Cheap Shots at Global Warming

[Odysseus]

This is why I stopped arguing about the subject. There are too many people who refuse to believe that humans can affect the earth. Though year after year more cities have smog problems, fish and wildlife are drastically different from 100 years ago, and there are lakes in the Adirondacks that are dead because of acid rain caused by us. Seen it first hand when my father brought me to a couple while hunting.

All I can say is look at the data yourself rather than following these so called Scientists that can debunk everything. If you believe in them you might as well stop stock trading and go right to that guy on TV who says he can help you make $35,000 in a month

I've given up truthfully fighting with people about it, really angers my wife who is a die hard recyclist. Figure until the majority of people are on the same page, nothing will change. Humans tend to need something really drastic to happen before they will react to it. So all I can hope is that it gets really bad....

[Karel]

And for people who want to make a start looking at the data, I again suggest the link I gave earlier in this thread.

When people prefer to shuffle around to the beat of the same old drummer, chanting slogans like "Global Warming is a Hoax" however, they are not in the mood and don't have the mindset to be educated, so discussion is useless. Only when someone makes a vague attempt at something remotely resembling a fact, I might be motivated to dot the i. To my surprise all sources brought up here opposing global warming have been disturbingly corrupt. Why people would associate themselves with such rubbish is incomprehensible. And although corruption without a doubt also flowers among Global Warming defenders, it is pretty easy to avoid it and find the real stuff.

Perhaps some education woud be nice for the deniers too, if only to make them able to avoid the more obvious cases of dishonesty and incompetence, and for once come up with an interesting argument.

Regards,

Karel

[Odysseus]

omg, the "Professor" was speaking to:

Even though he was talking to a crowd of investors, managers and fans of uranium mining companies, the subject matter seemed particularly awkward.

And he's a Geologist. No offense but Geology and Atmospheric Science are two very different subjects.

Once he's hand drawn half a hundred observation maps and decoded weather balloon data and Metar reports, and recited passages or equations from the Green Book we used to call it, then I could accept him into the fold.

Until then I'm sorry, he is a Geologist. Here is more about him if you are interested:

http://www.ecms.adelaide.edu.au/civeng/staff/iplimer01.html

[Karel]

omg, the "Professor" was speaking to:

Even though he was talking to a crowd of investors, managers and fans of uranium mining companies, the subject matter seemed particularly awkward.

And he's a Geologist. No offense but Geology and Atmospheric Science are two very different subjects.

Once he's hand drawn half a hundred observation maps and decoded weather balloon data and Metar reports, and recited passages or equations from the Green Book we used to call it, then I could accept him into the fold.

Until then I'm sorry, he is a Geologist. Here is more about him if you are interested:

http://www.ecms.adelaide.edu.au/cive...iplimer01.html

Yes I am interested! Not one paper on climate. But now there's a book coming. Although that is rather disappointing in itself: usually a scientific book is preceded by a trail of preparative articles and perhaps interesting sidelines. We'll see. He hasn't been publishing since 2006 (except a 2007 article that is probably a rehash of a 2006 conference paper), so he better have something to show for his time.

The Wikipedia article on Plimer links to articles with statements from Plimer. Now it gets ugly. Keep that link to the Global Warming Myths handy.

From Akerman, Piers (2007-04-12). "ABC scaremongering on the environment | Opinion" (4th reference in the Wikipedia article):

1. "Some 96 per cent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, the rest is due to CO2, methane and other gases, he says." See CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
   
2. "Of the CO2, 95 per cent is due to natural processes (volcanoes, plants, bacteria etc) with the remainder (about 0.1 per cent) resulting from human activities." See Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
   
3. "Even if humans stopped producing CO2 now, it would not make the slightest difference to atmospheric CO2, as natural sources swamp the human sources." Not covered in the article I referred to, where I got the earlier links. It could be just a rephrased nr. 2, and anyway it ignores the continuing damage to CO2 sinks, so CO2 levels might even continue to rise.
   
4. "Even so, the atmosphere is almost at the lowest level of CO2 content of the past 4550 million years, and the role of the greatest biomass on Earth bacteria and CO2 is an unknown." Not covered, but very disingenuous. 4.5 billion years is the age of the earth. Earth very early on had a CO2/N (carbon dioxide/nitrogen) atmosphere; only when the early plants succeeded in replacing that atmospheric CO2 with oxygen did the CO2 part of the atmosphere of the earth go down to approximately current levels: virtually nothing. Double virtually nothing and you are still way down on the scale. Perhaps the current rise really is a blip on the graph, but that does not matter, as that blip correlates rather well with the observed global warming.

With all its facts reduced to rubble, the conclusion of the article "Professor Plimer's view is unpopular because it absolves humans from blame and robs the self-flagellating publicity-seekers of their moment in the spotlight. It does not however mean that his views are not as deserving of equal consideration in this debate" rather loses its point.

I leave the other three articles about Plimer as an exercise for the reader.

No, this does not bode well for his new book.

Regards,

Karel

[Peter Hansen]

karel & Ody

karel and Ody .....I respect you both and appreciate your opinions.....but obviously we will never come to an agreement over this matter .....but, hey...that is what freedom is all about ......and I hope the US continues to be the greatest country in the world .......and MOST IMPORTANT ...that we all can express our opinions .....and be free to disagree!

[Karel]

Hi Pete,

I agree that everyone is entitled to his or her opinions and the right to express them. But "opinions" is a dangerous word. You would be entitled to the opinion that the earth is flat, or that 2+2 sums to 5. In both cases your right to have that opinion would still not make your opinion right. It may be pleasing to think that people are entitled to their own opinions, but in the case that those opinions bear a relationship to observable facts, it is quite unlikely that the same facts would support two contradicting sets of opinions.

And I am still waiting for facts against Global Warming.

Regards,

Karel

[studentofthemarket]

I'll give you science

Karel,

Science is largely about observing our surroundings. Now assuming we have global warming occurring (no matter the reason) it should be getting warmer right?

Sounds silly I know.

about 2 weeks ago we set a record high temp that had stood for 120 years. Now, if things were heating up as the blathering Al "private Jets" Gore would have you believe. Why/how can we be breaking a 120 year old record?

If it is getting warmer it should be getting warmer. IOW, we should be setting new records each year and more of them on more days, with much greater frequency.

But dang. We're NOT doing that. You can't get warmer without the temperature rising. We're absolutely NOT experiencing a consistent increase in the temp.

Hell, just a month or so ago, the idiots measuring the ice thickness at a pole figured out that their sensor had moved. Kind of like remarking your thermometer when you're not getting the temps you wanted.

[Karel]

Dear studentofthemarket,

it not only sounds silly, it *is* silly. That is because you do not give me science, but one data point and an anecdote. Now for global warming deniers that is quite enough to consider any amount of scientific data collection completely refuted. Scientists like a bit more information.

Global warming is very, very well established. It amounts to about something like 1 degree centigrade average over the past century over the whole world. It could very well that an extreme local value stands for quite some time in that interval. Anyone with a basic insight in statistics will realize that one outlier value does not drastically change an average, nor that a change in an average requires a specific outlier to be superseded by a "better" one. The operative word is "requires". The higher the average gets compared to the baseline, the greater the chance that the highest outliers get higher, but that remains a chance occurrence.

I am sorry to hear that the combined scientists of the world have one (1) sensor measuring ice thickness on the pole, and that that one sensor has moved. Perhaps we really should give them the tiniest bit more funding, so that they will be able to put some more sensors there, so that such occurences would no longer invalidate everything we know about the polar icesheet. Sorry, but I am not quite sure what this anecdote is supposed to prove.

Regards,

Karel

[skiracer]

the ice caps are melting. there are a number of programs on tv which have documented this fact and have shown it to be true. regardless of what is causing this it is a reality. it might just be a natural cycle that repeats itself over the course of time as it has over the milleniums. perhaps it is the first time in our lifetimes we are experiencing it. the truth of the matter is that where there are now deserts there was once sea or oceans and where there are seas and oceans there were at one time deserts. it goes thru radical changes for whatever reasons. we are just going thur another major change. scientists are looking for explanations and are grasping at whatever may appear logical. who knows for sure what is causing this meltdown and warming effect. but it is a reality and is happening in our lifetime. what effects and changes and how they are going to effect our lifestyles is yet to be seen. can we stop it by changing our ways is another fact yet to be determined.

[Peter Hansen]

Ski precisely

the ice caps are melting. there are a number of programs on tv which have documented this fact and have shown it to be true. regardless of what is causing this it is a reality. it might just be a natural cycle that repeats itself over the course of time as it has over the milleniums. perhaps it is the first time in our lifetimes we are experiencing it. the truth of the matter is that where there are now deserts there was once sea or oceans and where there are seas and oceans there were at one time deserts. it goes thru radical changes for whatever reasons. we are just going thur another major change. scientists are looking for explanations and are grasping at whatever may appear logical. who knows for sure what is causing this meltdown and warming effect. but it is a reality and is happening in our lifetime. what effects and changes and how they are going to effect our lifestyles is yet to be seen. can we stop it by changing our ways is another fact yet to be determined.

SKI our influence on these climatic changes is negligible. Sun flares and climatic changes are not the fault of human intervention. Some like to lay a guilt trip on us .....i.e. Al Gore who stands to reap MILLIONS, if not Billions when that BS Cap & Trade goes through!
I am an independent thinker ......and can best be described as a "Lone Wolf". I am not into clubs and cult followings, because I have seen the destruction these various cults have produced. I am a positive person and believe that all will turn out OK! What Me Worry? LOL! Ski take care and have a great day!

[Websman]

Al Gore will NEVER be invited into the VTP Inner Circle.

[Karel]

SKI our influence on these climatic changes is negligible. Sun flares and climatic changes are not the fault of human intervention. Some like to lay a guilt trip on us .....i.e. Al Gore who stands to reap MILLIONS, if not Billions when that BS Cap & Trade goes through!
I am an independent thinker ......and can best be described as a "Lone Wolf". I am not into clubs and cult followings, because I have seen the destruction these various cults have produced. I am a positive person and believe that all will turn out OK! What Me Worry? LOL! Ski take care and have a great day!

Sun flare activity is largely cyclical and cannot account for the observed warming trend. Its influence can also be measured and insofar as it is not cyclical it is observed to be insufficient for the whole of the observed trend. See Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans.

Climate change is a complex phenomenon with a lot of factors contributing. Accounting for all natural factors leaves most of the warming trend unaccounted for (yes, it has actually been calculated). Factoring in human activity quite neatly fills the observed gap (this has also been calculated). Human activity appears to be the main factor in the global warming trend. See Is Climate Change a Natural or Human-Caused Phenomenon? and How Do We Know that Atmosphere Increases in Greenhouse Gases are Due to Human Activity? on the Pew Center FAQ page.

You have me puzzled on the claim that Al Gore stands to gain millions or even billions on the emissions trade. Most (likely 99% or more) of the profits would go the the companies selling the credits, and the brokerage commissions would most certainly not directly benefit one or more individuals. Yes, there would be jobs and management functions, but that would be about it.

I applaud independent thinking, as long as it is not independent of facts. That would be quite the wrong kind. And in fact the curious content-free get-together of Mimo, Webs and you starting here looks remarkably like a "club and cult following".

Do not take me wrong: when I say that things have been calculated, that does not mean that those results are above criticism. No fact in science is above criticism. But you can't use that to disavow those results without coming up with a real, scientific, and above all: better alternative.

Just stating that things will work out OK without reference to the observed facts is not independent, but wishful thinking. See We can't do anything about climate change.

Regards,

Karel

[Peter Hansen]

Lord monckton denied the right to speak out

Lord Monckton was DENIED the ability to debate Al Gore in Washington Hearings today 4/24/09 on Global Warming. Henry Waxman would not allow Lord Monckton to appear with Al Gore .....because he knew Monckton would wipe the floor with Al Gore and expose him for the fraud he is .
I refer you to the following material !

http://rashmanly.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/lord-christopher-monckton-not-allowed-by-democrats-to-debate-al-gore-on-global-warming/

[Karel]

Lord Monckton was DENIED the ability to debate Al Gore in Washington Hearings today 4/24/09 on Global Warming. Henry Waxman would not allow Lord Monckton to appear with Al Gore .....because he knew Monckton would wipe the floor with Al Gore and expose him for the fraud he is .
I refer you to the following material !


http://rashmanly.wordpress.com/2009/...lobal-warming/

Do I read this correctly: "According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday." One Republican invites him and Lord Monckton thinks it's all settled?

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

Interesting videos....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdRaxN5jUZE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etruveo%2Ecom%2FAl%2DGore%2Dsued%2Dfor%2Dfraud%2Fid%2F3574421821&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w