Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[BCO]

Interesting. Thanks for the links.

I do have some concerns. We should discount the GISS data since that has recently be shown to have QA issues and that we don't know how many, or what errors exist in that data. So the last two graphs are not relevant.

The hadcru-8year is interesting because the trend after the year 2000 shows a downward temperature deviation slope.

The slope isn't downward.

BTW, what does 0 represent? Do we know what the perfect temperature for Earth should be? What is this temperature and why?

The 0 represents near surface mean global atmospheric temperatures in the mid 20th century. I think this point was chosen as the 0 mark as this is when global CO2 output began to rise dramatically. Good question though, I'll try and find out more on this.

Because it looks like the temperature was going down in the 80s and some of the 90s (- deviation) but in the late 90s shows an upward trend that seems to be reversing itself in the last 5 years.

How does this graph show a global warming threat?

The overall trend is one of warming, even taking into account the slowdown in warming over the mid 80's.

Edit: The last 5 years of the hadcrut graph show that the y-o-y temperature deviation is going down (cooling) even though CO2 levels are increasing.

The trend is still one of warming, even if recent years are showing a slowdown in the rate of warming. There are many other factors that affect climate that may be mitigating the effects of increased CO2. This might just be normal weather variability. I'm not a climate scientist, so I really can't gibe you an answer here. The point is, that your concerns mentioned have not (yet?) changed the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, so obviously the people in the know have reasons for sticking to the current theories.

 

[BCO]

Oh lookie.

It seems BC et al have gone quiet again. I guess they can't handle facts, only pseudo-science.

I'm at a loss as to how you can explain away the official standpoints of the IPCC and pretty much every other major scientific body in the world as pseudo science.

Fact 1:
IPCC claims that CO2, and only CO2, causes global warming. CO2 is pumped out by man thus man is responsible for global warming.

That's incorrect. The IPCC says this:

* "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
* "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

So it's anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not CO2 and CO2 only.

Fact 2:
Every temperature source except for NOAA and GISS is showing that the world is cooling, not warming.

Source please.

Fact 3:
This year, in particular, has been very cold - globally

Short term weather variability vs long term climate change.
Maybe try reading this to help you understand the difference. http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html

Fact 4:
Science is about observation, not consensus. Only in politics do we have consensus. Science has proofs, no concensus required.

Consensus is not required for science, no. Still, due to the overwhelming evidence based in observation, there is consensus.

So here is an observation -

CO2 levels are rising. According to this site (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) 2008 > 2007 for CO2 levels
But temperatures for 2008 are less for 2007 (see various items in previous posts)

How can the temperatures be lower when CO2 is rising if CO2 causes global warming?

The only explanation is that CO2 does not cause global warming.

Thus the whole IPCC report has been invalidated by reality.

Well done, your outstanding astuteness has single-handedly undermined the entire IPCC's findings. I'm sure that no climate scientists have considered the points you've just raised.

I'm starting to sound like a stuck record here, but you really seem unable to understand the difference between short term weather variability and lon term climate change. I'll repost the link above again. http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html

Thus cap and trade schemes, which are very dangerous for the economy, especially our economy, must not be implemented.


If you don't mind being poor, hungry and without hope, then support cap and trade. I like having food on the table, I like being able to afford to put food on the table and I like to have food in the store at a price I can afford. Cap and trade will change that. See what effect the Eskom blackouts have/are having on our economy and multiply that a few times as we have to shut down coal power stations country wide.
[/trade]
AGW *is* happening. Whether or not trade and cap schemes are good or bad is an economic debate that's worth revisiting.

Fact 5:
The people screaming the loudest about AGW (man-made global warming) are also the people benefitting from it:

• Politicians - political power through cap and trade schemes and new tax potential, also great for defeating honest politicians that cannot take part in AGW scaremongering as they refuse to lie
• Lobbyists - cap and trade, power brokering similar to what unions do
• Media - scaremongering sells airtime
• Dishonest climate scientists - finally people care about them, they get money and fame where before they got bupkiss - before AGW, who actually cared about climate research?
• People who believe because they want AGW to be true, or they fear it to be true. People who hate/envy success. People that believe humans must suffer and/or be wiped out (their reason for their belief is not important). People who support evil men/women in power. Stupid/easily conned people. People that fear the success of man will wipe man out, so man must return to the stone age.

Wow, you've just summed me up perfectly! You sure we haven't met before

WRT the other people/bodies you've listed.... let's look at the other side of the coin. Who's most vocal in opposition to AGW? Oil companies, politicians and multinational corporations who benefit from the status quo. The difference is, AGW proponents actually have science on their side.

Talking about climate scientists "in it for the fame" you don't think that a climate scientist who could prove without a doubt that we're NOT causing climate change would get a lot more fame than just being one of the anonymous thousands of climate scientists who's currently corroborating AGW?

 

[DVDA]

It's so obvious that BlueCollar is right and BandwidthAddict is wrong.

 

[killadoob]

Tell me something with global warming:

Just because the world is heating up does not mean every country is getting warmer? surely there will some places that get colder and other places get warmer? or am i totally off track here?

 

[issi]

am i totally off track here?

Not at all, look at india. Had rain after 5 years in delhi
Normal Temp was 44 C but that day was 15 C

 

[BandwidthAddict]

I'm at a loss as to how you can explain away the official standpoints of the IPCC and pretty much every other major scientific body in the world as pseudo science.

You want to throw out some Wikipedia, I can do that as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Don't forget these guys:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

And this nice peer reviewed paper:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Review_Article_HTML.html

And something on the top:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/

That's incorrect. The IPCC says this:

* "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
* "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

So it's anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not CO2 and CO2 only.

That may be but the only gas that is spoken of, and regulated, and politicised is CO2. Can you show another gas that is spoken of in equal or greater than terms? Even your begbroke.ox.ac.uk slideshow only speaks about CO2.

Source please.

Well, for starters, we can try this one:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letters/IPCC_letter_14April08.pdf

But if you insist, how about some hard-core-crut
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Notice that little bit on the end, does it not look like it is going down?

How about NASA, since you like them so much:
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Climate_cooling/2008/05/01/92541.html

Short term weather variability vs long term climate change.
Maybe try reading this to help you understand the difference. http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html

You see I don't buy this. I watched your little slide show and all it says is that if we believe their models, then we are dooooomed. But then there is a dude who spends his life trying to understand and peer review these models (http://www.climateaudit.org/). Problem is, the modellers are not helping. They provide broken/unfinished code and don't publically document their methodology. That kind of practice is anti-science since science is all about publishing the methodology so it can be independantly verified. Read his trials at trying to get the data, code, methodology and how he is reverse engineering it without them. According to his findings, they are frauds to the n-th degree.

Besides, if CO2, a green house gas, (no, THE green house gas) is increasing, and the temperature goes down, then green house gasses are not responsible for global warming. Period. See nice quotes from NASA - Basically what they are saying is that global warming is happening except when it is not and that at some time in the future it will warm again. Wow, so prophetic.

Consensus is not required for science, no. Still, due to the overwhelming evidence based in observation, there is consensus.

Really .. where is this overwhelming evidence? Why does it not take PDO into consideration? (http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/). And then how do they explain the facts in this nice essay:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Did you know that there are glaciers that are growing? How can that be in global warming? I mean the IPCC said that they would disappear and the sea would rise and we would all die. again.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Well done, your outstanding astuteness has single-handedly undermined the entire IPCC's findings. I'm sure that no climate scientists have considered the points you've just raised.

I'm starting to sound like a stuck record here, but you really seem unable to understand the difference between short term weather variability and lon term climate change. I'll repost the link above again. http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html

I doubt you understand the underlying meaning of what I am trying to ask you. It is simple logic. If A is said to equal B, and it is shown that A does not equal B then the original premis was incorrect. CO2 is increasing, temperatures are decreasing ergo CO2 does not CAUSE global warming regardless of long term, short term etc. Makes no difference. Its like saying that only the amount of wood determines the size of a fire and then demonstrating that a small pile of wood produces a small fire and a BIG pile of wood produces a huge roaring flame. If I lower the amount of oxygen causing that BIG roaring flame to reduce in intensity, I can prove that wood is NOT the ONLY factor in the size of the flame. The Kyoto morons and their ilk want to shut down CO2 producing coal power plants, and CO2 producing cars and CO2/Methane producing cows because they say that the world will die if we don't kill our economies NOW. Yet CO2 increases, and temperatures decrease so what's the rush? I mean, how much simpler must I make it before you understand?

Wow, you've just summed me up perfectly! You sure we haven't met before

Actually, I was not directing that specifically at you. If I was to talk about you I would not use such kind language. You talk like you think you know something and completely disregard reality. You have yet to actually provide an answer to the substance my questions (always skirting around the issues, never attacking the meat). But since you brought it up, Freudian slip anyone?

Anyways, some more reading material:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.iceagenow.com/ (nice links, ignore the product)
http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081120/GJNEWS02/711203981/-1/CITNEWS08

 

[BCO]

Actually, I was not directing that specifically at you. If I was to talk about you I would not use such kind language. You talk like you think you know something and completely disregard reality. You have yet to actually provide an answer to the substance my questions (always skirting around the issues, never attacking the meat). But since you brought it up, Freudian slip anyone?

We're talking in circles here, as every point you've just made has been previously discussed in this thread. I've not failed to answer your questions - I've answered them repeatedly, yet you continue to ignore what I've said and keep throwing the same stuff at me over and over. I suggest you go back and have a look at this whole thread.

I'd just like to comment on the quote above.

I fail to understand your animosity towards myself. You're saying that if you were describe me it would be in less "kind language" than:

People who hate/envy success. People that believe humans must suffer and/or be wiped out (their reason for their belief is not important). People who support evil men/women in power. Stupid/easily conned people. People that fear the success of man will wipe man out, so man must return to the stone age

Why don't you go ahead, and describe what kind of person I am then, in any language you like. It would be interesting.

Please also explain what "reality" I'm disregarding. Am I making things up here? Is everything I've said a complete fabrication?

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your straw men.

 

[Arthur]

I'm so glad BandwidthAddict is taking up the cause for science and reason. Frankly, I've debated the issue ad nauseam and for many years in other forums and just can't muster up the ergs to go through it all again on MyBB, so I'll just end with assertions rather than arguments:

1) Though we may be in a long-term warming trend, there is no evidence whatsoever that this has anything to do with so-called greenhouse gases let alone anthropogenic ones, which in global terms are miniscule. The entire climate record - including all ancient ice core samples, etc - show that greenhouse gases trail warming periods by about 800 years, not the other way round, so at best the correlation between warming and greenhouse gases is there, but as an effect not a cause. If you're really open-minded, research this for yourself.

2) Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a political construction without any basis in fact or science. Once the proponents become shrill and call those who disagree 'denialists' and the like, you're no longer dealing with science but with ideology. My own experience is that many proponents of AGW are more dogmatic, doctrinaire and ideology-bound than Galileo's strongest accusers.

3) Average global temps have been declining for the past 7 years. This is inexplicable in all current AGW (pseudo-) science models. Either those who are measuring global temps have faulty instruments, or they are lying about the observed facts, or the AGW models are wrong. My own sense of probabilities lies with the latter, if only because all predictive global climate models in the past have been demonstrably and hopelessly wrong. Without exception.

 

[BCO]

I'm so glad BandwidthAddict is taking up the cause for science and reason. Frankly, I've debated the issue ad nauseam and for many years in other forums and just can't muster up the ergs to go through it all again on MyBB, so I'll just end with assertions rather than arguments:

1) Though we may be in a long-term warming trend, there is no evidence whatsoever that this has anything to do with so-called greenhouse gases let alone anthropogenic ones, which in global terms are miniscule. The entire climate record - including all ancient ice core samples, etc - show that greenhouse gases trail warming periods by about 800 years, not the other way round, so at best the correlation between warming and greenhouse gases is there, but as an effect not a cause. If you're really open-minded, research this for yourself.

2) Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a political construction without any basis in fact or science. Once the proponents become shrill and call those who disagree 'denialists' and the like, you're no longer dealing with science but with ideology. My own experience is that many proponents of AGW are more dogmatic, doctrinaire and ideology-bound than Galileo's strongest accusers.

3) Average global temps have been declining for the past 7 years. This is inexplicable in all current AGW (pseudo-) science models. Either those who are measuring global temps have faulty instruments, or they are lying about the observed facts, or the AGW models are wrong. My own sense of probabilities lies with the latter, if only because all predictive global climate models in the past have been demonstrably and hopelessly wrong. Without exception.

This is the second similar post you've made with no substantiation whatsoever. I find it strangely ironic that you guys claim to have science on your side when that is so obviously NOT the case. It's like some kind of fantasy land.

 

[Arthur]

Sigh. I did say I was tired of repeating the same evidence. But here's a small smattering.

31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming
Scientists have inconvenient news for Gore
Unstoppable 1500 year climate cycle
An excerpt from GW, CO2, Sunspots or Politics
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (peer reviewed scientific paper) (pdf)
"Environmentalism as Religion" by Michael Crichton (author and scientist)
Science & Environmental Policy Project
The Environmentalists Are Wrong, by Bjorn Lomberg (requires New York Times registration; the NYT is generally a supporter of the GW scamsters)
The truth about the environment (Economist - requires registration)
Global Warming Skepticism
NASA/JPL study
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics - US Senate
High price for load of hot air
Freedom, not climate, is at risk
SA Scientists Take Issue with IPCC's Global Warming (pdf)
Three-Quarters Believe Global Warming a 'Natural Occurence'
Scott Armstrong, Climate Scientits, issues The Global Warming Challenge to Al Gore - $20,000 Al Gore's wrong
Top Swedish scientist says rising sea levels is a total fraud
Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record
Take the Global Warming Test
Snopes - Compare the houses of Al Gore and GW Bush
UK Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias
Climate change hits Mars
Current Melting Of Greenland Ice Mimics 1920s-1940s Event
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing’ At UN Conference
New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
Consensus by force as media ignores dissenting views
We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change
35 Inconvenient Truths - The errors in Al Gore’s movie
“Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over
Proved: There is No Climate Crisis (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
Peer review? What peer review?
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age
Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
1,500 Years of Cooling in the Arctic
Climate Change - has it been cancelled? Prof Bob Carter, Youtube video
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change - “Global warming” is not a global crisis (Intl Climatge Science Coalition)
Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth
No smoking hot spot
American physicists warned not to debate global warming
How Enron hyped global warming for profit
Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage

There are many, many, many, many more. The above are a mix of science papers, science journals, or references to them in various media. Also, why not hunt for a downloadable version of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and at least listen to what the other side says. Yes, yes, I know you can find 1000 sources saying the movie's bunkum, but at last take a look and judge for yourself. It has several very credible scientists in it, as well as the co-founder of Greenpeace.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a political scam dressed up as science. But it's pseudo-science. And it'll all come tumbling down as, slowly but inexorably, the facts prove otherwise.

 

[BCO]

Sigh. I did say I was tired of repeating the same evidence. But here's a small smattering.

31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming
Scientists have inconvenient news for Gore
Unstoppable 1500 year climate cycle
An excerpt from GW, CO2, Sunspots or Politics
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (peer reviewed scientific paper) (pdf)
"Environmentalism as Religion" by Michael Crichton (author and scientist)
Science & Environmental Policy Project
The Environmentalists Are Wrong, by Bjorn Lomberg (requires New York Times registration; the NYT is generally a supporter of the GW scamsters)
The truth about the environment (Economist - requires registration)
Global Warming Skepticism
NASA/JPL study
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics - US Senate
High price for load of hot air
Freedom, not climate, is at risk
SA Scientists Take Issue with IPCC's Global Warming (pdf)
Three-Quarters Believe Global Warming a 'Natural Occurence'
Scott Armstrong, Climate Scientits, issues The Global Warming Challenge to Al Gore - $20,000 Al Gore's wrong
Top Swedish scientist says rising sea levels is a total fraud
Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record
Take the Global Warming Test
Snopes - Compare the houses of Al Gore and GW Bush
UK Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias
Climate change hits Mars
Current Melting Of Greenland Ice Mimics 1920s-1940s Event
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing’ At UN Conference
New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
Consensus by force as media ignores dissenting views
We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change
35 Inconvenient Truths - The errors in Al Gore’s movie
“Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over
Proved: There is No Climate Crisis (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
Peer review? What peer review?
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age
Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
1,500 Years of Cooling in the Arctic
Climate Change - has it been cancelled? Prof Bob Carter, Youtube video
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change - “Global warming” is not a global crisis (Intl Climatge Science Coalition)
Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth
No smoking hot spot
American physicists warned not to debate global warming
How Enron hyped global warming for profit
Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage

There are many, many, many, many more. The above are a mix of science papers, science journals, or references to them in various media. Also, why not hunt for a downloadable version of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and at least listen to what the other side says. Yes, yes, I know you can find 1000 sources saying the movie's bunkum, but at last take a look and judge for yourself. It has several very credible scientists in it, as well as the co-founder of Greenpeace.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a political scam dressed up as science. But it's pseudo-science. And it'll all come tumbling down as, slowly but inexorably, the facts prove otherwise.

Thanks, some nice weekend reading.

BTW you can delete your own posts in the "edit post function" for that double post.

 

[BCO]

Ok Arthur, a number of the issues you've raised in your post have been addressed in this thread already, with those I'll link to the relevant posts. For the rest I'll attempt to answer each.


31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1873627&postcount=6

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1874521&postcount=13

Scientists have inconvenient news for Gore

Believe it or not, but Gore and global warming are not interchangeable terms. Also, ad hominem attacks on Al Gore do not constitute valid arguments against the science of climate change.

Unstoppable 1500 year climate cycle

The NCPA has received over $400 000.00 in funding from Exxon-Mobil. Source.


The two people who did the study in the NCPA report are Dennis Avery (He does not believe that DDT causes egg shell thinning in eagles. He is the source of a claim that organic food is more dangerous to eat than food produced using chemical pesticides because of usage of animal manure in organic farming. Specifically, in a 1998 article for the Wall Street Journal, he claimed the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) had conducted studies showing that eating an organic diet carried an 8-times the risk of E. coli infection than eating a conventional diet. Despite the fact that the CDC had never conducted any such testing, the Avery article was widely quoted. Source) and S. Fred Singer (Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming, the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Source).

So we have one guy who's an outright liar and one who's something of a lobbyist doing a report for an organisation that gets funding from an oil company. A bit fishy, no? Arthur, you talk a lot about political scams and hidden agendas when referring to the mainstream science of climate change, so I hope that the irony above is not lost on you.

An excerpt from GW, CO2, Sunspots or Politics

Can't open the article.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Ah, old Timothy Ball. Hardly an expert and a known liar.

* Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote in an April 23, 2006 letter to the editor of the The Calgary Herald in reply to an editorial by Dr. Ball: "... he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming". The newspaper had credited Ball as "the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years."[12]. His biography for the George C. Marshall Institute also cites his being "a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years".[13], and he has repeated "the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology" [14]
* Ball could not have been a professor before receiving his PhD in 1983, only 23 years before the article.
* Ball has also stated that "for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."[14]
* Ball's resume shows that at the University of Winnipeg he was Associate Professor from 1984 to 1988, then Professor from 1988 to 1996, a total of 8 years.[15]
* Ball was not "the first climatology PhD in Canada", but was in fact preceded by many well known Canadian PhD climatologists: e.g. Dr. Kenneth Hare, PhD in arctic climatology, 1950 [16], Dr. André Robert, PhD, 1965, [17], or Dr. Timothy Oke, PhD 1967 [18].
* In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.[19]. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that “The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (peer reviewed scientific paper) (pdf)

404 not found. Will comment anyway - there's a peer reviewed article on climate in a journal by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an institution that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging"?!

There's some more gems about OISM here. But I like this one:

It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

"Environmentalism as Religion" by Michael Crichton (author and scientist)

Michael Crichton, the science fiction and techno-thriller novelist.... hardly a climate expert. 'sides his speech was anthropological in nature and has no direct bearing on climate change, except for two brief mentions of global warming. RIP Mr Crichton.

Science & Environmental Policy Project

Ah, Mr. Singer again. His foundation has received some funding from Exxon-Mobil as well (albeit only $20k). Still they've been known to be rather unscrupulous with their "findings"

SEPP was the author of the Leipzig Declaration, which was supposedly based on the "scientfic" conclusions drawn from a November 1995 conference in Leipzig, Germany, which SEPP organized with the European Academy for Environmental Affairs. SEPP publicly used the Declaration to suggest there is little scientific consensus on global warming. According to P.R. Watch, news reporters discovered that in the end, twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen - a profession that requires no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Other signers included a dentist, a medical laboratory researcher, a civil engineer, and an amateur meteorologist. Of the 33 European signers, four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration.

Intellectual honesty much?

Ok, gotta get back to work now. Will tackle some more points later. Right now though Arthur, things aren't looking good in terms of the credibility of your sources. You'd think that with the noble aim of "taking up the cause of science and reason" one would apply more rigorous standards to one's reference material.

 

[BCO]

The Environmentalists Are Wrong, by Bjorn Lomberg

Lomberg's not denying AGW. He's questioning whether the current plans to mitigate climate change make sense financially.

There is no doubt that pumping out carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has increased the global temperature. Yet too much of the debate is fixated on reducing emissions without regard to cost.

This was written in '02. I wonder how the argument changes after the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by the US to secure middle eastern oil in Iraq since then.

The truth about the environment

Not gonna pay to read that one, unfortunately.

Global Warming Skepticism

404 Not Found


Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics - US Senate

lol, as soon as I saw this one I knew it'd be Inhofe. I'll refrain from attacking Inhofe too much, but this is quote worthy:

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry than Inhofe in the 2002 election cycle. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.

Yet again, we see somebody in the pocket of the oil industry who is a vocal critic of AGW. Strange, huh? There are a lot of scientists in the Inhofe article, so I'm going to need to tackle that as a separate thread.

 

[BCO]

Anyway on to the quoted scientists in the Inhofe article.

Claude Allegre - geophysicist (study of the chemical composition of the Earth and other planets, chemical processes and reactions that govern the composition of rocks and soils).

Bruno Wiskel - geologist (the science and study of the solid and liquid matter that constitute the Earth). Bruno Wiskel has a "combined 32 years of grain growing, cattle wrangling, sheep shearing, hog handling, fish frying, goat herding, fruit producing, tree planting, board sawing and vegetable raising know-how". WATCH OUT IPCC!!!11!

Nir Shaviv - astrophysicist. This guy has at least done some actual research on climate, although his advocacy of solar forcing on the current warming trend has been refuted. Solar activity has decreased in the last 25 years while temperatures have continued to rise. See the 2 links below.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

David Evans – mathematician. Evans seems to like all the publicity he’s been getting in the last couple of years. In fact, he must like the spotlight so much that he keeps repeating his assertions despite the fact that they have been publicly refuted on numerous occasions. Evans has NO peer reviewed papers on climate change.

Going home now, will comment on the other scientists tomorrow.

 

[BCO]

Tad Murty - oceanographer (most of his peer reviewed work concerns Tsunamis and storm surges). Affiliated with the Fraser Institute, which (surprise surprise) gets big oil funding. Also a member of Friends of Science who get about 3/4 of their funding from the oil and gas sector.

David Bellamy - botanist.

Chris de Freitas - Associate Professor at the School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland. Not sure exactly which discipline, but he has published 4 peer reviewed articles related to climate.

He was also at the centre of the Climate Research journal scandal where as an editor of the journal he approved a paper (Baliunas and Soon) that was allegedly grossly inaccurate. 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted their interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process which allowed the publication. http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-dde-freitas

Reid Bryson - climatologist. (Finally, an actual climatologist on this list! He was a bit old tho - got his PhD in the 1940's, no wonder he mistrusts computer models)

Hans HJ Labohm - economist. Number of peer reviewed articles published: none.

 

[BCO]

....

No comments? Do I need to continue going through the whole list?

 

[Arthur]

Howver much you want to impugne various commentators, the scientific data is clear: anthropogenic global warming is a scam.

Here's something just from today:

Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?

Dr Tim Ball, renowned environmental consultant and climatology professor

How many failed predictions, discredited assumptions and evidence of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility? CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant. Despite this President Elect Obama met with Al Gore on December 9 no doubt to plan a climate change strategy based on these problems. They make any plan to reduce of CO2 completely unnecessary.

Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong. They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us, using the infamous “hockey stick” graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong. They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong. They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong it was 1934. They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong. They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong. This last is critical because the claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era. In fact, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today, but how did they conclude they were lower?

In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explains,

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”

... read the whole article here. Lots of graphs and figures in original.

 

[BCO]

Howver much you want to impugne various commentators, the scientific data is clear: anthropogenic global warming is a scam.

So it doesn't matter that your sources aren't qualified, they're still right? Flat earth syndrome.

An article in Canada Free Press does not constitute any kind of refutation of the real science of global warming.

 

[BCO]

Another thing - who is behind this massive global warming scam? Who's coordinating such a huge, cohesive hoax?

 

[Arthur]

Another thing - who is behind this massive global warming scam? Who's coordinating such a huge, cohesive hoax?

No, I never said that. But you seem to be closed to the fact that serious scientists - perhaps even the majority of climate scientists - are very skeptical of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Some of the best credentialled climate scientists, based on the scientific evidence, hold there's nothing to AGW and that it's a political phenomenon.

I can't possibly believe it's a centralised plot. That is absurd. But the issue is driven much more by politics than by science. I go with the science, and all the evidence shows AGW is a fiction. It's the same sort of bandwagon effect as the flogiston or phrenology theories -- when these 'scientific' ideas were first flighted the naysayers were labelled as outdated and unscientific. But the naysayers were right. The same happened with Big Bang Theory -- some of the most eminent scientists opposed it to the bitter end, mainly for ideological reasons. AGW is a theory totally falsified by the evidence. But it's living on beyond it's sell-by date because of the powerful political agendas of its main proponents.

To quote Prof Tim Ball, a real climate scientist, the AGW chicken-littles have been wrong on every point:

Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong. They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us, using the infamous “hockey stick” graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong. They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong. They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong it was 1934. They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong. They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong. This last is critical because the claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era. In fact, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today, but how did they conclude they were lower?