part of why they sound so distinctive and last so well.


That's nice. What does this have to do with anything? I never claimed glaciers never retreated. 


> not having a vast library of old magazines (my house would be full if i kept them all) and no longer having a pass to the local university library i cant dig up all the references i recall, and not everything is online. this does not equate to having no evidence, in fact i could drag up numerous sources for many things but of course if strabo is too unreliable then clearly aristotle, galen and publius rufus would never pass muster. i shudder to think how you would react to something written by someone even farther removed from your accepted list of sources.


WTF are you talking about? Accepted list of sources? I don't accept any sources that uses hearsay. Considering Strabo himself did not know any facts about Thule, and even doubts it's existence, using him to support your belief that Thule not only was Greenland, but didn't have an ice sheet is the definition of 'stretching it.' You appear to want to create facts to fit your beliefs. Sorry, but as a scientist, I can't accept your bullshit.


----------



## Doer (Oct 2, 2012)

Cloud Effect variables, that are not considered in the common parlance, actually set the probability of any warming at all, to statistically null, at this time.

The Satellite data set is only 30 years old and the good, high resolution stuff is only 15 years old. That does not square with the political data. 

Cloud Effect specifically is not even being considered by the Cloud Effect, in denial, types. You can't deny Cloud Effect. Just stand in the shade, but really it is the reflection off the upper decks that is increasing. The heat goes into the atmosphere, but, evaporation does two things. It cools, so the heat doesn't go into the oceans.
We can measure that. Also, it creates more Cloud Effect. More cooling albedo. In winter we already see the same effect, the evaporative cooling creates sea ice, wider spreading on average each year. The very best albedo. (don't want too much) We should be throwing money at this, because if we can't control run-away albedo, we will freeze over. That has happened.

We have only just begun to monitor Cloud Effect from Space and it is already being tainted by those with a non-science, political, fear/guilt agenda.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 2, 2012)

Doer said:


> Cloud Effect variables, that are not considered in the common parlance, actually set the probability of any warming at all, to statistically null, at this time.
> 
> The Satellite data set is only 30 years old and the good, high resolution stuff is only 15 years old. That does not square with the political data.
> 
> Cloud Effect specifically is not even being considered by the Cloud Effect, in denial types. You can't deny Could Effect. We have only just begun to monitor it from Space and it is already being tainted by those with a non-science agenda.


well if you want to get away from heartland institute bloggers and other such hacks theres plenty of papers on it

*Cloud observations*

Variations in cloud cover and cloud types over the ocean from surface observations, 1954&#8211;2008 - Eastman _et al._ (2011) 
A high-quality monthly total cloud amount dataset for Australia - Jovanovic _et al._ (2010) 
Cloud features detected by MODIS but not by CloudSat and CALIOP - Chan & Comiso (2011) 
Consistency of global satellite-derived aerosol and cloud data sets with recent brightening observations - Cermak _et al._ (2010) 
Changes in extratropical storm track cloudiness 1983&#8211;2008: observational support for a poleward shift - Bender _et al._ (2011) *
Cloud feedbacks*

The role of low clouds in determining climate sensitivity in response to a doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] as obtained from 16 mixed-layer models - Wetherald (2011) 
The vertical distribution of cloud feedback in coupled ocean-atmosphere models - Soden & Vecchi (2011) Computing and Partitioning Cloud Feedbacks using Cloud Property Histograms. Part II: Attribution to Changes in Cloud Amount, Altitude, and Optical Depth - Zelinka _et al._ (2011)
The roles of aerosol, water vapor and cloud in future global dimming/brightening - Haywood _et al._ (2011)
An Estimate of Low Cloud Feedbacks from Variations of Cloud Radiative and Physical Properties with Sea Surface Temperature on Interannual Time Scales - Eitzen _et al._ (2010)
The observed sensitivity of high clouds to mean surface temperature anomalies in the Tropics - Zelinka & Hartmann (2011) 
Influence of Arctic sea ice extent on polar cloud fraction and vertical structure and implications for regional climate - Palm _et al._ (2010) 
Projected regime shift in Arctic cloud and water vapor feedbacks - Chen _et al._ (2011) 
Cloud response to summer temperatures in Fennoscandia over the last thousand years - Gagen _et al._ (2011) *Cosmic rays and clouds*

Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes - Laken _et al._ (2010) 
Forbush decreases, solar irradiance variations, and anomalous cloud changes - Laken _et al._ (2011) 
Do cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions impact stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change? - Grooss & Muller (2011) 
Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance to climate change - Erlykin _et al._ (2011) 
Solar irradiance, cosmic rays and cloudiness over daily timescales - Laken & &#268;alogovi&#263; (2011) 
Relationship of Lower Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective - Agee _et al._ (2011) 
The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming - Sloan & Wolfendale (2011) 
*Other issues*

Do anthropogenic aerosols enhance or suppress the surface cloud forcing in the Arctic? - Alterskjær _et al._ (2010) 
Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains - Gero & Turner (2011) 
Atmospheric and surface contributions to planetary albedo - Donohoe & Battisti (2011) 
Clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox - Goldblatt & Zahnle (2011) 
Microphysical and macrophysical responses of marine stratocumulus polluted by underlying ships: Evidence of cloud deepening - Christensen & Stephens (2011) 
Global analysis of cloud field coverage and radiative properties, using morphological methods and MODIS observations - Bar-Or _et al._ (2011) 
Cloud effect of persistent stratus nebulosus at the Payerne BSRN site - Wacker _et al._ (2011) 
Atmospheric cloud water contains a diverse bacterial community - Kourtev _et al._ (2011) 
The aerosol&#8211;Bénard cell effect on marine stratocumulus clouds and its contribution to glacial-interglacial cycles - Bar-Or _et al._ (2011) 
Influence of the extent and genera of cloud cover on solar radiation intensity - Matuszko (2011) 
Cloud variations and the Earth's energy budget - Dessler (2011) 
Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effect at the surface and in the atmosphere - Allan (2011) 
Reproducibility by climate models of cloud radiative forcing associated with tropical convection - Ichikawa _et al._ (2011) 
World War II contrails: a case study of aviation-induced cloudiness - Ryan _et al._ (2011)


----------



## Doer (Oct 2, 2012)

Exactly, so don't be a denier. Cloud Effect. I have seen much of that stuff, but not all of it, thanks. It is all there. No one, that remains untainted, has decided about Cloud Effect, one way or another. There is no consensus. No Theory. 

And if you look, and if your drop the political heartland bullshit, you will find plenty of peer review that attempts to not take political sides at all. I think cn was right on this, at the beginning. The only thing that matters is the peer review science. If someone can't follow that, their opinions are political only.

BTW, I don't read blogs, on anything. I find facts and make discussion about it. No axe, no agenda.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 2, 2012)

Doer said:


> Exactly, so don't be a denier. Cloud Effect. I have seen much of that stuff, but not all of it, thanks. It is all there. No one, that remains untainted, has decided about Cloud Effect, one way or another. There is no consensus. No Theory.


you've read much of those and still think cloud effect is the driving force in this? please could you point to the ones that gave you that impression


> And if you look, and if your drop the political heartland bullshit, you will find plenty of peer review that attempts to not take political sides at all. I think cn was right on this, at the beginning. The only thing that matters is the peer review science. If someone can't follow that, their opinions are political only.


before i go off looking for ones that aren't taking political sides could you point out some examples of the ones that have got a political agenda so i dont get them mixed up?


> BTW, I don't read blogs, on anything. I find facts and make discussion about it. No axe, no agenda.


well you must be finding these "facts" somewhere alot of them sound suspiciously close to the bloggers/ thoroughly discredited hacks

the mountain of evidence on one side compared to the discredited memes repeated by the otherside leaves me looking at this debate as getting close to a par with the evolution/ creationism debate and frankly its about time the denialist side puts up something substantive or backs of and let us start sorting this problem 

my vote is widespread building of gen 3 and 4 nuclear power plants to supply baseload then building supplemental wind and solar


----------



## Doer (Oct 2, 2012)

You know, I will vote for that. But, just because you can find bloggist bs, doesn't mean I have any interest in lies, or opinions, of any kind. If you read my posts here, I'm trying to remain strictly neutral to ideology on any subject. If it seems like I'm re-gurging, I'm not. But, if others can find out what I find out, I'm not at all surprised. What is a blogger but an opinion monger?

It seems you agree that there is political agenda and there is science. To me it is bad science, but to you it is early warning. I stipulate we differ here.

I happen to think the Ice Ages are not fiction and will be back. But, we don't have any reliable data that suggests a heat overload situation in the last 300 million years. And that is speciously tied to CO2 in ice cores.

I just can't accept the cause and effect. It is a stretch. It seemed warmer and there seem to have been more CO2 from the scant evidence in the samples we think are from 300 million years ago.

So, AGW to hold off the Ice? That's good thinking. To jack everyone in fear and guilt to bury the actual problem of how to hold off the Next Ice Age, is wrong, I think.

Carbon Trading?? What a Jack. So, to solve Energy is one thing, and I think we are doing that. There is no magic Billion in research that can double battery tech, for example, or Solar tech, (still need battery) But the money can be wasted for political capital.

So, please show me a Cloud Effect Model, (not even a Theory, there isn't one.) Show us 2 computer models that agree. Show just 1 model than can agree with the satellite data. We are not there, yet, but I like your depth of understanding the bigger scope.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> You know, I will vote for that. But, just because you can find bloggist bs, doesn't mean I have any interest in lies, or opinions, of any kind. If you read my posts here, I'm trying to remain strictly neutral to ideology on any subject. If it seems like I'm re-gurging, I'm not. But, if others can find out what I find out, I'm not at all surprised. What is a blogger but an opinion monger?


the bloggers and article writers are the source of memes like "its cloud effect" when you finally get a denier to show the source of their information it invariably gets back to one of them


> It seems you agree that there is political agenda and there is science. To me it is bad science, but to you it is early warning. I stipulate we differ here.


you can call it matilda and dress it up in pigtails for all you want but unless you have data/evidence to back it up its meaningless
there are politics on both sides but when it comes down to the actual science its been saying the same thing for years the evidence is building up and and it all points one way


> I happen to think the Ice Ages are not fiction and will be back. But, we don't have any reliable data that suggests a heat overload situation in the last 300 million years. And that is speciously tied to CO2 in ice cores.


who on earth is saying the ice ages are fiction? at some point in the distant future they possibly will return but as of now all evidence that its getting hotter and its accelerating


> I just can't accept the cause and effect. It is a stretch. It seemed warmer and there seem to have been more CO2 from the scant evidence in the samples we think are from 300 million years ago.


cause
[youtube]SeYfl45X1wo[/youtube]
effect
[youtube]q0kIaCKPlH4[/youtube]
accept it or not that is what is happening


> So, AGW to hold off the Ice? That's good thinking. To jack everyone in fear and guilt to bury the actual problem of how to hold off the Next Ice Age, is wrong, I think.


sure as soon as you show that we're heading into an ice age i'll be behind holding it off. but seeing as evidence points the other way i'm looking to decrease emission

and hang on a second you dont believe in the cause and effect yet you think co2 can hold of an ice age???

thats some cognitive dissonance your nursing there


> Carbon Trading?? What a Jack. So, to solve Energy is one thing, and I think we are doing that. There is no magic Billion in research that can double battery tech, for example, or Solar tech, (still need battery) But the money can be wasted for political capital.


carbon credits are not the best solution for sure personally i think theres some improvement to be had in efficiency but ideally power consumption per person shouldnt drop that much (and same level should be applied to everyone aro0und the world) but as nuclear power isnt popular carbon credits are3 next best option



> So, please show me a Cloud Effect Model, (not even a Theory, there isn't one.) Show us 2 computer models that agree. Show just 1 model than can agree with the satellite data. We are not there, yet, but I like your depth of understanding the bigger scope.


you havent shown cloud effect to be the driving force all your arguing is about sensitivity and the models have been shown to be correct back from 1988 when their models had much less sensitivity 





http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
"(coloured dotted lines) with observations from HadCRUT (blue) and NASA GISS data (red). The thin lines are the observed yearly average. The solid lines are the long term trends, which filter out short term weather fluctuations.





_Figure 2: Global land and ocean surface temperature from GISS (red) and the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit (blue) up to 2006. Thin lines are yearly average, solid lines are long term trends. Dashed lines are IPCC projections. Grey range encompasses IPCC uncertainty in climate sensitivity."
"_

 
_Figure 4 courtesy of Tamino: Solid blue and red lines are trends from GISS and HadCRU data, dashed lines are IPCC projections included in the TAR."
_
as you can see if anything the models are too conserative. 

unless you can show that cloud effect is forcing or has more sensitivity than previously thought the what your doing is a version of the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy


----------



## Doer (Oct 3, 2012)

You are showing 30 years. That is the point. You don't know anything about albedo periodic cycles from a scant data set as this. We are only beginning to get the base lines for Cloud Effect. I don't have to prove or disprove anything. That's politics. That's you being bothered because I don't buy it, but you did. Carbon trading is to make Al Gore, rich. There is not even a cause and effect established to even have a Theory of Cloud Effect. 

There are no Models of CE that can agree with the data sets. And until we can model it we can't study it. We can only observe and write papers. You can't say this is not closed-loop. You can wave your hands and you can have you're own fallacies, but you can't show a realistic model where CE will allow the so called, made up, greenhouse effect. No model will show that open-loop.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> you've read much of those and still think cloud effect is the driving force in this? please could you point to the ones that gave you that impression
> 
> before i go off looking for ones that aren't taking political sides could you point out some examples of the ones that have got a political agenda so i dont get them mixed up?
> well you must be finding these "facts" somewhere alot of them sound suspiciously close to the bloggers/ thoroughly discredited hacks
> ...


and what to do with the spent fuel and expended control rods? 

springfeild can only hold so much, soon we will have to start dumping the shit in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbroock. , and since the USA takes nearly 100% of all the world's nuclear waste, WE the american people will have to live with it, and WE the US tasxpayers will have foot the bill. 

youre a european right ginja? i bet you didnt know that the USA takes in the world's nuclear waste. Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials. 

this is just ONE of the many things america does for the rest of the world which is forgotten when you guys declare we are "cultural imperialists" Cowboys" or "selfish capitalist pig-dogs who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes" 

the USA has sacrificed far more than europe, africa, asia or the moslems can ever accept, and we didnt ask anything in return, not for the sacrifices of our soldiers to free europe from the tyranny of fascism, nor for the deposing of saddam and his mad regime, nor for the freeing of kuwait, nor for the defense of saudi arabia from the insanity of the iraqi madmen. course we probably just wanted the oil. 

WE DIDNT GET NO DAMNED OIL!! WE DIDNT EVEN ASK FOR NO FUCKING OIL! the iraqis saudis kuwaitis and all the rest still sell their oil to whoever will pay them the MOST, no special deal for the US, nope. they stioll sell to whoever will pay the MOST for every drop. 

what concessions were france and britain forced to make to the US for their assistance in ww2? NONE 

what territories in europe did the us declare to belong to them after the defeat of the nazis? NONE 

what land in the mideast (other than embassies which are an even trade between nations) does the us own? NONE

all we ever get for our sacrifice is insults, insurgency, and a big fat bill to our taxpayers for rebuilding your war torn little countries every time some asshole decides to fuck your shit up. 

maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 3, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and what to do with the spent fuel and expended control rods?
> 
> springfeild can only hold so much, soon we will have to start dumping the shit in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbroock. , and since the USA takes nearly 100% of all the world's nuclear waste, WE the american people will have to live with it, and WE the US tasxpayers will have foot the bill.
> 
> ...


Wow, talk about a passionate misdirect... No one said nuclear power was waste free, just that it is the cleanest option to supply baseline power.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Wow, talk about a passionate misdirect... No one said nuclear power was waste free, just that it is the cleanest option to supply baseline power.


but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it. 

WE have to deal with it. if all the world goes nuclear power, the US will become just one big nuclear waste disposal site. 

here in the US getting a nuclear plant built is harder than algebra, people always demand, "what about the waste?" in the rest of the world , thats just not a worry since good ol' uncle sam will take it off their hands free of charge and keep it safe and secure. their only nuclear power concerns are accidents, failures and expense of construction. three things that rarely even reach the discussion here in the US. 

Europe doesnt have to argue about which of their communities will have a nuclear waste dump under the mountain, thats nevad's problem, or wyoming, or california. not europe's. europe loves nuclear power, its cheap safe and practically pollution free (in europe) since they can ship the waste "someplace else" and "someplace else" is, by treaty, the US.

naturally europe considers nuclear power a fine alternative. everybody should do it! theres just no downside. for them.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 3, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it.
> 
> WE have to deal with it. if all the world goes nuclear power, the US will become just one big nuclear waste disposal site.
> 
> ...


This sounds like an ideological objection based on policy and not the technology.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 4, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> This sounds like an ideological objection based on policy and not the technology.


im actually in favour of nuclear power, and the treaties that put all the waste in american control (who else can be trusted with it? nobody!) but the wholesale use of nuclear power by every country on the planet as their primary power source... we cant easily store the nuclear waste we currently have, the massive increase in waste from this policy would be a serious problem. 

but it's not europe's problem, so they dont get a vote.it's OUR problem, and if we dont come up with a solution then europe will have to go back to tallow candles and manual butter churns. 

meanwhile european smug surety that nuclear power is the only choice is based on their not having to deal with the downside, so they need to be a little less sure of their rightness and a LOT less dickish with their claims of superiority because they get more power from nuclear sources than the backwards ole' hillbillies in the us.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 4, 2012)

As I understand it nuclear waste is valuable as only a fraction of the energy has been harvested and it is relatively less harmful to the public than fossil fuel waste as it can be safely contained and stored. I am not aware of any stored nuclear waste that has caused public health problems.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 4, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Wow, talk about a passionate misdirect...


Seems to be the MO of this poster - https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/556339-how-exactly-does-space-time-3.html#post8081283

Clearly honesty in dialogue and discussion is not his goal but only on 'winning' his points and hiding his errors. CWE and shinfaggy would be proud.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 4, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Seems to be the MO of this poster - https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/556339-how-exactly-does-space-time-3.html#post8081283
> 
> Clearly honesty in dialogue and discussion is not his goal but only on 'winning' his points and hiding his errors. CWE and shinfaggy would be proud.


Where the hell has CWE been lately? Dude make a sock account or what..?


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 4, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Where the hell has CWE been lately? Dude make a sock account or what..?



Sorely misunderstood by RIU who was clearly not ready for such brilliance, he decided to go back to his home planet...


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Seems to be the MO of this poster - https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/556339-how-exactly-does-space-time-3.html#post8081283
> 
> Clearly honesty in dialogue and discussion is not his goal but only on 'winning' his points and hiding his errors. CWE and shinfaggy would be proud.


I agree, Mr M and Mr H. Trolling in the science section, when it is so easy to be shown ones' ignorance, is like rolling up seeds 'n stems and passing that around as "good stuff."


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> I agree, Mr M and Mr H. Trolling in the science section, when it so easy to be shown ones' ignorance, is like rolling up seeds 'n stems and passing that around as "good stuff."


I have no ill will toward people that are ignorant about science, I am always willing to help someone understand the importance of the methodology. However, this dipshit has gained special ire from me by his attempt to try to hide his ignorance by trying to call me the fool instead. 

What he tried to do is seriously fucked up. Don't call me stupid because I try to help you understand what others are trying to explain to you. There are some seriously self-deluded people that post here.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 4, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and what to do with the spent fuel and expended control rods?
> 
> springfeild can only hold so much, soon we will have to start dumping the shit in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbroock. , and since the USA takes nearly 100% of all the world's nuclear waste, WE the american people will have to live with it, and WE the US tasxpayers will have foot the bill.
> 
> ...


"*A step-by-step process has begun in the UK to select a site and design a single facility to store radioactive waste for ever. Today's white paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, said that principles of "voluntarism and partnership" are to be used in the selection process."

*http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Waste_plan_revealed-1206082.html

you gonna stop bitching now? 

much of the problems of the present waste is that it comes from first generation nuclear planst that were designed to give weapons grade fuel for bombs and as such they're planning to bury fuel thats only had a few percent of the energy removed and has waste that lasts for hundreds of thousands f years
generation 4 + 5 plants reduce that problem down to a few hundred years

then we have this

*"Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste*

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
lets not mention the heavy metals and such that get released


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 5, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> As I understand it nuclear waste is valuable as only a fraction of the energy has been harvested and it is relatively less harmful to the public than fossil fuel waste as it can be safely contained and stored. I am not aware of any stored nuclear waste that has caused public health problems.


the longterm storaghe problem is quite distinct if you live near rancho seco (a reactor facility that ran for only a few years but it's containment ponds are chock to the brim with other facility's waste all the same) or nevada where the proposed long term storage site is still an issue that caused bar fights in some quarters. 

there is no long term storage facility yet, only temporary facilities, and that we have no accidents yet is only a testament to the technical skill of our waste containment program. 

until a long term solution is acheived any plans to radically increase nuclear power on the level proposed would be foolhardy at best. 

see, no metaphors, just facts. sounds like a politician muttering meaningless platitudes. 

what i mean by all that above is if europe wants to use 300% more nuclear power, then they are gonna have to let us store it in THEIR backyard under our supervision until we got a place to store it long term. with the stuff near their communities nuclear power would rapidly become as troublesome there as it is here.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 5, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Seems to be the MO of this poster - https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/556339-how-exactly-does-space-time-3.html#post8081283
> 
> Clearly honesty in dialogue and discussion is not his goal but only on 'winning' his points and hiding his errors. CWE and shinfaggy would be proud.


im not the one arguing that "less than X" equals zero for dead certain and for ever and ever cross your heart... despite the assertion that even the best systems cant prove photons have zero mass, only set an upper limit that that mass could be. 

where i come from "less than x" is a NON ZERO NUMBER. but you still gotta squirt piss all over any who wonder. how dare they doubt. 

so the MO of YOURSELF is smug certainty when even the best minds claim "we cant be certain"


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 5, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> "*A step-by-step process has begun in the UK to select a site and design a single facility to store radioactive waste for ever. Today's white paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, said that principles of "voluntarism and partnership" are to be used in the selection process."
> 
> *http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Waste_plan_revealed-1206082.html
> 
> ...


coal ash is more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel rods. 

that explains why blacksmiths and foundry workers die from radiation poisoning so often. 

you know what else is radioactive? ceramic pottery. ceramic tiles in your bathroom, cement, igneous rocks, bismuth, your computer monitor (even lcd's) compact flourescent light bulbs, the smoke detector in your house, etc etc etc. 

the radiation from those sources is minute, sheilded, and of a different sort than the ionizing radiation that turns your bones into poison and melts the flesh from your body. 

meanwhile, on your silly coal non-story, you omitted the truth and painted the story with bold primary colours. nice stalking horse. 

heres the editors note from that story 

_*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/0: In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash&#8212;a by-product from burning coal for power&#8212;and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant&#8212;a by-product from burning coal for electricity&#8212;carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL._

so the story's claim that coal ash is "more radioactive than nuclear waste" actually should read: *"coal plants emit more radiation from their smokestacks during operation than nuclear plants do from their coincidentally similarly shaped cooling towers"*, despite the fact that cooling towers and nuclear plants dont emit SHIT, and their waste is carefully packaged, extracted and secured like it was radioactive (which it IS) while fly ash is NOT radioactive, it however can contain traces of shit that can be radioactive. just like well water, cinnamon sticks, and dental fillings. 

nice try. too bad i actually read shit.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 5, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> coal ash is more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel rods.
> 
> that explains why blacksmiths and foundry workers die from radiation poisoning so often.
> 
> ...


the thing about fly ash is that it is a concentrate of impurities in coal if you removed just the granite from your granite worktop you'd get a concentrate of the impurities in granite

your trying to say that it being released into the atmosphere is somehow better than having it all contained? what are magic radiation fairies gonna clean it up?

again lets not talk about the heavy metals released into the atmosphere, or the deaths from respiratory diseases related to coal plants

you say you read but completely blow over this part _"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power planta by-product from burning coal for electricity*carries into the surrounding environment* 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."_


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 5, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> the thing about fly ash is that it is a concentrate of impurities in coal if you removed just the granite from your granite worktop you'd get a concentrate of the impurities in granite
> 
> your trying to say that it being released into the atmosphere is somehow better than having it all contained? what are magic radiation fairies gonna clean it up?
> 
> ...


the entire point of nuclear power plants is that they do NOT emit any contaminants (if they dont get pulverized by an earthquake and a tidal wave... sorry japan) into the local environment, instead all their toxic byproducts are secured and stored in a way that prevents their distribution into the environment at large. the tiny amount of radiation that does escape is easily overshadowed (even by exponential numbers) by the minute traces of radiation found in canned tuna fish, ceramic tableware or cell phone transmissions. 

one hundred times .0000000001 parts per million is .00000001 parts per million, and both are insignificant. even plutonium cant hurt you in those concentrations. 

the article creates a false impression (a red herring) of massive radiation and toxic billowing plumes of uranium soaked smoke drifting over schoolyards and nursing homes. that is UNTRUE. 

the point remains however that nuclear power is GOOD, but we have a spent nuclear fuel problem already. massive increases in nuclear power without first solving the disposal (storage) problem is a dangerously shortsighted move. 

it only takes one fuckup with spent nuclear fuel or used up control rods to turn nuclear power from a safe and viable alternative to a dangerous and unstable menace with a new chernobyl lurking around every corner. 

the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US, and is thus not their problem. here in america (where the spent fuel and old control rod issue is NOT somebody else's problem) nuclear power is NOT our friend. most people see nuclear power as a sinister threat, just one mad scientist away from unleashing godzilla upon the world, and this time it's new york or los angeles in his path on his way back to monster island, not tokyo. (again, sorry japan)


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> im not the one arguing that "less than X" equals zero for dead certain and for ever and ever cross your heart... despite the assertion that even the best systems cant prove photons have zero mass, only set an upper limit that that mass could be.
> 
> where i come from "less than x" is a NON ZERO NUMBER. but you still gotta squirt piss all over any who wonder. how dare they doubt.
> 
> so the MO of YOURSELF is smug certainty when even the best minds claim "we cant be certain"


I'm not the one ignoring how science actually works and that there are theories which explain what we think the model of how the universe works, and experimental limitations. Germs cause disease is still a theory even though in all practicality there is no distinction between what we think we know and what we are able to demonstrate. All scientific calculations are going to have error bars somewhere. You also seem to be arguing that the indirect methods of proof are somehow insufficient. Discussing practical limits to real world testing while ignoring the other arguments about what we SHOULD see but we DON'T. Such things as deviation from Coulomb's Law and frequency dependent lightspeed is demonstrating more of your psuedoscientific tilt. You are trying to argue that the process is broken somehow and then you always toss in your favorite strawman about certainty when it's clear you know nothing about levels of certainty. Science is able to demonstrate particulars through experiment but also working technology. You see how rare it has been in the last 200 years that ideas are actually overturned radically, since science has evolved into layers upon layers of intertwined and interconnected theories that at a reductionist level, there are certain physical laws that appear can be known and understood using the language of mathematics. It is clear that both QM and Einstein are both wrong in some fundamental ways even though they are individually very successful theories. We know and understand there will be changes but they will likely be more refinements, not overturning of fundamentals like lightspeed and relativity. Relativity still has Newton's equations at their core.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I'm not the one ignoring how science actually works and that there are theories which explain what we think the model of how the universe works, and experimental limitations. Germs cause disease is still a theory even though in all practicality there is no distinction between what we think we know and what we are able to demonstrate. All scientific calculations are going to have error bars somewhere. You also seem to be arguing that the indirect methods of proof are somehow insufficient. Discussing practical limits to real world testing while ignoring the other arguments about what we SHOULD see but we DON'T. Such things as deviation from Coulomb's Law and frequency dependent lightspeed is demonstrating more of your psuedoscientific tilt. You are trying to argue that the process is broken somehow and then you always toss in your favorite strawman about certainty when it's clear you know nothing about levels of certainty. Science is able to demonstrate particulars through experiment but also working technology. You see how rare it has been in the last 200 years that ideas are actually overturned radically, since science has evolved into layers upon layers of intertwined and interconnected theories that at a reductionist level, there are certain physical laws that appear can be known and understood using the language of mathematics. It is clear that both QM and Einstein are both wrong in some fundamental ways even though they are individually very successful theories. We know and understand there will be changes but they will likely be more refinements, not overturning of fundamentals like lightspeed and relativity. Relativity still has Newton's equations at their core.


Coupla stray observations.

1) Frequency-dependent speed of light is an established phenomenon in dense media. It underlies the spectral dispersion phenomenon by prisms. 

2) Newtonian mechanics can be taken to be the slow-speed limit of Einsteinian mechanics. Einstein didn't kill Newton's theory but provided it with a larger stage. Jmo. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 6, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I'm not the one ignoring how science actually works and that there are theories which explain what we think the model of how the universe works, and experimental limitations. Germs cause disease is still a theory even though in all practicality there is no distinction between what we think we know and what we are able to demonstrate. All scientific calculations are going to have error bars somewhere. You also seem to be arguing that the indirect methods of proof are somehow insufficient. Discussing practical limits to real world testing while ignoring the other arguments about what we SHOULD see but we DON'T. Such things as deviation from Coulomb's Law and frequency dependent lightspeed is demonstrating more of your psuedoscientific tilt. You are trying to argue that the process is broken somehow and then you always toss in your favorite strawman about certainty when it's clear you know nothing about levels of certainty. Science is able to demonstrate particulars through experiment but also working technology. You see how rare it has been in the last 200 years that ideas are actually overturned radically, since science has evolved into layers upon layers of intertwined and interconnected theories that at a reductionist level, there are certain physical laws that appear can be known and understood using the language of mathematics. It is clear that both QM and Einstein are both wrong in some fundamental ways even though they are individually very successful theories. We know and understand there will be changes but they will likely be more refinements, not overturning of fundamentals like lightspeed and relativity. Relativity still has Newton's equations at their core.


again, you have taken my words and painted them with a braod brush normally reserved for somebody selling perpetual motion machines. 

light bends in gravity feilds
gravity acts in a "field" because it's influence wanes with distance. 
the bending of light within gravity's influence is not proof of space being warped. 
the bending of light within gravity's influence is evidence of light being subject to gravity's pull
to my mind this implies mass is found in a photon. (or something so similar that it cannot be easily distinguished) 
every source available declares that photons have zero mass, but then hedge their bets with an upper limit on the possible mass if it is present. 
given that light IS deflected off course by gravity, the presumption that light's course alteration within gravity being due to space itself getting deformed seems irrational. 
objects with mass get drawn off course by gravity too, and this effect does NOT require any warping of space to explain. 
the assertion that space is warped is, in my opinion, a metaphor used to explain a phenomenon that would otherwise be inexplicable. 
that is the very essence of a mythology. 

if light is actually completely devoid of mass, then several other current theories work just fine, but space must be deformed by gravity. 
if light has mass (or something similar that would be quite difficult to imagine much less differentiate) then it would logically be subject to the same forces as other matter, thus no space warping would be required. 
the assumption that "photon mass = 0" is essential for other theories to work properly, but it could well be that these other theories have a fatal flaw that requires the assumption of a zero mass photon to work. 
these assumptions could be as flawed as the assumption that photons DO have mass. 

i find the idea that other theories might be wrong (but close enough for most applications) much more likely than the idea that gravity alters the shape of *Untestable Nothingness* to cause effects on observable phenomena. 

since truely empty space is untestable, any theory that calls for empty space to be altered by gravity is by definition untestable and thus suspect.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 8, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> again, you have taken my words and painted them with a braod brush normally reserved for somebody selling perpetual motion machines.
> 
> light bends in gravity feilds
> gravity acts in a "field" because it's influence wanes with distance.


That's not a reason. Non-euclidean space also will 'act' at a distance. 


> the bending of light within gravity's influence is not proof of space being warped.


It is strong evidence, especially when compared to the prediction of how much light will bend as a result of Einstein Field Equations calculating the amount of spacetime warping was spot on, while the effect of Newtonian gravitational 'pull' comes up with different results. 


> the bending of light within gravity's influence is evidence of light being subject to gravity's pull


Of course light is affected by gravity but it would be circular reasoning to imply that gravity is pulling on something in light (mass), therefore light has mass, therefore gravity is a field force, etc. 


> to my mind this implies mass is found in a photon. (or something so similar that it cannot be easily distinguished)


Yet being told your thinking is incorrect does not seem to make you want to do more research to determine what Einstein actually says about it. Instead you cling to your wrong thinking in order to support wrong conclusions. 


> every source available declares that photons have zero mass, but then hedge their bets with an upper limit on the possible mass if it is present.


Pointing out experimental limits is not 'hedging.' 


> given that light IS deflected off course by gravity, the presumption that light's course alteration within gravity being due to space itself getting deformed seems irrational.


Based on the prior knowledge of photons not having mass, and even if they did have some mass, the deviation is much more that would be predicted by Newtonian gravitation, therefore we are left with the conclusion that light is being bent because it is following a straght path through a geodesic.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 8, 2012)

im not implying kip thorne,, steven hawking albert einstein's brain in an indestructible robot body, and max planck's reanimated corpse are plotting some nefarious scheme to overthrow our newtonian universe and force us all to work as slaves in their plutonian dark matter mines, and that declassifying pluto as a planet is just a necessary first step to allow them to institute slavery on pluto by declaring it a non-planetary body and thus outside interstellar law... 

im just saying it's out there. 

if you made these same assertions 50 years ago nobody would have believed you, 100 years ago you would have been laughed out of academia, and 400 years ago you might have been tortured into recanting before you were burnt at the stake. 

in another 50 years perhaps somebody will prove the living shit out of these theories without using zero as the prime factors in equations that end in a non zero result. 

in fact in non-euclidean space the statement in your sig is correct... parallel lines would meet at infinity. but i dont believe that is true either. 

i ma quite willing to accept that objects and forces can interact, but when your mathematical proof requires the acceptance that the result of multiplying zero by any number is anything other than zero, then im gonna need to see some better proof than 30 gazzillion times zero equals the force of a photon hitting a brick. 

bricks dont care how many times you hit them with the force of 30 gazzillion times zero. they will not move.

one brick at an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second over a time of 4 seconds can fuck shit up though. one second, not so much. but four seconds can rock your world. 

Zero bricks accelerating at a rate of 32 feet per second per second, even over the course of a couple hours wont do shit. i can guarantee that it wont even mess up your hair.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 8, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> im not implying kip thorne,, steven hawking albert einstein's brain in an indestructible robot body, and max planck's reanimated corpse are plotting some nefarious scheme to overthrow our newtonian universe and force us all to work as slaves in their plutonian dark matter mines, and that declassifying pluto as a planet is just a necessary first step to allow them to institute slavery on pluto by declaring it a non-planetary body and thus outside interstellar law...


Babble much? 


> im just saying it's out there.


I have no idea what you are saying now.


> if you made these same assertions 50 years ago nobody would have believed you, 100 years ago you would have been laughed out of academia, and 400 years ago you might have been tortured into recanting before you were burnt at the stake.


50 years ago, Einstein's theories were well accepted. 100 years ago, special relativity was already finished and general relativity was almost complete. 


> in another 50 years perhaps somebody will prove the living shit out of these theories without using zero as the prime factors in equations that end in a non zero result.


Proposing what might be in the future is irrelevant when evaluating the strength or weaknesses of current scientific theories. 


> in fact in non-euclidean space the statement in your sig is correct... parallel lines would meet at infinity. but i dont believe that is true either.


Context is everything.


> i ma quite willing to accept that objects and forces can interact, but when your mathematical proof requires the acceptance that the result of multiplying zero by any number is anything other than zero, then im gonna need to see some better proof than 30 gazzillion times zero equals the force of a photon hitting a brick.


Strawman. Your lack of understanding of relativistic momentum and the math does not make your simplistic assessment of the situation correct. 


> bricks dont care how many times you hit them with the force of 30 gazzillion times zero. they will not move.
> 
> one brick at an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second over a time of 4 seconds can fuck shit up though. one second, not so much. but four seconds can rock your world.
> 
> Zero bricks accelerating at a rate of 32 feet per second per second, even over the course of a couple hours wont do shit. i can guarantee that it wont even mess up your hair.


non-sequitur, strawman and all-around terrible analogies. Continuing to apply Newtonian assumptions and math to relativistic situations (as already explained) does not in any way address or contradict the facts but only serves to make you (continue to) look stupid.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 8, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Babble much?
> I have no idea what you are saying now.
> 50 years ago, Einstein's theories were well accepted. 100 years ago, special relativity was already finished and general relativity was almost complete.
> Proposing what might be in the future is irrelevant when evaluating the strength or weaknesses of current scientific theories.
> ...


so you cant see where those of us who do NOT hold advanced degrees might be required to choose?

either doubting the veracity of the new quantum universe where two opposing answers can both be right and wrong simultaneously, or massless objects which are actually waves can interact and cause effects inn objects that are actually objects and vice versa, and multiplying zero by a big enough number gets a non zero sum,

or making a leap of faith and accepting that it is best not to ask too many questions lest the gods become angry and wrathful

simply stating:
you dont know enough, go read more books that say this same thing and youll see im right, or ask more people who wear the same preistly labcoat with the same ecclesiastical pocket protector and they will help you understand your failure to grasp the beauty of the faith.

is not so different from 

god said it, i believe it, that proves it. 

many people can read the bible and come to the conclusion that it is historically accurate, true and the actual word of god. 
i cant. im a doubter. i doubt any claim that requires a leap of faith to accept. 

nuclear fission, time dilation, and numerous tested and well proved scientific theories all say youre right, but a few things dont make any damned sense to me, and all the explanations i read, and all the troublesome math i have struggled through may add up to the right numbers for the theories, but the assumptions required to make the theories work still just sit there. stinking. 

insisting that "newton works fine until you get inducted into the deeper mysteries", or "step behind the veil into the holiest of holies, and then youll see what really happens" may work for some, but it sounds like a cult to me. 

i cant make this new science click inside my head. maybe i am just really really really stupid. or maybe i look at the universe from a different angle and from my angle quantum physics looks like smoke and mirrors to conceal the greatest sin any scientist can admit to, *observations with no adequate theory to explain them.* 

i cant recall ANY scientist egghead, teacher, professor or poindexter ever saying, when asked a question about anything "we just dont know" or even "our best guess is..." it's always a dandy explanation usually with shitloads of math. even if the answer is completely opposed to what his colleagues in another university claim, both will show you lots and lots of math. 

string theory, dark matter theory, endless recursive orbits at the speed of light, quantum probability, cats which are simultaneously alive and dead... some of it makes the claims of the bible seem almost sensible. 

more math will not answer my questions, and more people saying the same thing and offering more math will still not convince me to accept this new religion even if these theories seem to work good enough to pull a few rabbits out of some hats, i still gotta suspect that maybe theres a rabbit concealed in the hat someplace, or the rabbit was up your sleeve, or a switching of hats, but i cant accept a quantum bunny generator hidden in the lining.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 8, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> so you cant see where those of us who do NOT hold advanced degrees might be required to choose?


Choose what? Scientific models that appear to fit well with current observations or ideas proposed because someone doesn't like the consequences of what those models say? 


> either doubting the veracity of the new quantum universe where two opposing answers can both be right and wrong simultaneously, or massless objects which are actually waves can interact and cause effects inn objects that are actually objects and vice versa, and multiplying zero by a big enough number gets a non zero sum,
> 
> or making a leap of faith and accepting that it is best not to ask too many questions lest the gods become angry and wrathful


Surround a false dilemma with persecution syndrome and what are you left with? 



> simply stating:
> you dont know enough, go read more books that say this same thing and youll see im right, or ask more people who wear the same preistly labcoat with the same ecclesiastical pocket protector and they will help you understand your failure to grasp the beauty of the faith.


 Simply stated, that modern physics is not out of reach of the everyday man and all you need to do is study and learn what is actually claimed before creating an argument against it, else be aware that arguing against something where you have a lack of understanding makes you extremely susceptible to creating false arguments called straw men, because you are creating the position you are arguing against rather that arguing against the actual position. 



> is not so different from
> 
> god said it, i believe it, that proves it.


Not once did I invoke an argument from authority. That is another one of your strawmen. No one is claiming physics needs faith. Where in the world did you come up with this gem? 



> many people can read the bible and come to the conclusion that it is historically accurate, true and the actual word of god.
> i cant. im a doubter. i doubt any claim that requires a leap of faith to accept.


Good. You should not accept anything on faith. When was the last time a bible thumper told you to do research before accepting god's word? 


> nuclear fission, time dilation, and numerous tested and well proved scientific theories all say youre right


They all say that the current model has not been able to be falsified. I'm not right, the models appear to work, therefore we should accept the premises of the models until someone can provide another model that also explains all of the observations but makes fewer assumptions and/or explains MORE. 


> , but a few things dont make any damned sense to me, and all the explanations i read, and all the troublesome math i have struggled through may add up to the right numbers for the theories, but the assumptions required to make the theories work still just sit there. stinking.


Few things in our physical world seem to make sense, until they do. Newton didn't make sense to people that asked, why should things follow mathematical models? Why does the universe work this way? Newton created laws, mathematical models that could predict things. They offered no explanations as to mechanism. The answer could just as easily be, "Because God wanted it that way." 


> insisting that "newton works fine until you get inducted into the deeper mysteries", or "step behind the veil into the holiest of holies, and then youll see what really happens" may work for some, but it sounds like a cult to me.


A cult that is readily accessible and open to anyone that chooses to investigate. A cult that allows, nay, requires dissenting voices. Doesn't seem like any cult I am aware of. 


> i cant make this new science click inside my head. maybe i am just really really really stupid.


Or maybe because it is not common sensical. It doesn't just click in the head of anyone that I met. Virtually everyone I know struggles with these concepts to some degree when they first learn them and many struggle for a long time afterwards, making them look for alternatives. This is what makes it good science, decades of smart people looking for errors, omissions, alternatives and other angles that can help simplify or even overturn the current paradigm. Asking questions is good. Being critical is good. Being outright antagonistic for no rational reason (it doesn't feel right is emotional, not rational), especially when it is clear you have some holes in your understanding of these theories is not good. 



> or maybe i look at the universe from a different angle and from my angle quantum physics looks like smoke and mirrors to conceal the greatest sin any scientist can admit to, *observations with no adequate theory to explain them.*


This makes no sense. We have models, not clear explanations. Many people have offered up many alternative explanations for the observations. These mavericks are good for science, they push the envelope and make those that defend the status quo on guard and tests their ability to contend with problems they may not have thought of. However, proposing that current models are wrong without offering up any foundation on which to test these claims of wrongness, is merely spitting and frothing.


> i cant recall ANY scientist egghead, teacher, professor or poindexter ever saying, when asked a question about anything "we just dont know" or even "our best guess is..." it's always a dandy explanation usually with shitloads of math. even if the answer is completely opposed to what his colleagues in another university claim, both will show you lots and lots of math.


Then you aren't talking to enough scientists. There are tons of things we just don't know. Ever hear of dark matter? What is it? We don't know. How do you deal with the horizon problem? Inflation. What caused inflation? We don't know. There are so many questions and paradoxes associated with modern physics that claiming we have answers to most things is ridiculous. Sometimes the problem is with the way a question is asked, and not about the answer. Sometimes people think you want our current best answer, which often is a mere hypothesis, not a tested theory. In that case, the answer may be attempted because of what the scientist perceives what is being asked of him. Every time I see Michio Kaku on TV explaining something for a lay audience, I routinely hear him say, "we really just don't know." Same with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Watch enough videos and you see a lot of admission that we don't know. 



> more math will not answer my questions, and more people saying the same thing and offering more math will still not convince me to accept this new religion even if these theories seem to work good enough to pull a few rabbits out of some hats, i still gotta suspect that maybe theres a rabbit concealed in the hat someplace, or the rabbit was up your sleeve, or a switching of hats, but i cant accept a quantum bunny generator hidden in the lining.


Now you are sounding like the science denier I pegged you for. You aren't merely dissatisfied with certain aspects of relativity or QM, you seem disillusioned with all of modern physics. Ever since the theorists have taken over from the experimentalists when it comes to describing our world, the answers certainly have become more fuzzy. This, however, does not mean they do not have experiment and observation to back them up. The standard model of particle physics is by far one of the most robust and successful theories in science ever. This does not mean we know how and why of everything. The fact that there are still countless papers and journals written dissecting and critiquing everyone's work and proposing new theories and ideas every day, tells us that we are far from knowing how this all fits together. Part of the problem stems from being relagated to pop science where only the most current, mainstream understanding gets detailed, often incorrectly by well-meaning, non-scientist writers. Even the scientists make incorrect analogies and claims when writing for lay audiences, attempting to do away with the math to make it easier to understand.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 9, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Choose what? Scientific models that appear to fit well with current observations or ideas proposed because someone doesn't like the consequences of what those models say?
> Surround a false dilemma with persecution syndrome and what are you left with?
> 
> Simply stated, that modern physics is not out of reach of the everyday man and all you need to do is study and learn what is actually claimed before creating an argument against it, else be aware that arguing against something where you have a lack of understanding makes you extremely susceptible to creating false arguments called straw men, because you are creating the position you are arguing against rather that arguing against the actual position.
> ...


dude im not a science denier. 

i actually do want to know, and the math is just not convincing. 

i heard michio kaku on coast to coast am too many times on the late night shift. he personally doesnt have much credibility with me. niel degrasse tyson is amiable and charming enough, but he doesnt enthrall me. i would rather read than watch videos. and the reading i been doing keeps circling several assumptions, like 0 x a big enough number = not zero, so photons can have zero mass but still deliver a force on impact, or gravity is a wave, but it doesnt make interference patterns cuz it's a different kind of wave. or neutrinos are particles despite their masslessness and their seeming disrespect for ordinary matter, yet they move faster than the speed of light, and slower than the speed of light and the truth will be determined with a steel cage match in the middle of the large hadron collider. two nerds enter, one nerd leaves. 

fuck, im not even sure who is leading in the neutrino speed of light sweepstakes right now. 

all im sure of is that photons seem to act like they got mass, but other theories say they dont, and the experimental physics nerds say its definitely less than x but the theoretical physics nerds insist its dead on zero. 

if i was a science denier i would offer a different solution, i aint got one, all i got is newtons theories that worked pretty good for a while now, and some new stuff that also works pretty good, but they dont seem to work together. and that is a burr under my saddle. 

i keep getting the same answers, read more of the same stuff you already read, do more of the math you already slogged through, and youll see. i still dont see. 

and its not like im asserting that photons definitely have mass, and thats why a burnt out lightbulb weighs less than a new one, cuz the photons have all escaped. im asserting that photons have mass because when they hit something, the deliver a force. 

i had no idea that was so controversial.


----------



## fb360 (Oct 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> Smell the rat? So, of course the climate is changing. But CO2? It's the premier
> mineral cycle on the planet. Volcanos spew it, reefs take it up, plants breathe it
> in, we breathe it out. It's the perfect chaos element. The debate will rage and
> money, taxpayer money will be spent in large amounts.


You make a very good argument, however what is your stance on the observations we've made on Venus concerning CO2 emissions and its labeled "global warming"?
There are no users or consumers, at least that we know of, on that planet.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> the entire point of nuclear power plants is that they do NOT emit any contaminants (if they dont get pulverized by an earthquake and a tidal wave... sorry japan) into the local environment, instead all their toxic byproducts are secured and stored in a way that prevents their distribution into the environment at large. the tiny amount of radiation that does escape is easily overshadowed (even by exponential numbers) by the minute traces of radiation found in canned tuna fish, ceramic tableware or cell phone transmissions.
> 
> one hundred times .0000000001 parts per million is .00000001 parts per million, and both are insignificant. even plutonium cant hurt you in those concentrations.
> 
> ...


"*the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"*


you know i have lived in europe all my life and i have NEVER heard of all the waste being shipped to usa. i've tried googling it but cannot come up with anything that suggests as much. have you got anything to back up this narrative you claim all europeans fall under?
now im not saying that you pulled this "narrative" out of your arse to back up your hysterical bullshit rant but considering the waste reprocessing plants in the uk and in france and the plans by governments across europe to build under ground dumps for the waste built up over last 50+ years

i see you sneaked in fukishima a gen 1 plant from 1967 into a discussion of new build gen 3 and 4 


> *my vote is widespread building of gen 3 and 4 nuclear power plants*


thought you said you could read or are you deliberately being dishonest?

but lets give the fukishima plant its praise one of the oldest operating nuclear power plants of the unstable gen 1 configuration survived one of biggest earthquakes ever recorded (yeah it wasnt pulverised as you claim) and survived a fricking tsunami *HUMAN ERROR* in the placement of the back up generators was the deciding factor in this


oh and lets not forget that the very same earthquake/ tsunami killed tens of thousands of people the power plants killed no one


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 11, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> "*the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"*
> 
> 
> you know i have lived in europe all my life and i have NEVER heard of all the waste being shipped to usa. i've tried googling it but cannot come up with anything that suggests as much. have you got anything to back up this narrative you claim all europeans fall under?
> ...



the nuclear non-proliferation treaty ensures that the nuclear armed states of US, China, Britain, France, and the soviet union (now Russia) will not help anybody else make nuclear weapons, and further they will assist non-nuclear states with technology and "logistical" help for the cration and operation of nuclear power systems. the Non-Nuclear States agree to not seek nuclear weapons, and all partires agree to abide by the nuclear regulatory commission's rules and regulations. 

among those rules is the EXTREMELY GOOD IDEA of bringing in nuclear fuel at low low discount prices and taking out every gram of spent waste from those nations who are non-nuclear signatories. 

this helps developing and even developed nations in many ways, from not having to spend vast monies to build facilities that other nations have already built to enrich the fuel materials, so instead they can simply buy it with a return for deposit on the old used up fuel, and the non nuclear states dont need or have to worry about nuclear waste products. 

nations which HAVE certified re-refining and waste uranium reclamation programs receive the waste from those which have NOT this technology, and thus the nuclear regulatory commission winds up bringing ALMOST ALL of the worlds atomic waste to the US, and to a much lesser degree france and britain. the soviets recieved a shitload during the cold war, but after the breakup of their empire the smaller states that housed the soviet era waste reclamation and re-enrichment plants were generally poor, unstable, and not terribly charitable so many former soviet republics' waste now comes to the US in large quantities too. britain and france receive only tiny amounts (in conjunction with their extremely small re-refining programs) of the world's nuclear garbage and china's nuclear re-enrichment program is done under a veil of secrecy. 

arguing which generation of nuclear plants will be built is arguing a foolish cunard. if i propose building an auto manufacturing plant in kentucky will i have to SPECIFY IN GREAT DETAIL that this will NOT be a 1915/1920 manual assembly plant with attached forge and a dedicated coachworks for the custom hand construction of custom built wood framed phaetons with lever operated wheel brakes, abalone inlaid teak steering tillers and whale oil fueled lanthorns on the front wheel fenders?

also fukishima got pulverized in the literary (if not literal) sense by a big ass earthquake and tidal wave, the plant's amazing level of not uverheating in an uncontrolled reaction chernobyl style is impressive, and a testament to top quality japanese design and manufacture, but this does not mean every plant is as good, nor that the new designs which inspire such confidence in you are necessarily better in a catastrophic failure. 

fukishima lasted because it was well made, chernobyl did NOT last because it was shoddy, as is rancho seco, and a couple others. however, newer is not always better,, and if nuclear power plants are built the way new houses are constructed, i look forward to many catastrophes in the future. 

anyone who has ever been in a serious crash knows the value of steel. a 1954 chevy bel aire in any crash condition you can imagine except a 120 kph head on wall assault, is MORE survivable than the "Smart Car" which crumples and collapses like an old pepsi can in even the mildest creashs. 

thats why i see more 1954 bel aires than i see of ANY model year of pinto, corvair, or gremlin. (except this one cherry ass Just Off The Showroom Floor type 1974 pinto that is so well restored that i can only assume that it was done for the lulz)

unibody construction, stamped sheet metal rigid panels and pinch welds are NOT stronger than steel chassis/frame construction and straight bead welds. they are only cheaper.

the same principle applies to nuclear plants. the US navy operates dozens of nuclear plants around the globe all without a serious issue because they made it to survive, i hold very little confidence that the nuclear commission for the nigeria will hold to the highest standards since i keep getting e-mails offering the share with me if i help them set up a money laundering scheme through my bank accounts. my correspondent is apparently "looking forward to many best wishes with our happy arrangement." 

confidence is low. not looking forward to the 500 nuclear plants needed to be built cheaply, and in short order to ensure that coal and gas are pushed into the bi, and we can start "green washing" the planet.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> the nuclear non-proliferation treaty ensures that the nuclear armed states of US, China, Britain, France, and the soviet union (now Russia) will not help anybody else make nuclear weapons, and further they will assist non-nuclear states with technology and "logistical" help for the cration and operation of nuclear power systems. the Non-Nuclear States agree to not seek nuclear weapons, and all partires agree to abide by the nuclear regulatory commission's rules and regulations.
> 
> among those rules is the EXTREMELY GOOD IDEA of bringing in nuclear fuel at low low discount prices and taking out every gram of spent waste from those nations who are non-nuclear signatories.
> 
> ...


ahh so you've switch from "*the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"
*to the whole of the world hmm i doubt anyone will notice

fukishima was general electrics desgined/ built plant

new is actually pretty damn strong
[youtube]CJHpUO-S0i8[/youtube]
a big reason im advocating gen 3 reactors is that you can walk away from them without any notice and they will not melt down I.E in a situation like the fukishima event there would have been no melt down (aand hopefully alot cheaper in the long run as so much money isnt needed to stop them blowing themselves up)

atm nigeria's contribution towards CO2 emmisions is low but that has nothing to do with usa sorting its shit out and changing from a carbon economy to a nuclear economy and maybe helping countries like nigeria with their capabilities at some time in the future

confidence might be low but it certainly isnt helpped with shrill voices like yours screaming of the boogy man as soon as nuclear is mentioned


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 11, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh so you've switch from "*the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"
> *to the whole of the world hmm i doubt anyone will notice
> 
> fukishima was general electrics desgined/ built plant
> ...


no, again you are dancing around the issue. the US recieves almost ALL of the world's nuclear waste. the nuclear regulatory commision ensures that. france and britain and a few other developed nations keep their own, for their own uses, but all the rest goes to the US. 

this is done to keep fissile materials OFF THE MARKET! (as much as possible) ajnd it is a good thing, but unless we sort out the long term storage issue, we cannot responsibly begin formulating plans to build hindreds of new nuclear plants around the globe. 

your idiotic video displays the ignorance and arrogance of modern designs, in real actual crashes, the vehicle does not lead with it's "crumple zones" impact absorbing materials and safety equipment, real crashes turn almost any modern car into a mess of shattered fiberglass plastic and aluminum (i know, i been in a few) while real steel keeps your ass off the pavement and prevents the firey immolation or steering column impalement that is the cause of so many deaths in ACTUAL crashes. 

the problems with the Nukes Everywhere proposal are many-fold. 

1: limited fuel supplies. we dont have enough, nor the capacity to make more of the stuff to fuel hundreds of reactors in every corner of the world

2: waste. yes. already too much for our curent storage systems to handle, and our current storage faciliites are in fact TEMPORARY storage that has been converted to long tem storage by the unavailabbility of actual long term storage. why is this so hard for you to grasp? and yes, most of it comes to the US, so britain doesnt need to hollow out ben nevis and turn it into a radioactive waste dump. but WE do. (not actually ben nevis of course, that would be deemed impolite, we have tyo hollow out a mountain in america someplace.)

3: safety. building a plant in France is a job for FRENCH people. they will ensure that its a good plant. when (unavoidably) Daihatsu or Schlumberger start building nuclear plants in Uganda or East Timor they could easily decide to shave a few corners here and there, pocket the difference, and head home, leaving the people of Paraguay, or Turks and Caicos to deral with the shabby nuclear plant with rising damp and windows that dont quite keep out the cold. and a shitty nuclear plant cant be fixed with weatherstripping and expanding foam. 

4: security. its hard enough (and expensive enough) to secure nuclear facilties now, if we double or even triple the number of plants, then who will keep the doors locked so any asshole who wants to make a dirty bomb cant just stroll in and scrape off a few kilos of the hot stuff for their "protest" of the latest intolerable outrage by... whoever.

5: operating technicians. who will run these plants so they remain safe, operational and reliable? 

6: No U!!

better plants is good. i am not arguing against the idea of nuclear power, i am concerned by some people who think it can magically cure all our problems without any downsides. charging forth blindly with the proposition that fossil fuels are dead is not sensible, nor is it feasible. 

the nigerian comment was a joke. if you havent got your nigerian 419 scam e-mails yet, you soon should. they really are classic. in fact with all this proposed nuclear construction there would be incredible opportunity to "go chop your dollar". 

[video=youtube;f1nKR3gYRY8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1nKR3gYRY8[/video]

it's also not my job to be a booster for every scheme to reduce Co2 emissions, since the science on the issue is far from settled. 

the earth has in the past been FAR hotter, FAR richer in free Co2, and also far colder, and much leaner on Co2 all without human industry to help or hinder the changes.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 11, 2012)

im not dancing around the issue at all i've asked for evidence that (and i quote) "*Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials." *or "*but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it."
*and you provided noevidence that europeans view it as waste free

your also missing the point of gen 1 reactors vs gen 3 


ginjawarrior said:


> much of the problems of the present waste is that it comes from first generation nuclear planst that were designed to give weapons grade fuel for bombs and as such they're planning to bury fuel thats only had a few percent of the energy removed and has waste that lasts for hundreds of thousands f years
> generation 4 + 5 plants reduce that problem down to a few hundred years


(in that quote i mean gen 3+ 4)
and the long term storage is hundreds not hundreds of thousands of years

1. yur thinking along "once thru reactors" but there is plenty of fissile fuel available to us i refer you to http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml
2.


ginjawarrior said:


> "*A step-by-step process has begun in the UK to select a site and design a single facility to store radioactive waste for ever. Today's white paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, said that principles of "voluntarism and partnership" are to be used in the selection process."
> 
> *http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Waste_plan_revealed-1206082.html
> 
> you gonna stop bitching now?


3. fukishima was a general electric designed and built plant that was outsourced and it wasn't shoddy and out of every industry in the world i think nuclear has the strongest regulations
4. now here is a point. the plants i am suggesting are not geared towards weapons grade material but could be used in a dirty bomb. BUT theres no reason why the international community cannot keep tracks on the nuclear material in and out and tbh the amount of force the usa has built up (to in part protect its oil investments) can not use that to protect the nuclear plants. theres also a big bonus on bringing alot of the world out of poverty (failed states breed the best terrorists)
5. again i refer you to this http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml

i dont think fossil fuels are dead just yet they have a very important job of setting us onto a nuclear path (with all the best will in the world a renewable economy isnt feasabile atm) but it certainly is feasible to switch to nuclear

i'm well aware of the 414 and many years ago i amused myself with "scambaiting" http://www.419eater.com/ but none of that helps this argument


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 11, 2012)

yes. if they wished the british could in fact join the rest of the world and send their nuclear waste to the US. thast the compact we made as a leader of nations to everybody else. have nuclear power, and we will handle the waste for you. britain is a nuclear power,, and thus has a USE for their reactor wastes as nuclear bomb making/maintaining materials. spain has no such nuclear weapons program (and iran should not either since they are signatories to the treaty and have been receiving the benefits for a long time) and thus has no need for their nuclear waste for any legitimate purpose so they get new fuel rods cheap, the NRC collects their waste and ships it to california, or nevada or colorado, and we take care of it for them. 

the proper position for me to take if i held the view you are attributing to me would be *"fuck youse dutch bastards! youse can keeps your own nukular wastes and make your kuntry glow in the dark! thats what youse gets for bein communists! you froggy assholes can fuck your berets and youre eyeful towers. you can shuv your queen up your buts, with cranberries cuz you fought against us in ww2 you nazis!" 
*
which is quite cathartic. i feel cleansed. 

refined uranium is still a valuable and prized commodity, we may have enough for current needs with the newest plants, but if we need to do ALL electricity with nuclear, or even just the portion that wind and solar cant (or wont) handle we will rapidly see nuclear fuel becoming the new high demand substance with more mines, more enrichment facilities, and eventually... somebody will fuck up. its inevitable when theres a gold rush. somebody always fucks up. right now the fuckups are handled by the best and the brightest. what happens when BP or Exxon are running nukular -P) reactors or fuel processing plants? 

nuclear industries have tight regulations because its not a game for dilettantes and part timers. if we follow the suggestions of some, we would have to build dozens of nuclear plants every year all over the world to beat al gore's (already elapsed) doomsday timeline, and in that situation i can guarantee, somebody will cut corners. and then its godzilla time. 

you also failed to answer my most salient point, which still remains, 


*NO U!

*edit: missed one... 
if the debate over nuclear reactor waste was only involvioong britain france china the us and the russian federation then yes, nuclear waste would be each country's own problem. but who taked Jamaica's nuclear waste when they go to atomic power? the US. who takes the shit from all over the mideast? the US. who handles japan's nuclear waste? the US. etc etc etc if britain wants to power every MG jaguar or mini on the planet with a tiny fast breeder reactor, and keep the waste from the spent fuel in suffolk or the cotswalds, thats groovy. more power to ya. and maybe british cars will start on cold mornings, and not leak oil. but then theres Sudan, and papua New Guinea, or bermuda. you gonna take all THEIR spent nuclear waste and store it in a welsh haystack for "ONLY" 200-300 years? no, didnt think so. theats america's job. and right now the US congress cant even agree on quilted or unscented toilet paper for the crappers in the congressional fitness center.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> yes. if they wished the british could in fact join the rest of the world and send their nuclear waste to the US. thast the compact we made as a leader of nations to everybody else. have nuclear power, and we will handle the waste for you. britain is a nuclear power,, and thus has a USE for their reactor wastes as nuclear bomb making/maintaining materials. spain has no such nuclear weapons program (and iran should not either since they are signatories to the treaty and have been receiving the benefits for a long time) and thus has no need for their nuclear waste for any legitimate purpose so they get new fuel rods cheap, the NRC collects their waste and ships it to california, or nevada or colorado, and we take care of it for them.
> 
> the proper position for me to take if i held the view you are attributing to me would be *"fuck youse dutch bastards! youse can keeps your own nukular wastes and make your kuntry glow in the dark! thats what youse gets for bein communists! you froggy assholes can fuck your berets and youre eyeful towers. you can shuv your queen up your buts, with cranberries cuz you fought against us in ww2 you nazis!"
> *
> ...


so now its not "all europe" but your singling down to spain
"
Radioactive Waste Management
ENRESA (Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA) was established in 1984 as a state-owned company to take over radioactive waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants. It is now the only state-owned part of the nuclear fuel cycle in Spain.
It drew up a General Plan for radioactive wastes which was approved by parliament in 1999. Its is based on nuclear power plant lives of 40 years, and addresses the need to manage almost 200,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate-level wastes and 10,000 cubic metres of spent fuel and other high-level wastes.
Since 1983 Spain's policy has been for an open fuel cycle, with no reprocessing. The plan for spent fuel envisages initial storage at each reactor for ten years. Some temporary storage for dry casks was envisaged at Trillo up to 2010 and establishment of a longer-term centralised facility from then. Meanwhile research will progress on deep geological disposal as well as transmutation, with a decision on disposal to be made after 2010. Granite, clay and salt formations are under consideration. 
In mid 2006 Parliament approved ENRESA's plans to develop a temporary central nuclear waste storage facility by 2010, and the CSN approved its design, which was similar to the Habog facility near the Borssele power plant in the Netherlands. In December 2009 the government called for municipalities to volunteer to host this EUR 700 million Almacen Temporal Centralizado (ATC) facility for high-level wastes and used fuel. The government offered to pay up to EUR 7.8 million annually once the facility is operational. It is designed to hold for 100 years 6700 tonnes of used fuel and 2600 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of intermediate-level wastes, plus 12 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of high-level waste from reprocessing the Vandellos-1 fuel. The facility is to be built in three stages, each taking five years. Asco and Villar de Canas were two towns among eight that volunteered, attracted by the prospect of EUR 700 million over 20 years and the annual direst payments, plus many jobs. A campaign of fearmongering has been mounted by nuclear detractors to dissuade residents of the eight towns, and some regional governments are also opposed. 
In September 2011 the Ministry for Industry announced its selection and rankings:
- Zarra (Valencia) 736 points
- Asco (Tarragona) 732 points
- Yebra (Guadalajara) 714 points
- Villar de Canas (Cuenca) 692 points.

In December 2011 the Ministry announced that Villar de Canas had been selected, though only a 60-year storage period was mentioned. Pending construction, low- and intermediate-level wastes continues to be sent to ENRESA's storage facility at El Cabril, Cordoba, which has operated since 1961. Used fuel remains at individual power plants.
Waste management and decommissioning is funded by a levy of about 1% on all electricity consumed."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf85.html

and still not a shred of evidence for anything that your spewing


EDIT: you were perfectly capable of finding evidence of nigerians hmm...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 11, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> so now its not "all europe" but your singling down to spain
> "
> Radioactive Waste Management
> ENRESA (Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA) was established in 1984 as a state-owned company to take over radioactive waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants. It is now the only state-owned part of the nuclear fuel cycle in Spain.
> ...


and even a casual perusal of the site you offered shows that SOME countries do keep their waste (spain for example has research facilities and other organizations that use it as a research resource) othe rnatrions save it against the future proposal to use it in as yet undeveloped reactor systems, and the other small or developing nations... no mention. because it gets sent to the US. 

if the current waste issue is not an issue in france, germany canada and britain etc etc etc, WHY IS IT AN ISSUE IN THE US? 

the us, as we have heard so often lately, doesnt use nearly as much nuclear power as the rest of the civilized world... yet we have the biggest stockpile of nuclear garbage, why is this? because we accept it from everybody who doesnt want it! 

this fact is NOT PUBLICIZED because it would be a political issue, and nobody wants that. so its kept quiet. not even mentioned, everybody pretends the US's huge nuclear waste stockpile is because we are evil wasteful assholes who like to surround ourselves with nuclear waste and thus probably manufacture the stuff specifically, just to get more. 

the US hasnt built a nuclear plant in decades, because we have a problem, too much nuclear waste,, and no place to stash it. all we can do now is reprocess it into less hazardous forms, and hope we come up with a long term solution, but we cannot stop accepting the waste from other nations. thats our deal. if britain had to accept everybody's shit your country would be unable to find enough empty land to stow it. despite the vastness of the southwest, and the HUGE ammount of federal military land and research preserveswe cant find a place to stash all the crap we got. its an issue in america because we accepted the responsibility. 

but then i suppose we should also take out ads on sky news and al jazeera advertising that we take all the excess nuclear waste just to make everybody feel better about us? and cause the reactionary groups, insane environmentalists, ultra-nationalist "if you aint american you aint shit" assholes, and whichever party is not in power to kick it around and use it as a wedge? or better still, a tool to try and push through isolationism or apocalyptic religious cult doomsaying? yeah its a quiet little issue and thats how it should stay, but dont mistake the current situation for what would happen if all the world had to rely on nuclear power. it would be a shitstorm of gargantuan proportions.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> and even a casual perusal of the site you offered shows that SOME countries do keep their waste (spain for example has research facilities and other organizations that use it as a research resource) othe rnatrions save it against the future proposal to use it in as yet undeveloped reactor systems, and the other small or developing nations... no mention. because it gets sent to the US.
> 
> if the current waste issue is not an issue in france, germany canada and britain etc etc etc, WHY IS IT AN ISSUE IN THE US?
> 
> ...


its a (bigger) issue in usa because of conspiracy theory shrill people like yourself who prefer to rant about the evils without solid facts behind them

*and* its not published anywhere yet you personally know that *"but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it." 

*seriously can you for once put up or shut the fuck up and back away from this as im pretty sure i shown you wrong pretty much every time


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 11, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> its a (bigger) issue in usa because of conspiracy theory shrill people like yourself who prefer to rant about the evils without solid facts behind them
> 
> *and* its not published anywhere yet you personally know that *"but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it."
> 
> *seriously can you for once put up or shut the fuck up and back away from this as im pretty sure i shown you wrong pretty much every time



mmm hmm... so the international atomic energy agency makes all the nuclear waste from compliant nations disappear into ban ki moon's magic hat? 

of do they simply trust that oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan will leave it in their in-country storage facilities and that everything will go to plan... 

nope. 

it gets assayed, weighed packaged and shipped to iaea compliant storage facilities. where would that be... hmmmm

one of them was the rancho seco power facility that only ran for a few years and due to design flaws was decomissioned early, and turned into a storage facility. 

take a look. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station

*"On 23 October 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission released the majority of the site for unrestricted public use, while approximately 11 acres (45,000 m[SUP]2[/SUP]) of land including a storage building for low-level radioactive waste and a dry-cask spent fuel storage facility remain under NRC licenses"
*
why do you suppose the nuclear regulatory commisssion would license 11 acres in sacramento county? because rancho seco was built with a storage pool, that storage pool is now FULL of hot rods, the dry keg storage facility is also full, despite rancho stinko only running for a short time and never getting up past 30% capacity. 

and thats just the one nearest me. theres lots of them 

it;'s not a conspiracy. nor is it a theory. there have been a few protests for example, berkely became a "nuclear free zone" after somebody spilled that a few hundred kilos of nuclear waste from asia would be passing through on their way to storage. the local press painted an image of rickety hand carts laden with glowing *Nuclear Death *would be pushed down san pablo avenue, right past every school nursing home and hospital in town, with chunks falling off, and being left in the streets for urchins to play with. 

so yes, for the rest of the world the NRC and IAEA ensure that spent nuclear fuel will behandled, and for almost ALL of the rest of the world,, they "make it go away". here in america, we get the privilege of being the "away" where it goes. 

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/208/international_nuclear_waste_transportation.html

among several particular programs discussed in this research paper which is a great read FYI, youll see the little detail of US owned nuclear materials being used worldwide, we send it to them as fuel,, they use it and then we take it back as waste. it remains OUR PROBLEM forever, specifically to prevent fissile materials from getting into the hands of douchebags assholes or terrorists. 
its rarely discussed, but a huge portion of the nuclear fuel "market" is based on renting the shit from the US where THEY (meaning reactor operators in MANY MANY nations) receive live and active nuclear fuel, and when it is spent,and just a pile of hot garbage, we take it back and send them some fresh shit. 

thats how it works. thats what it means when you hear discussion of fissile materials as "transfers" "trades" and a "market" 

few countries have the ability to refine uranium, few countries actually have sufficient uranium deposits, and even fewer countries have the capability to reprocess or store the spent fuel. in britain there was a shitstorm a few years ago over a few POUNDS of nuclear rejectamenta being sent from a soviet republic so it wouldnt get sold to the highest bidder. america takes other nation's nuclear waste all the time. we dont talk about it becauyse we dont want shitstorms, and when it leaks out there is always trouble, in fact MORE trouble from nuclear news leaking than if the actual waste had leaked. 

but then im totally wrong about this, and thats why the united arab emirates, jordan, and taiwan just keep the shit at their place. yep. they just keep it stacked up out back by the shed. if that were actually the case al quaeda would have had nuclear bombs decades ago. 

shit, your local chavs could rob people in the street with nuclear bombs if that were the case. 

on-site storage is a short term storage of spent fuel to let it get a little less HOT before it is packed up and shipped off to it's destination (and for most of the world thats the US) and its done QUIETLY! but then, by your reasoning, seeing as you havent heard about it, one could also presume that nuclear fuel is mined, refined and manufactured on-site too, at every nuclear plant in the world. otherwise you surely would have heard of the shipment of new, live and active fuel rods too...

or maybe, all nuclear power is a myth, and the reactors really just conceal the true source of europe's electrical energy, wizards. harry potter is chained to a grist mill and forced to turn it for all eternity to generate electricity for the masses.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 12, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> mmm hmm... so the international atomic energy agency makes all the nuclear waste from compliant nations disappear into ban ki moon's magic hat?
> 
> of do they simply trust that oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan will leave it in their in-country storage facilities and that everything will go to plan...
> 
> ...


LOL last i checked "oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan" they werent in europe....

shall we recap?



ginjawarrior said:


> .........
> my vote is widespread building of gen 3 and 4 nuclear power plants to supply baseload then building supplemental wind and solar





Dr Kynes said:


> and what to do with the spent fuel and expended control rods?
> 
> springfeild can only hold so much, soon we will have to start dumping the shit in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbroock. , and since the USA takes nearly 100% of all the world's nuclear waste, WE the american people will have to live with it, and WE the US tasxpayers will have foot the bill.
> 
> ...





Dr Kynes said:


> *but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it. *
> ****snipped hysterical ranting*****
> *Europe doesnt have to argue about which of their communities will have a nuclear waste dump under the mountain, thats nevad's problem, or wyoming, or california. not europe's. europe loves nuclear power, its cheap safe and practically pollution free (in europe) since they can ship the waste "someplace else" and "someplace else" is, by treaty, the US.
> 
> naturally europe considers nuclear power a fine alternative. everybody should do it! theres just no downside. for them.*





Dr Kynes said:


> ****snipped****
> *meanwhile european smug surety that nuclear power is the only choice is based on their not having to deal with the downside,* so they need to be a little less sure of their rightness and a LOT less dickish with their claims of superiority because they get more power from nuclear sources than the backwards ole' hillbillies in the us.





ginjawarrior said:


> "*A step-by-step process has begun in the UK to select a site and design a single facility to store radioactive waste for ever. Today's white paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, said that principles of "voluntarism and partnership" are to be used in the selection process."
> 
> *http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Waste_plan_revealed-1206082.html
> 
> ...





Dr Kynes said:


> *what i mean by all that above is if europe wants to use 300% more nuclear power, then they are gonna have to let us store it in THEIR backyard under our supervision until we got a place to store it long term.* with the stuff near their communities nuclear power would rapidly become as troublesome there as it is here.





ginjawarrior said:


> "*the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"*
> 
> 
> you know i have lived in europe all my life and i have NEVER heard of all the waste being shipped to usa. i've tried googling it but cannot come up with anything that suggests as much. have you got anything to back up this narrative you claim all europeans fall under?
> ...





Dr Kynes said:


> ****snipped****
> nations which HAVE certified re-refining and waste uranium reclamation programs receive the waste from those which have NOT this technology, and thus the nuclear regulatory commission winds up bringing ALMOST ALL of the worlds atomic waste to the US, *and to a much lesser degree france and britain*. the soviets recieved a shitload during the cold war, but after the breakup of their empire the smaller states that housed the soviet era waste reclamation and re-enrichment plants were generally poor, unstable, and not terribly charitable so many former soviet republics' waste now comes to the US in large quantities too. britain and france receive only tiny amounts (in conjunction with their extremely small re-refining programs) of the world's nuclear garbage and china's nuclear re-enrichment program is done under a veil of secrecy.
> 
> arguing which generation of nuclear plants will be built is arguing a foolish cunard. if i propose building an auto manufacturing plant in kentucky will i have to SPECIFY IN GREAT DETAIL that this will NOT be a 1915/1920 manual assembly plant with attached forge and a dedicated coachworks for the custom hand construction of custom built wood framed phaetons with lever operated wheel brakes, abalone inlaid teak steering tillers and whale oil fueled lanthorns on the front wheel fenders?





ginjawarrior said:


> ahh so you've switch from "*the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"
> *to the whole of the world hmm i doubt anyone will notice
> 
> fukishima was general electrics desgined/ built plant
> ...





Dr Kynes said:


> no, again you are dancing around the issue. the US recieves almost ALL of the world's nuclear waste. the nuclear regulatory commision ensures that. france and britain and a few other developed nations keep their own, for their own uses, but all the rest goes to the US.





ginjawarrior said:


> im not dancing around the issue at all i've asked for evidence that (and i quote) "*Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials." *or "*but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it."
> *and you provided noevidence that europeans view it as waste free





Dr Kynes said:


> yes. if they wished the british could in fact join the rest of the world and send their nuclear waste to the US. thast the compact we made as a leader of nations to everybody else. have nuclear power, and we will handle the waste for you. britain is a nuclear power,, and thus has a USE for their reactor wastes as nuclear bomb making/maintaining materials. spain has no such nuclear weapons program (and iran should not either since they are signatories to the treaty and have been receiving the benefits for a long time) and thus has no need for their nuclear waste for any legitimate purpose so they get new fuel rods cheap, the NRC collects their waste and ships it to california, or nevada or colorado, and we take care of it for them.
> 
> the proper position for me to take if i held the view you are attributing to me would be *"fuck youse dutch bastards! youse can keeps your own nukular wastes and make your kuntry glow in the dark! thats what youse gets for bein communists! you froggy assholes can fuck your berets and youre eyeful towers. you can shuv your queen up your buts, with cranberries cuz you fought against us in ww2 you nazis!"
> *





ginjawarrior said:


> so now its not "all europe" but your singling down to spain
> "
> Radioactive Waste Management
> ENRESA (Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA) was established in 1984 as a state-owned company to take over radioactive waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants. It is now the only state-owned part of the nuclear fuel cycle in Spain.
> ...





Dr Kynes said:


> and even a casual perusal of the site you offered shows that SOME countries do keep their waste (spain for example has research facilities and other organizations that use it as a research resource) othe rnatrions save it against the future proposal to use it in as yet undeveloped reactor systems, and the other small or developing nations... no mention. because it gets sent to the US.
> 
> if the current waste issue is not an issue in france, germany canada and britain etc etc etc, WHY IS IT AN ISSUE IN THE US?
> 
> ...





ginjawarrior said:


> its a (bigger) issue in usa because of conspiracy theory shrill people like yourself who prefer to rant about the evils without solid facts behind them
> 
> *and* its not published anywhere yet you personally know that *"but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it."
> 
> *seriously can you for once put up or shut the fuck up and back away from this as im pretty sure i shown you wrong pretty much every time





Dr Kynes said:


> mmm hmm... so the international atomic energy agency makes all the nuclear waste from compliant nations disappear into ban ki moon's magic hat?
> 
> of do they simply trust that *oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan* will leave it in their in-country storage facilities and that everything will go to plan...



i think thats called moving the goalposts or in other terms you were full of shit at the start and your not man enough to step up and admit to it 
have a good day


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 12, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> *dude im not a science denier. *
> 
> i actually do want to know, and *the math is just not convincing. *
> 
> ...


Yes you are.

Yes it is. You just don't understand it.

What theories, besides your own, suggest a massive photon? How do you still not understand why experiments only put an upper limit on the mass? You can't stop a photon and bring it to rest. Even if you could, and you put it on a scale that goes out 100 places past the decimal, then how can you know for sure the mass is not 1x10^101? You can't. You are limit in your precision.

Again, you don't understand the math behind it. They deliver force because they have momentum. I have already posted the equations along with an explanation of exactly why they have no mass yet still deliver force. Every single equation you are thinking of is newtonian and has been proven to not be accurate.

It's not controversial, it has been widely accepted for a hundred years.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 12, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> LOL last i checked "oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan" they werent in europe....
> 
> shall we recap?
> i think thats called moving the goalposts or in other terms you were full of shit at the start and your not man enough to step up and admit to it
> have a good day




nice recap. you claim the goalposts moved, but thats just your interpretation, britain, as a nuclear armed power has under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty certain responsibilites to assist other nations who are NOT nuclear armed powers in the use, development and handling of nuclear power AND it's resultant waste. 

britain uses reprocessing to turn spent fuel into new fuel, with the excess concentrated garbage moved to storage. if however they were to disarm all their nukes, abandong all nuclear wepaons research and forswear any future nuclear amrmaments they could easily become a non-nuclear power and send their waste to the us just as taiwan jordan and most of the rest of the world does. France too. 

germany is NOT a nuclear armed power and thus they may if they soi desire turn their waste troubles into the iaea's troubles and those troubles are the US's troubles by default. the onloy goalpost being moved were mioved by YOU. "almost all of the worlds' nuclear waste" becomes "just europe" or "Just england" or "just a small second floor efficiency flat in notting hill" if it suits your purposes. 

the facts remain unchanged. the NRC, the IAEA and the US department of energy wind up dealing with the nuclear waste from nearly every nation on earth a very small select group of FIRST WORLD NATIONS keep their nuclear waste for experimentation, reprocessing or as a savings against new technologies they see on the horizon, like plutonium waste fueled reactors that dump out plain lead or bismuth as their "waste" instead of flesh melting deathrods which are so popular in anti-nuclear hysteria. 

but then you cant imagine a world where fresh nuclear fuel, and spent waste could be moved without YOU hearing about it, so obviously the stuff never crosses a border, never gets transported by road rail or sea, and therefore simply cannot exist. 

PS, we actually use the shit when we can. cuz we get so fucking much. 

remember the cassini space probe: plutonium deathwaste powered atomic energy cells. 
depleted uranium bullets? 
the powercells of the mars rovers? 
smoke detectors? 
yeah we are always looking for new ways to handle that crap. but it still costs us a packet. and any OTHER nation always has the option of just saying fuckit, and sending their shit to the IAEA and NRC, except america of course. if we opt out of the nuclear power game, ya'll would be fucked. fucked hard. and thats why we havent built a nuclear power plant since 1973. we get too much nuclear waste already, and we cant afford to take any more, not even from our own power plants. we are too busy taking it from everybody else, except of course those who preferr to keep it. or unles they have more than they want, and then... the excess will come to us. 

its' just the way it is. 


meanwhile i didnt want to have to publish a goddamn doctoral thesis on this little discussed fact of nuclear power policy. but since you insist that every detail be laid out in in specific, and then youll most likely begin grading my spelling and grammar, before moving on to examine my shoddy bibliography and lack of graphics. ill just bid you a good day too.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 13, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> nice recap. you claim the goalposts moved, but thats just your interpretation, britain, as a nuclear armed power has under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty certain responsibilites to assist other nations who are NOT nuclear armed powers in the use, development and handling of nuclear power AND it's resultant waste.


*"Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials. *"
*"maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry.*"
*"but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it. *"


> britain uses reprocessing to turn spent fuel into new fuel, with the excess concentrated garbage moved to storage. if however they were to disarm all their nukes, abandong all nuclear wepaons research and forswear any future nuclear amrmaments they could easily become a non-nuclear power and send their waste to the us just as taiwan jordan and most of the rest of the world does. France too.


so what your saying we're not sucking on usa tit?
jordan
"AMMAN &#8211; Officials marked another milestone in Jordan&#8217;s peaceful nuclear programme on Thursday by unveiling the Kingdom&#8217;s first storage facility for radioactive waste."
http://mideastenvironment.apps01.yorku.ca/?p=451
taiwan
"
 Lanyu gantry national radioactive waste storage site, on May 19, 1982, to receive the first batch of 10,008 barrels of nuclear waste. To October 1987, the number of nuclear waste has reached 4700 barrels and continue to 6 per voyage container 228 a barrel, about once a week to a cruise speed of input Orchid Island, solidified waste digestion and annual output of 45,000 barrels per nuclear power plant in Taiwan! 
"
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftw.myblog.yahoo.com%2Fvongayan%2Farticle%3Fmid%3D53%26prev%3D54%26next%3D52%26sc%3D1&act=url



> germany is NOT a nuclear armed power and thus they may if they soi desire turn their waste troubles into the iaea's troubles and those troubles are the US's troubles by default. the onloy goalpost being moved were mioved by YOU. "almost all of the worlds' nuclear waste" becomes "just europe" or "Just england" or "just a small second floor efficiency flat in notting hill" if it suits your purposes.


*"maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry.*"

"(Reuters) - A French train carrying 150 tonnes of reprocessed nuclear waste entered Germany on Friday en route to a storage site after a 24-hour stop at the border following clashes between riot police and anti-nuclear activists who tried to block the transport."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/25/uk-france-germany-nuclear-idUKTRE7AO0ZA20111125
we never have to think about waste...


> the facts remain unchanged. the NRC, the IAEA and the US department of energy wind up dealing with the nuclear waste from nearly every nation on earth a very small select group of FIRST WORLD NATIONS keep their nuclear waste for experimentation, reprocessing or as a savings against new technologies they see on the horizon, like plutonium waste fueled reactors that dump out plain lead or bismuth as their "waste" instead of flesh melting deathrods which are so popular in anti-nuclear hysteria.


*"Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials."*


> but then you cant imagine a world where fresh nuclear fuel, and spent waste could be moved without YOU hearing about it, so obviously the stuff never crosses a border, never gets transported by road rail or sea, and therefore simply cannot exist.


no i cannot imagine anything that comes out of your mouth to be true without some sort of evidence you type alot of words to try to hide your ignorance


> PS, we actually use the shit when we can. cuz we get so fucking much.
> 
> remember the cassini space probe: plutonium deathwaste powered atomic energy cells.
> depleted uranium bullets?
> ...


so its gone from the whole world sends waste to usa to well they look after it on their own but if they choose then maybe they could send it here?



> meanwhile i didnt want to have to publish a goddamn doctoral thesis on this little discussed fact of nuclear power policy. but since you insist that every detail be laid out in in specific, and then youll most likely begin grading my spelling and grammar, before moving on to examine my shoddy bibliography and lack of graphics. ill just bid you a good day too.


yeah you wouldnt need so many words to hide your ignorance if you learnt what you were talking about before you started typing


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 13, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> *"Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials. *"
> *"maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry.*"
> *"but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it. *"
> 
> ...


again, storage for their own use at a later date, storage for short term cooling before disposal etc are NOT long term disposaal entombment, or vitrification, and low level waste (which includes rags used to wipe down anything more radioactive than a colour tv's screen if it's in a nuclear facility) is NOT the hot rods and highly radioactive by-products of powerplants. low level radioactive waste is NOT what i was talking about and you well know this. forther, yes, britain MAY if they so desire, abrogate their eresponsibility, the CAN if they wish stop keeping spent nuclear rods and whatnot, and the COULD if they wished let the IAEA handle their fissionable wastes for them. 

and thats the key FISSIONABLE MATERIALS not empty soup cans from the reactor facility's cafeteria (which yes are sometimes classified as low level waste) or contaminated silt from uraium mining operations, or that tiny nugget of slightly radioactive shit in your smoke detector.

fissionable materials are what i was talkng about, what i was referring to, and exactly the issue, not the low level mildly radioactive, barely higher than background radiation bullshit you keep dragging up.

fissionable materials are handled by VERY few nations, despite MANY nations having nuclear reactors that use fissionable materials. one small load of fissionable materials being sent to britain resulted in riots when word leaked out, one large shipment through the east bay of fissionable materials from several asian countries(again not low level waste incidentally used at a nuclear facility, but actual nuclear waste) resulted in months of protests and berkeley declaring itself a "nuclear free zone". thats why the NRC the IAEA and the various national nuclear agencies around the world dont put out press releases on every shipment of new nuclear fuels, or spent ones when they transfer them. 

australia, a nation with no nuclear arms, DOES mine and manufacture nuclear fuel rods, and other fissionable materials, and they are careful to ensure that they ONLY send the shit out to nations who will NOT be making weapons, and with the IAEA's help they try to ensure that the spent material (not the fucking rags, paper towels and paint chips) are sent BACK to australia when they are used up (so that it does not get diverted into nuclear weapons programs or the hands of terrorists) *or some other responsible agency* (which almost invariably winds up being the US). the website you referenced makes a LOT of discussion of short term storage, the issues of transportation and discussion of fissionable materials being sent from one nation to another, but they neglect to mention where the stuff goes when it is finished, and past it's useful life, save for those specific instances that are already public record (such as britain's reprocessing deal with japan or the US lend/lease fuel program) they keep the rest of the facts on the low-low with good reason. the closest they get is discussing the HUGE numbers of fissionable materials brought into and out of the US every year, but the details are conspicuously absent. 

where the used fuel rods we get so much of here in the us come from is the dirty little secret of the IAEA the NRC and the DOE. where they wind up is even more secret. most people in the sacramento valley have no idea that rancho stinko's colling and holdign pools and cask storage is full. theyassume since rancho stinko only ran for a few years at very low capacity, that theres nothing in there but dust, cobwebs and a few mice. nothing is further from the truth. that facility is maxed out. and since we dont have many nuclear plants in the US, much of the stuff in rancho seco is probably from foreign lands, but the details are classified. 

*to prevent public outcry. *

The US alos has a large fleet of nuclear powered vessels in our navy. much of the fuel and the resulting waste is handled internally, but they are also known to act as a shipping service for spent fuel rods from several nation, and to have brough the spent fissionable materials into the US from foreign lands through their bases in Port Chicago, Newport, oakland long beach and new jersey.


----------



## MoonRaver (Oct 13, 2012)

Welp, so much for global warming. NatGeo just published an article showing that the antarctic sea ice grew the largest it ever this year. This coming from a mainstream outlet..... I don't know what to believe. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 13, 2012)

MoonRaver said:


> Welp, so much for global warming. NatGeo just published an article showing that the antarctic sea ice grew the largest it ever this year. This coming from a mainstream outlet..... I don't know what to believe.
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/


and you now are a climate change denier. doubt is heresy, and questions mean you havent read "Earth In The Balance" often enough, and should probably play the audio from "An Inconvenient Truth" through your headphones while you sleep, just to help it sink in.

also national geographic is racist.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 13, 2012)

MoonRaver said:


> Welp, so much for global warming. NatGeo just published an article showing that the antarctic sea ice grew the largest it ever this year. This coming from a mainstream outlet..... I don't know what to believe.
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/





Dr Kynes said:


> and you now are a climate change denier. doubt is heresy, and questions mean you havent read "Earth In The Balance" often enough, and should probably play the audio from "An Inconvenient Truth" through your headphones while you sleep, just to help it sink in.
> 
> also national geographic is racist.


it would help if you both read the article rather than just the headline

*"This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?*

If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.
So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.
That's the leading explanation for what we're seeing in the Antarctic, but you have to acknowledge that the effect is very small."

"
*Considering we regularly hear about the planet's stressed climate system, is this good news?*
Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.
The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought. It's warming up, but slower. So it's all consistent with a warming planet."


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 13, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> again, storage for their own use at a later date, storage for short term cooling before disposal etc are NOT long term disposaal entombment, or vitrification, and low level waste (which includes rags used to wipe down anything more radioactive than a colour tv's screen if it's in a nuclear facility) is NOT the hot rods and highly radioactive by-products of powerplants. low level radioactive waste is NOT what i was talking about and you well know this. forther, yes, britain MAY if they so desire, abrogate their eresponsibility, the CAN if they wish stop keeping spent nuclear rods and whatnot, and the COULD if they wished let the IAEA handle their fissionable wastes for them.
> 
> and thats the key FISSIONABLE MATERIALS not empty soup cans from the reactor facility's cafeteria (which yes are sometimes classified as low level waste) or contaminated silt from uraium mining operations, or that tiny nugget of slightly radioactive shit in your smoke detector.
> 
> ...


yeah yeah yeah keep typing you still havent shown a thing


----------



## MoonRaver (Oct 13, 2012)

Well, how about we record a couple more hundred years worth of temperature data from various places around the globe so we can get a feel for what we have done. I am no climate change denier, the climate is always changing. C'mon, most of us know that natives Americans were able to grow corn in areas that are now no longer able to even accumulate enough rainfall to grow dandelions. Wonder what made that happen?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 14, 2012)

MoonRaver said:


> Well, how about we record a couple more hundred years worth of temperature data from various places around the globe so we can get a feel for what we have done. I am no climate change denier, the climate is always changing. C'mon, most of us know that natives Americans were able to grow corn in areas that are now no longer able to even accumulate enough rainfall to grow dandelions. Wonder what made that happen?


it would help if you learnt about climate science before you try dictating what they need to do


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 14, 2012)

MoonRaver said:


> Well, how about we record a couple more hundred years worth of temperature data from various places around the globe so we can get a feel for what we have done. I am no climate change denier, the climate is always changing. C'mon, most of us know that natives Americans were able to grow corn in areas that are now no longer able to even accumulate enough rainfall to grow dandelions. Wonder what made that happen?


That's a good idea on paper, but what would you suggest we do if we don't have a few hundred years left to measure the climate? What if the climate changed so drastically in a couple hundred years to make current living situations uninhabitable?

I'm not saying it'll be overnight like the movies, but what if we only have a couple decades to change things? Could we do it?


----------



## Doer (Oct 14, 2012)

MoonRaver said:


> Welp, so much for global warming. NatGeo just published an article showing that the antarctic sea ice grew the largest it ever this year. This coming from a mainstream outlet..... I don't know what to believe.
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/


I re-bumped the thread with this fact you have also found. I won't go again over the implication I see, but if you read back, it's there. Science is not belief. What does it matter what we believe? What are you going to do different one are another, except in politics?

The issue is simple and not resolved in Science.

Is Cloud Effect a Closed Loop system re: moderating Earth temp?

The AGW types have ignored this. They have DECIDED for political purposes that it is open-loop.
Not moderating but causing GW.

They point to puke data or they point to only 30 years of Sat data.

But, what are the periods? Not decades. No even centuries. We are in the peak of the Inter-Ice Age cycle by most accounts. Of course, it is getting warmer. But, at some point we may see freeze of the oceans and only our urban heat bubble can save mankind. The current crop of hucksters will have sucked the teat of our stupid money, traded round the Carbon Credits and are now long dead.

No harm done. Just another stupid test. Really, who cares? It's all fear based manipulation for political carbon coin.

Year over year gains in Spreading sea ice is a cooling phenomena and points to Closed Loop Cloud Effect, imo.
This is the inconvenient fact of the still specious argument for AGW.


----------



## Doer (Oct 14, 2012)

MoonRaver said:


> Well, how about we record a couple more hundred years worth of temperature data from various places around the globe so we can get a feel for what we have done. I am no climate change denier, the climate is always changing. C'mon, most of us know that natives Americans were able to grow corn in areas that are now no longer able to even accumulate enough rainfall to grow dandelions. Wonder what made that happen?


We wonder. But that is not the point. You really mean fear, don't you? And that is the political, not scientific point made on you.

Politics of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD factor. Climates change as the Thread title suggests. Why are we being FUDed?

A few more hundred years of good data may show Global Cooling. We don't know.

Boycott FUD!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 14, 2012)

Doer said:


> I re-bumped the thread with this fact you have also found. I won't go again over the implication I see, but if you read back, it's there. Science is not belief. What does it matter what we believe? What are you going to do different one are another, except in politics?
> 
> The issue is simple and not resolved in Science.
> 
> ...


and you still wont point out which scientist is proposing "cloud effect" heck your not even defining "cloud effect"your just repeating it as if its the be all and end all

you talking about this guy Richard Lindzen?


----------



## Doer (Oct 14, 2012)

Never heard of him...

I keep saying it is Science and no one has yet to propose a Model that can be verified against any data set. When that happens, then that model can be run, and improved to study the entire workings of CE.

In Science, CE is being observed, as I said, papers are being written. But no Model, no Theory. Please understand that GW and AGW are just side shows in the Science of Cloud Effect. 

So, instead of just constantly insisting that I am regurgitating, as you have done on other topics, please act as if you understand this concept. I am not in Politics or am I into spoon fed opinions. 


Go stand in the shade and see for yourself . And stop acting like CE is some kook opposition to your left agenda.

You are on the hook, to show, if you can, a single, verifiable model of CE showing closed-loop. I don't have to prove a thing, since my position is that things remain un-proved.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 14, 2012)

Doer said:


> Never heard of him...
> 
> I keep saying it is Science and no one has yet to propose a Model that can be verified against any data set. When that happens, then that model can be run, and improved to study the entire workings of CE.
> 
> ...


they havent shown a model that takes into account the effect if i masturbate with my left hand or my right hand and that contribution to gloabl warming

what im asking from you is the evidence that the models arent correct (with or without cloud effect)

and the reasons/ sources of your theory of cloud effect

without any of that your an "armchair scientist" who's decided the vast majority of climate scientists wrong thru your own uninformed deductions and if thats all you are you should write your own thesis this discovery of yours would win you a nobel if "true"


----------



## Doer (Oct 15, 2012)

You just are not listening.

A- There is no unified model of Climate without Cloud Effect. You swerve to profane in your fallacies, but it means not much to me, beyond showing in-articulation.

B- I keep saying there is no model and thus no Theory of Cloud Effect. Put my statements, A + B and you see there cannot be a Model or Theory of Climate much less of Warming of any kind even though if we squint at the sparse data and think we see "something. There is no scientific proof of AGW at all, at this time. There is only Political strife to confuse the young scientists.

No full account of Cloud Effect means no Climate Theory. 

And I have plainly said, though you don't like it, the entire question of warning is not science. It is foregone conclusion. It is bastard science to attempt to prove conclusions.

Sad for you, perhaps, but, there is no political right-fight, for me. Right-fight is the opiate of the masses.

I don't have to believe or prove. It is Science. And is not belief, but investigation to arrive at experimentally repeatable results. Without that it is simply the politics of multi-generational mind control....Left Agenda. That's it. 

I have said that nothing is proven and yet you insist on this idea that I need to "prove" something to you. But, you are mired in belief.

Are you just being dense? Out of ideas? Stooping to derision, like your kind does when challenged.
Sarcasm is political, not Science.

Stupid is voting for political belief in Science:
"*without any of that your an "armchair scientist" who's decided the vast majority of climate scientists wrong thru your own uninformed deductions and if thats all you are you should write your own thesis this discovery of yours would win you a nobel if "true" ."*

You say what I should do? As a smarry insult? That isn't Science. It's politics.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> You just are not listening.
> 
> A- There is no unified model of Climate without Cloud Effect. You swerve to profane in your fallacies, but it means not much to me, beyond showing in-articulation.
> 
> ...


A. Show your work
B. Show your work

mr armchair "scientist" you


----------



## Doer (Oct 15, 2012)

the work is on going. there, is at present, a hissing only, from political name callers....which is not science, you armchair, thinkingless, opinion fed 'droid.

Show my work on A? There is no consensus on A or B. Tard.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> the work is on going. there, is at present, a hissing only, from political name callers....which is not science, you armchair, thinkingless, opinion fed 'droid.
> 
> Show my work on A? There is no consensus on A or B. Tard.


i know theres lots of work being done by people who are qualified to do such work

what are you credentials for saying they are all wrong?

what are your findings that lead you to this discovery?

show your work


----------



## Doer (Oct 15, 2012)

Just went back and reviewed the early parts of this thread and Mr. M rightly said he thinks the evidence is "mounting up" for negative cloud feedback. This is a detail of Cloud Effect that is the point. I say rightly, in that the comment is a solid, scientific point of view.

But, I disagree with the idea, as does he, perhaps, that all the Science is done. I disagree that it's time to plan for and spend Trillions of Dollars on Climate modification boondoggles for political power.

Yes, to the study of Climate. No to attempting to prove a fore gone conclusion. Yawn to name callers.

Do you know what a right-fight is? Someone is so immature that he just has to be Right and is compelled to try to brand the other guy, technically and actually WRONG, for EGO? It's politics. Not science. I'm not saying anything is wrong in the Science. 

I say you can't prove anything without a model for Cloud Effect that shows negative feedback.

It's not just a term I made up, BTW. I posted links for a Cloud Conference in England last year. No GW or AGW consensus. No cogent models, no Theory proposed.

And even if you show negative feedback into the atmosphere, you still have to model the heat transfers into the ocean mass and back.

That could be positive feedback of a longer period. Ice Age periods, perhaps.

I happen to have a degree in Physics, a big interest Computational fluid dynamics and simulation modeling in general. I manage Computer Scientists in the research dept for software compilation techniques to drive new hardware processor concepts.

I am trained and experienced to form my own, professional, scientific opinions...not that I care what you think.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> I happen to have a degree in Physics, a big interest Computational fluid dynamics and simulation modeling in general. I manage Computer Scientists in the research dept for software compilation techniques to drive new hardware processor concepts.
> 
> I am trained and experienced to form my own, professional, scientific opinions...not that I care what you think.


good you'l have no problem at all showing your work then damn there really could be a nobel in it for you


----------



## Doer (Oct 15, 2012)

I'm not engaged in Climate Research. I am following Cloud Effect for the dynamic modeling problems from a hardware processor, point of view. Weather modeling, in general, is one of our on-going research paths. So, a patent for an improved algorithm in dynamic modeling
or a technique to off-load CPU to GPU processing is what we are after.

What do you you?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> I'm not engaged in Climate Research. I am following Cloud Effect for the dynamic modeling problems from a hardware processor, point of view. Weather modeling, in general, is one of our on-going research paths. So, a patent for an improved algorithm in dynamic modeling
> or a technique to off-load CPU to GPU processing is what we are after.
> 
> What do you you?


i'm not the one claiming to have turned over the consensus of climate scientists my credentials are irrelevant

so you say you got all the hardware there in front of you and you have a degree in physics and computer modeling

well you sound just perfect to be someone to blow away agw theory. why dont you get the models and data sets and run them yourself and write a paper on how they are wrong 

obviously you would have to go get better information than what you get from this site you linked at beginning
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

nobel must be just in reach for you


----------



## Doer (Oct 15, 2012)

i sense a certai..yawn


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> i sense a certai..yawn


so you got nothing then?


----------



## Doer (Oct 15, 2012)

what? no, you got nothing. Remember? You are re-gurging. I'm the OP. I'm provided many links of the peer review. Cloud research is not showing it. It's all here. My position is only un-clear to the trolls that are the low amoebas


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> what? no, you got nothing. Remember? You are re-gurging. I'm the OP. I'm proved many links of the peer review. Cloud research is not showing it. It's all here. My position is only un-clear to the trolls that are the low amobeas


http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

cant find any peer review in that one

waded thru some pages yet finding it very sparse on details care to recap
/


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 15, 2012)




----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

Well a couple things, I'm always will to discuss rationally. 

40 year data set is a eye blink in Climate Science.

The extrapolation line in Red is false.

The Blue lines show a distinct slowing of the rate.

A true extrapolation will show that Red line producing a distinct flattening out (inconvenient)

I no more trust skeptical science blogs than I trust NASA on this. It is obvious to me this is a cover-up.

The graph you provide is worthless and only proves one thing. The foregone conclusion. The smug to glug.

Why do you care if I don't fall for it? Because it is political agenda. And the nature of agenda is right-fight.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> Well a couple things, I'm always will to discuss rationally.
> 
> 40 year data set is a eye blink in Climate Science.
> 
> ...


ok then lets see your sources so we can get this discussion going....

you know like show your work

you might be a conspiracy theorist dullard but your paranoia alone does not make it true

reality cares not your belief


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ranked_combined.png


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

Another 30 year, and not contiguous data, thus another sparse set. 

Please read what the Berkley report has to say about these worthless data sets.

And I have shown an entire Cloud Conference of peer review presentation.

You don't understand the Science and you won't say what is your background.

Science has shown through observation that we are in a warming trend over the last 30-40 years. But, I also posted early on, some longer term periodicities. those data show that these sparse sets are not enough to say anything outside of Political Guilt/Fear/Power agenda.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> Another 30 year, and not contiguous data, thus another sparse set.
> 
> Please read what the Berkley report has to say about these worthless data sets.


i have..
i have also see the results of the berkley report and guess what they match all the other models





















http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

the lead auther now agrees that AGW is the driving force in climate at present

his data shows the same thing

so what am i supposed to be looking for?


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

Closed loop feedback with Cloud Effect on Surface Temps. 100 years. The Royal Navy goes back another 300 years and shows the same flat temp over time. Pure mitigation of surface temp by the extra albedo produced when temps rise.

Sure the Berkeley Report seems supportive if you don't read past wikipedia and the popular sources. Mostly, however, the BEST study does not support AGW.

BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming.
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon.

Based on this most recent temperature and CO2 information...

" We can safely assume that the BEST researchers are no dummies.....that would explain their hedging comments that the human influence is 'overestimated' and that natural decadal oscillations may be driving temperatures instead of human CO2 emissions."

Here's what the leader said, "
BEST founder Richard A. Muller told _The Guardian_ "...we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious," "...we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close."[3]
The BEST project is funded by unrestricted educational grants totalling (as of March 2011) about $635,000. Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER)[4], and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how BEST conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

It actually was un-biased but that that didn't stop the power mongers from spinning it for their purpose. 

See the current wikipedia for BEST and ask yourself. Does it mention this? No.



BEST results show little, if any, warming over recent years
BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming
BEST determined that government maintained temperature-station quality is "awful"
BEST found that the urban impact on global land temperatures is minimal
BEST concluded that the human influence on land temperatures may be overestimated
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> View attachment 2375170
> 
> Closed loop feedback with Cloud Effect on Surface Temps. 100 years. The Royal Navy goes back another 300 years and shows the same flat temp over time. Pure mitigation of surface temp by the extra albedo produced when temps rise.
> 
> ...


link for the chart what paper did it come from??

you said you have a degree in physics why are you quoting wikipedia on this can you not goto the papers themselves?



> BEST results show little, if any, warming over recent years
> dont you keep harping on over small data sets? the overall trend not small subsets is whats important
> BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming last time i checked 1/3 still leaves 2/3's unaccounted for and guess what the increase there is enough to overwhelm the 1/3 cooling
> BEST determined that government maintained temperature-station quality is "awful" good thing theres multiple sets and sattelites to check against and guess what they all point the same way
> ...



EDIT PS I took the charts straight from berkleys OWN SITE


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

If you could show anything but animosity it could be an interesting discussion


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> If you could show anything but animosity it could be an interesting discussion


yeah right back at you...

but please have you got a link to which paper that chart came from

we're all big boys here instead of linking to "wiki" lets have a look at the papers themselves?

i linked to berkleys site wouldnt the relevant data be there?


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> If you could show anything but animosity it could be an interesting discussion


Doer, some of the best discussions are driven by animosity. Humans are creatures of passion. It motivates us. 

But reading "I don't want to" as "I can't, but won't say so" is a valid objection imo. The supreme defense is to prove your opponent wrong, not merely declare it. Jmo. cn


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

OK
Showing Only Animosity

How about that? Though I must say if these punk and hiding debate styles were dropped for some pure non personal animus, even that would be an improvement

Dismissivness is an indicator of no ideas or articulation motivation, either

Just ego


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> OK
> Showing Only Animosity
> 
> How about that? Though I must say if these punk and hiding debate styles were dropped for some pure non personal animus, enemy that would be an improvement
> ...


so you have nothing of substance and cry like a baby when asked for evidence

is my job here done?


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

you don't have a job here, your mommy does about your low self esteem and trollishness

The lazy would rather disrupt or dismiss than do the research themselves. I'm disussing climate, not proving or disproving or whatever else a particular toad stool, might think.

Pacific Decadal Oscilliation 
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

Atlantic Decadal Oscilliaton
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Lee_Wang_JPO.pdf

The main conclusion of this study is that the equatorial
atmosphere&#8211;ocean can be affected by the extratropical
forcing through the atmosphere&#8211;ocean coupling
(both thermal and dynamic) and that the ocean
dynamics plays a crucial role in bridging the dipole oscillation
and the equatorial system.

But, this is for the serious types that are not closed minded.

Wang mentions negative feedback due to depth mixing, but cannot conclude if cross-equitorial factors are in play.

Really we should be studying the various periods, solar, ocean, atmosphere, ice and land before we jump to conclusion.

We don't know the cycles or the feedbacks that control them.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> you don't have a job here, your mommy does about your low self esteem and trollishness





Doer said:


> View attachment 2375170


lets take this one step at a time cause your obviously getting cranky at the "hard stuff"

where did you get this picture from? which study does it come from?


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

You guys are just blowing smoke. Try inhaling and holding for a 10 count first. 

Smug canndo says the heating is unabated. Why do you make me do the research?

This says the opposite.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

You deniers of Cloud Effect are just not looking because of Idealogical fear. OK, this paper does make the assumed, unabashed top cover statement. I stipulate.

"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind&#8217;s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the &#8216;Urban Heat Island Effect,&#8217; are making conditions &#8216;worse&#8217; and this will ultimately enhance the Earth&#8217;s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."

So, Harris-Mann guys are still singing the political tune as we see in so many of these articles. But, editorial ruse is not my point. 

Earth Temperature back to 2200 BCE


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

You guys are just blowing smoke. Smug canndo says the heating is unabated. Why do you make me do the research.

This says the opposite.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

You deniers of Cloud Effect are just not looking because of Idealogical fear. OK, this paper does make the assumed, unabashed top cover statement. I stipulate.

"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankinds activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the Urban Heat Island Effect, are making conditions worse and this will ultimately enhance the Earths warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."

So, Harris-Mann this guys are still singing the political tune as we see in so many of these articles. But, editorial ruse is not my point. 

View attachment 2375724


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> You guys are just blowing smoke. Smug canndo says the heating is unabated. Why do you make me do the research.
> 
> This says the opposite.
> 
> ...


its not asking you to do the research you posted an unlabled unlinked graph saying its cloud effect

surely you could tell us where you got it from is it that hard?

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
^^^ thats not a scientific paper the graph it shows 
*"Global temperature chart was complied by Climatologist Cliff Harris that combined the following resources:*
"Climate and the Affairs of Men" _by Dr. Iben Browing._"Browning described his climatic theories and findings in _Climate and the Affairs of Men_, which he co-authored with Nels Winkless III and *published in 1975.*
"Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. _By Michael Zahorchak_"_Climate: The Key to Understanding Business Cycles_, Raymond H. Wheeler, Tide Press *(1983)*
Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. every link i can find for this one links traces back to article


EDIT that graph hasnt even got temperature down the side


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

Are you still lost? The link is for the PDO. The chart you are crazy about is the PDO, not clouds.

Trolls intentionally miss it all. You missed this. Drop back to Wheeler.

"Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded &#8216;510-Year Drought Clock&#8217; that he detailed at the end of the &#8216;Dust Bowl&#8217; era in the late 1930s."

I'm providing examples of cycles. There is much, much more out there. But, it is all gleaned from specific trends in specific research. This takes a more upleveled, much more accessible historical view. Are you going to deny that there is any cyclical aspect at all?

Or do you perhaps say this chart has no basis at all? That you will have to show.

Your turn. Show anything that can present any long term cycles. Your best is 40 years of land heating data if I remember. I'll try to re-state in less words.

Until we know the periods we cannot draw conclusions. There is a lot of homework you can do on periodicy and statistical analysis as they pertain to short and long term feedback in the atmosphere heat cycles. But, there are no conclusions.

Trans-polar stratospheric exchanges and deep ocean trans-equatorial current exchanges are just barely discovered, much less understood. Much work to be done.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> Are you still lost? The link is for the PDO. The chart you are crazy about is the PDO, not clouds.
> 
> I'm providing examples of cycles. There is much, much more out there. But, it is all gleaned from specific trends in specific research. This takes a more upleveled, much more accessible historical view. Are you going to deny that there is any cyclical aspect at all?
> 
> ...


look at the chart and then point out where the temperature scale is

that link is not a scientific paper


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> look at the chart and then point out where the temperature scale is
> 
> that link is not a scientific paper


"warm" "very warm" "very cold"

your seriously putting that up expecting it to be taken seriously?


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

Or how about 420,000 years of Antarctic ice cores for cycles.
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

"As judged from Vostok records, climate has almost always been in
a state of change during the past 420 kyr but within stable bounds
(that is, there are maximum and minimum values of climate
properties between which climate oscillates)."

They find gases and they make charts. They discuss rationally the feedback potentials including orbital forcing. But, they do not draw a conclusion.


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> "warm" "very warm" "very cold"
> 
> your seriously putting that up expecting it to be taken seriously?


Oh, did we kick over your 4000 year old weather station? What a joke you are. It's is a proposition of relative values based on Wheeler, that's all, toad stool.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> Or how about 420,000 years of Antarctic ice cores for cycles.
> http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf
> 
> "As judged from Vostok records, climate has almost always been in
> ...


well done so we've established that climate has changed in the past im not sure if your trying to insinuate that im against that position but hey we got some where

are you trying to tell me that current climate scientists are unaware of this ice data?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> Oh, did we kick over your 4000 year old weather station? What a joke you are. It's is a proposition of relative values based on Wheeler, that's all, toad stool.


is that the standard of what your going to be bringing to the table? temperature stations labled "very hot" ?


----------



## Doer (Oct 16, 2012)

ask your mom. didn't she teach about chiding?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> ask your mom. didn't she teach about chiding?


doer its been pages now and we've only got as far as temperature changed in the past


----------



## Doer (Oct 17, 2012)

That's right. That's as far as it goes.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 17, 2012)

Doer said:


> That's right. That's as far as it goes.


thats your be all and end all in proof that AGW is wrong?

bit of a cop out dont you think?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 17, 2012)

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/predictions/


----------



## Doer (Oct 17, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> thats your be all and end all in proof that AGW is wrong?
> 
> bit of a cop out dont you think?


You pretend to not listen, so I don't care. I said many times I have not set out to prove AGW wrong. Just saying it over and over means nothing. Like our President. Don't mean nothin'

You set this right-fight, but I'm not playing. It is a bit confusing when you are in AGW Religion and don't even know it. You expect to proselytize, preach to the choir, or crucify. So, ask a family member, phone a friend, or continue to feebly harass me. Don't mean nothin' Maybe change back to girlsih screams, because the fight is only in your mind. I don't care.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 17, 2012)

Doer said:


> You pretend to not listen, so I don't care. I said many times I have not set out to prove AGW wrong. Just saying it over and over means nothing. Like our President. Don't mean nothin'
> 
> You set this right-fight, but I'm not playing. It is a bit confusing when you are in AGW Religion and don't even know it. You expect to proselytize, preach to the choir, or crucify. So, ask a family member, phone a friend, or continue to feebly harass me. Don't mean nothin' Maybe change back to girlsih screams, because the fight is only in your mind. I don't care.


pretend not to listen??

i have diligently look at the links you have given me so that i can have a clearer idea what you are trying to get across

i have asked for the source3s of the graph you shown so i can have a better idea


if you try to feed me a shit sandwich like that cartoon graph and accompanying text then i am going to say something. im not just gonna agree blindly because you think i should

so we've got the ice core we know that there are natural cycles on earths temperature. wheres this "cloud effect" papers your talking about


----------



## Doer (Oct 17, 2012)

I guess you just haven't read the entire thread? I'm done repeating myself. I'm done with the contrived contention that I'm trying prove or disprove anything. So, you can't seem to get your mind clear. Not my fault. Is this as feeble you can get in the harassment?

Good. I'm done.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 17, 2012)

Doer said:


> I guess you just haven't read the entire thread? I'm done repeating myself. I'm done with the contrived contention that I'm trying prove or disprove anything. So, you can't seem to get your mind clear. Not my fault. Is this as feeble you can get in the harassment?
> 
> Good. I'm done.


i've read a fair bit into the thread theres a whole bunch of graph's without links

theres a paper you posted on "Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation"

but that paper does not disprove global warming or prove a negative cloud effect

why did you make this thread if you werent trying to show something?


----------



## Doer (Oct 17, 2012)

Who the hell are you to question my right to begin a thread?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 17, 2012)

Doer said:


> Who the hell are you to question my right to begin a thread?


wow who's got a persecution complex going? 

your "*right"* to post a thread was questioned?

where?

by who?


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 17, 2012)




----------



## Doer (Oct 18, 2012)

toad stool said*...why did you make this thread if you werent trying to show something? 

*...it questions my right to make a thread if I'm not satisfying the troll. The troll thinks I need to answer to it? That makes it the joke.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 18, 2012)

You are correct. You don't need to substantiate anything to anybody. Post away.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 18, 2012)

Doer said:


> toad stool said*...why did you make this thread if you werent trying to show something?
> 
> *...it questions my right to make a thread if I'm not satisfying the troll. The troll thinks I need to answer to it? That makes it the joke.


silly americans thinking simple questions are attacks on their "rights" persecution indeed!!!


----------



## Doer (Oct 18, 2012)

I see. No Constitutional rights is the hand me down, swill from Monarchy. How can someone understand? They don't know what Rights are. Don't have a clear concept of self rule. So, easy to line up and not think. 

We see Rhetorical Hiding as stupid and dis-honest. We see it in our politics these days and it's gonna run Barry right out....terror, terrorist, troll, droll.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 18, 2012)

Doer said:


> I see. No Constitutional rights is the hand me down, swill from Monarchy. How can someone understand? They don't know what Rights are. Don't have a clear concept of self rule. So, easy to line up and not think.
> 
> We see Rhetorical Hiding as stupid and dis-honest. We see it in our politics these days and it's gonna run Barry right out....terror, terrorist, troll, droll.


you feel your rights are that insecure that me offering my right of asking a question is enough for you to cry persecution?

have you ever heard of 1st world problems?


----------



## Doer (Oct 19, 2012)

Why do people insist on *Rhetorical Hiding*? Just saying 1st world problem is envy.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 19, 2012)

Doer said:


> Why do people insist on *Rhetorical Hiding*? Just saying 1st world problem is envy.


heres a hint for you big boy your "rights" were never questioned by me the "purpose" of this thread was but not your rights

you know how this is like a public forum and people post publicly here to you know "show stuff"

anyway your manufactured indignation/ butthurt about a simple question aside 

wheres this evidence that "cloud effect" is the driving force?


----------



## Doer (Oct 20, 2012)

You questioned and got my reply and now you seem so boring.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 20, 2012)

Doer said:


> You questioned and got my reply and now you seem so boring.


the cartoon graphs?

the ice core data?

the unsourced graph that claims to say something about cloud effect but as you refuse to show where you got it from who knows what it is saying??

the single paper you posted that doesnt show cloud effect as a driving force?


i knew from the start that you were talking out of your arse and couldnt reference a credible source but i must say your attempts were even more pathetic than i had first expected

are you normally this impotent??


----------

