Global warming sympathizers, this ones for you. [Archive]

View Full Version : Global warming sympathizers, this ones for you.

someguy

01-22-2010, 09:08 AM

35 Inconvenient Truths

The errors in Al Gore’s movie

A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie.

Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.

Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.

We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.

To read on and find out the 35 errors presented in AL gore's movie click the link below and read on. And remember the first nine errors presented have been proven in high court by an independent judge to be substantial scientific errors.

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html)

Hotspring 44

01-22-2010, 10:29 AM

Between the "climategate" & Al Gore's so-called inacuracys your (cherry picking) score is still 36 in 1,000; 3.6% accurate, 96.4% inaccurate.:2cents:

35 Inconvenient Truths

The errors in Al Gore’s movie

A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie.

Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.

Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.

We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.

To read on and find out the 35 errors presented in AL gore's movie click the link below and read on. And remember the first nine errors presented have been proven in high court by an independent judge to be substantial scientific errors.

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html)

someguy

01-22-2010, 11:55 AM

Between the "climategate" & Al Gore's so-called inacuracys your (cherry picking) score is still 36 in 1,000; 3.6% accurate, 96.4% inaccurate.:2cents:

You know this kind of jab is not very conducive to having an intellectual discussion. I mean what do you expect from me? Climate change is a very complicated issue. How am I supposed to cover all of it in one post? Yes, technically you have every right to say this is 'cherry picked', but then so is every other article posted here on waccoreader if we are to live up to your standards. You can have your 2 cents and all, but I just don't see the point, or understand why you'd make such a post. Anyways, can we please try to keep this on topic? I realize that I too am 'off topic', but I feel that this kind of nonsense happens far to often here on wacco not to address.

Hotspring 44

01-22-2010, 02:54 PM

I don't tell you what to post or how so please don't try to tell me. thanks.

You know this kind of jab is not very conducive to having an intellectual discussion. I mean what do you expect from me? Climate change is a very complicated issue. How am I supposed to cover all of it in one post? Yes, technically you have every right to say this is 'cherry picked', but then so is every other article posted here on waccoreader if we are to live up to your standards. You can have your 2 cents and all, but I just don't see the point, or understand why you'd make such a post. Anyways, can we please try to keep this on topic? I realize that I too am 'off topic', but I feel that this kind of nonsense happens far to often here on wacco not to address.

"Mad" Miles

01-22-2010, 03:14 PM

You know this kind of jab is not very conducive to having an intellectual discussion. ... (snip)
Anyways, can we please try to keep this on topic? I realize that I too am 'off topic', but I feel that this kind of nonsense happens far to often here on wacco not to address.

Someguy,

You titled this thread "Global warming believers, this ones for you." You're not the only one who slams those of us who give credence to the climatologists international consensus that global warming is caused by human activity and needs to be stopped and reversed, by using the term "believers".

I don't believe shit. Back in the early eighties I realized that whenever I found myself believing something, and by believing I mean taking it on faith and resisting argument and evidence to the contrary, to stop it, believing is dangerous and self-limiting. Years later I ran across the term, skeptical optimist. I like that. I also like the Gramsci quote, "Skepticism of the intellect, optimism of the will".

So quit calling me a "believer". I read what I have time to, I evaluate the sources, the arguments, I "follow the money", I make decisions based on my understanding of history, society, philosophy, economics, my layman's knowledge of science, etc. I have fairly highly informed opinions. Opinions which I keep sufficiently loose so that if evidence comes along that tells me I might be mistaken, or misinformed, I can change those opinions.

So far, you global-warming-is-not-caused-by-human-activity zealots haven't presented anything but a storm of psuedo-intellectual and psuedo-scientific garbage, which is either irrelevant to the issues, or bases its arguments on logical fallacies. Fallacies which have been ably explained in this thread or on others with similar topics.

If your goal is to convince others of your opinions, then a start might be to avoid insulting your audience with unfounded generalizations about those with whom you disagree.

Just a suggestion,

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

someguy

01-22-2010, 05:04 PM

Thanks for the suggestion miles. Although it may very well offend you that I call ya'll believers, its true. AS far as I know GW is a theory that many take as fact, promote policies as if it were fact, and talk down to us skeptics as if we disregard this fact. But if you want me to use euphemisms in the future when addressing you, I might do that.

Someguy,

You titled this thread "Global warming believers, this ones for you." You're not the only one who slams those of us who give credence to the climatologists international consensus that global warming is caused by human activity and needs to be stopped and reversed, by using the term "believers".

I don't believe shit. Back in the early eighties I realized that whenever I found myself believing something, and by believing I mean taking it on faith and resisting argument and evidence to the contrary, to stop it, believing is dangerous and self-limiting. Years later I ran across the term, skeptical optimist. I like that. I also like the Gramsci quote, "Skepticism of the intellect, optimism of the will".

So quit calling me a "believer". I read what I have time to, I evaluate the sources, the arguments, I "follow the money", I make decisions based on my understanding of history, society, philosophy, economics, my layman's knowledge of science, etc. I have fairly highly informed opinions. Opinions which I keep sufficiently loose so that if evidence comes along that tells me I might be mistaken, or misinformed, I can change those opinions.

So far, you global-warming-is-not-caused-by-human-activity zealots haven't presented anything but a storm of psuedo-intellectual and psuedo-scientific garbage, which is either irrelevant to the issues, or bases its arguments on logical fallacies. Fallacies which have been ably explained in this thread or on others with similar topics.

If your goal is to convince others of your opinions, then a start might be to avoid insulting your audience with unfounded generalizations about those with whom you disagree.

Just a suggestion,

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

someguy

01-22-2010, 05:13 PM

Someguy,

So far, you global-warming-is-not-caused-by-human-activity zealots haven't presented anything but a storm of psuedo-intellectual and psuedo-scientific garbage, which is either irrelevant to the issues, or bases its arguments on logical fallacies. Fallacies which have been ably explained in this thread or on others with similar topics.

Just a suggestion,

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:
Maybe you can tell me what is pseudo-scientific about a high courts findings regarding AL Gore's misrepresentation of the scientific data.

someguy

01-22-2010, 05:28 PM

I don't tell you what to post or how so please don't try to tell me. thanks.

Well did you not read the part where I said : You can have your 2 cents and all,? That means you can say whatever you want, I just didn't happen to see the point in what you wrote, and I didn't understand why you'd post that.

Rest assured that I am not trying to stifle your free speech but rather trying to express my displeasure for your lack of sparking meaningful discussion. For we all cherry pick what articles we post on waccoreader. None cover the full story, and often reflect our own POV's. As far as I see it, this type of 'cherry picking' as you call it, to me, is freedom of speech and expression.

Hotspring 44

01-22-2010, 07:12 PM

You know this kind of jab is not very conducive to having an intellectual discussion.
I humbly disagree. It all depends on the participants, how they react and how they communicate with each other. there can be alot of intelect in score-keeping be it initially accurate or not.

I mean what do you expect from me? Climate change is a very complicated issue. How am I supposed to cover all of it in one post?
To put it in simple terms; you don't.

But when someone makes such a generalization that suggests that the majority consensus of a group; climatologists and people that have used the available information that have so far concluded that there is a human caused extraordinary effect that changes the reactivity of the climate; in this case are not (the majority), you may be either challenged to prove your case or be equally critiqued. Nothing unintellectual about that.

Yes, technically you have every right to say this is 'cherry picked', but then so is every other article posted here on waccoreader if we are to live up to your standards.
I also disagree with that generalization. Some people post articles of interest that have info without hyped opinionated input.

You can have your 2 cents and all, but I just don't see the point, or understand why you'd make such a post.
Just a rhetorical comment on what I think is an under-informed opinion.

Anyways, can we please try to keep this on topic? I realize that I too am 'off topic', but I feel that this kind of nonsense happens far to often here on wacco not to address.
What a bunch of Hooy!:plumber:

someguy

01-22-2010, 09:08 PM

But when someone makes such a generalization that suggests that the majority consensus of a group; climatologists and people that have used the available information that have so far concluded that there is a human caused extraordinary effect that changes the reactivity of the climate; in this case are not (the majority), you may be either challenged to prove your case or be equally critiqued. Nothing unintellectual about that.

I also disagree with that generalization. Some people post articles of interest that have info without hyped opinionated input.

Well Im totally fine with people challenging my POV. That is not what you did. You simply said I was 'cherry picking' information which didn't challenge the article in any way at all. What specific examples from the article do you suspect to be 'cherry picked' and why? That would be a good start to a nice healthy discussion.

And I'd be interested in knowing exactly why you view this article as hyped up opinion. I can't help but think you didn't read it.... Because it goes over a courts findings regarding Al Gore's movie AN Inconvenient Truth, which sparked a lot of the current hysteria over GW. I don;t see the hype, but if you could outline what exactly you find to be hype, well then lets discuss it and get beyond the little jabs.

Hotspring 44

01-22-2010, 11:27 PM

Simply put, Al Gore is not a climatologist. He is a politician. Most politicians are not that scientifically apt.
I did not need to read the entire Al gore article because I have read many other articles that are more directly related to the scientific aspects from both sides of the debate.

I am not dependent on Al Gore's book or whatever movie (film) that I had no interest in seeing in the first place to have access to a mass of information.

So the hell what if Al Gore made 35 misstatements! that is Al Gore's problem. Take it up with him instead of me if you are so concerned with that single track way of thinking.

To capitalize on Al Gore's misstated rhetoric is overlooking the overall trend that is the consensus weather you agree with it or not.
You are entitled to your own conclusions as am I.

Well Im totally fine with people challenging my POV. That is not what you did. You simply said I was 'cherry picking' information which didn't challenge the article in any way at all. What specific examples from the article do you suspect to be 'cherry picked' and why? That would be a good start to a nice healthy discussion.
The whole premise of the idea that somehow a politician making misstatements has such merit so as to seemingly ignore the plethora of credible science. In other words the whole article is in that sense cherry picked, weather it is factual or not in the entirety of the subject, it is scientifically insignificant.

And I'd be interested in knowing exactly why you view this article as hyped up opinion.
It is not the article, it is the manor of your use of it.

I can't help but think you didn't read it.... Because it goes over a courts findings regarding Al Gore's movie AN Inconvenient Truth, which sparked a lot of the current hysteria over GW. I don;t see the hype, but if you could outline what exactly you find to be hype, well then lets discuss it and get beyond the little jabs.
Once again it is the manor of the way the use of that article is intended to have one assume that all the other science is okay to poo poo.
I did read it enough to realize that there are many other real facts to consider that have far more credible and reliable sources than a career politician, movie, or some court.

Also in general, people have the habitual lazy-fair attitude when they are comfortable, that until disaster is actually happening (to them), they ignore it to their own detriment. So sometimes they need a jolt (SKITA) to promote consideration of the potential pending future disaster.

Al Gore (in my POV) had good intention that unfortunately ended-up making the debate more politicized instead of understood.:2cents:

someguy

01-23-2010, 01:27 PM

The whole premise of the idea that somehow a politician making misstatements has such merit so as to seemingly ignore the plethora of credible science. In other words the whole article is in that sense cherry picked, weather it is factual or not in the entirety of the subject, it is scientifically insignificant.

Lets examine this. This politician (Gore) made the claim that Co2 was the cause of climate change. He made that claim supposedly based on a scientific analysis made not by himself, but other scientists, ones that you (I humbly assume) trust to be factual in their presentation. For example the claim that Co2 is responsible for climate change is a massive cornerstone to the entire MMGW theory, be it Al Gore's version or the IPCC's version. To prove through scientific data to an impartial federal judge this theoretical cornerstone to be false, is a pretty big achievement and not something to be ignored or labeled as insignificant. And yes, it was proven to be an error. This type of error goes beyond Al Gore, and hits the whole theory of MMGW square in the gonads. If you'd just read the entire article you may just find several other 'cornerstones' of the MMGW theory to be struck down in error.

To capitalize on Al Gore's misstated rhetoric is overlooking the overall trend that is the consensus weather you agree with it or not.
You are entitled to your own conclusions as am I.

Indeed I am. And one of my conclusions is that consensus has nothing to do with science! The consensus used to be that the sun revolved around the earth... And people were ostracized and called heretics for questioning that consensus. Facts and data justify science, not models nor consensus. And if you want the actual data I will point you towards either the rest of my article, or this film YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle, part 1 of 9 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs) which covers much more ground, and goes into much more detail regarding the true science.

/QUOTE] Al Gore (in my POV) had good intention that unfortunately ended-up making the debate more politicized instead of understood.:2cents:

You may be right. This is already a politicized issue, as well as a scientific issue. I personally think its important to understand the science thoroughly before we make this into a political issue. Unfortunately we are already at the point of constructing public policies with the assumption that GW is fact and that the scientific debate is over. And our policy makers have been largely convinced by Mr. Gore, either directly YouTube - AL GORE: Global Warming Testimony @ Congress 3.21.07 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo7rmajxxnc) or indirectly through the millions of constituents who have been converted by Mr. Gore's film.

Once again it is the manor of the way the use of that article is intended to have one assume that all the other science is okay to poo poo.

That actually was not my intention. My intention is to point out some of the most pervasive myths attributed with GW science. Many of those myths have been perpetuated by this film. Maybe you can highlight the 'manner' in which I used this article to have others assume its okay poop on all other science. :wink:

I did not need to read the entire Al gore article because I have read many other articles that are more directly related to the scientific aspects from both sides of the debate.

How dare you come on here and say that Im posting an article of interest with hyped opinionated input and that I'm promoting an under-informed opinon when you admit that you have not and will not read the article you claim to know so much about? So what is the point of you posting here if your not going to read my article then? It seems to me that your only out to attack my POV because you've already made up your mind about me and my POV and you dislike it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

that is Al Gore's problem. Take it up with him instead of me if you are so concerned with that single track way of thinking.

Well dude I never took it up with you. You decided to click on my article. You decided to post. This article was not posted for you, per se. So take your unfounded complaining elsewhere, its not welcome here my friend.

"Mad" Miles

01-23-2010, 02:48 PM

someguy

01-23-2010, 03:42 PM

Someguy,

You replied to my last post in this thread both on the thread and privately. I do not engage in private "ex parte" communication related to waccobb, at least not very much and especially not with those whom I disagree.

Life is short, I spend enough time as it is reviewing posts on the board and responding or otherwise contributing as it is, I'm not interested in adding to that by having private conversations.

Partly this is because I believe (in the trivial sense of think, not in the sense I was criticizing in my last post, where I did provide the definition of believe which explained why I took exception to being called a believer) in the value of having these conversations in public, so anyone interested them can read them and have a chance to actively participate. And at the least they have the opportunity to lurk and observe.

I will leave you with some questions though.

Let's assume you're right, human caused global warming is a hoax by big money to rip us off and control our destiny (why they need new excuses when the old ones have worked so very well for so very long is a mystery to me) well then, doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions will mean what?

On the other hand, if you're wrong, and doing nothing results, whether in the next ten to fifteen years, or the next fifty to one-hundred and fifty years, in the destructive changes predicted by some "experts", then what?

Ever heard of the precautionary principle?

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:
First of all, the only reason why I sent you a private email is because the contents of the email didn't address the topic of the thread, and I wanted to keep our personal dispute private. Sorry I was not aware that you weren't keen to that sort of thing. I won't do it again. But did you ever think about what I said in that email? Do you want me to make that private email public so the lurkers can see what was said?

Well since Co2 does not cause GW, it would mean that this isn't an emergency, although our earth would continue to be polluted upon by the burning of these dirty fuels. But you already know that I am totally 100% into self sustaining renewable clean energy independence right now. And I still do truly know that it is possible to completely change our energy system in such a very revolutionary sense. I don't know if your familiar with Geothermal energy. But between Geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, and wave energy we have the technology to 'switch the grid', so to speak right now. In other words, yes we should get off of Carbon based fossil fuels because they pollute, but we should not use fraudulent science and authoritarian public policy to change the status quo.

One other thing to note is that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is a rather insignificant greenhouse gas, as it is far exceeded by other greenhouse gases (such as water vapor) in atmospheric quantity. And our human impact on that tiny greenhouse gas % (Co2) is minuscule. Therefore human Co2 output adds a very very very small amount of total greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. Plus all of that information becomes irrelevant when you find out that temperature actually drives Co2 production, not the other way around. It has been proven that Co2 has an approx - 800 year lag behind temperature. And much of the Co2 is expelled from the ocean because of the increase in temperature.

I am confident enough to say that your scenario of the destructive changes caused by GW are completely based on fraud science and I am not worried. But what if I'm still wrong? Well then obviously disaster strikes. But what if I'm right? Disaster still strikes hard. Maybe not for you and me, but for the other half of the world that lives in the developing nations. That is why I find this issue to be so important. Because while some fight to cut the power off around the globe, they sadly don't realize the harm they will cause the poorest of the poor. So, Ive spent countless hours upon days researching this subject and I take this stuff very seriously. And I'm sure if someone would actually read what I write or take me seriously that I could at least give them a more healthy insight into this situation.

Hotspring 44

01-24-2010, 01:06 AM

Lets examine this. This politician (Gore) made the claim that Co2 was the cause of climate change. He made that claim supposedly based on a scientific analysis made not by himself, but other scientists, ones that you (I humbly assume) trust to be factual in their presentation. For example the claim that Co2 is responsible for climate change is a massive cornerstone to the entire MMGW theory, be it Al Gore's version or the IPCC's version. To prove through scientific data to an impartial federal judge this theoretical cornerstone to be false, is a pretty big achievement and not something to be ignored or labeled as insignificant. And yes, it was proven to be an error. This type of error goes beyond Al Gore, and hits the whole theory of MMGW square in the gonads. If you'd just read the entire article you may just find several other 'cornerstones' of the MMGW theory to be struck down in error.

Here is some of the plethora of info if you so choose to investigate more than the news frenzy of fox etc.: <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border: medium none ; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> "Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen (https://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm) try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal (https://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597), in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmyi-sR82EM).<sup>1 (https://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/10/fox-attacks-the-environment-they-distort-we-reply/),2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kUYyX_rZ2I)</sup> Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens (https://www-chem.ucsd.edu/Faculty/bios/thiemens.html) say this "has nothing to do with reality".<sup>1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chZfN_zI8mY),2 (https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2479161829264862108),3 (https://www.uctv.tv/library-test.asp?showID=9387)</sup> The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable (https://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm#Joint_Statement_II)" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review (https://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm#Journals) science journals and the National Academy of Sciences (https://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm#Joint_I). For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 (https://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/arnold-challenge-arnold-schwarzenegger.html) working climatologists worldwide <sup>1 (https://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/arnold-challenge-arnold-schwarzenegger.html),2 (https://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-many-climate-scientists-are-there.html)</sup>. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify (https://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html) as climate scientists (https://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-many-climate-scientists-are-there.html) when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty (https://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/) for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money). If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog (https://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/07/consensus-on-climate-changeglobal.html)."
RealClimate (https://www.realclimate.org/)
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <o:p> </o:p>

Indeed I am. And one of my conclusions is that consensus has nothing to do with science!
Semantically speaking that is probably so, however the peer reviewed and tested results are the best that can be done.

The consensus used to be that the sun revolved around the earth...
That was based on a religious law system.

...And people were ostracized and called heretics for questioning that consensus.
As I remember the history, the ones that were in power at that time were believers in the "flat earth", and heretics were sometimes literally burned at the stake.:burningmad:

Facts and data justify science, not models nor consensus.
And you claim to be knowledgeable of all the "facts"?

And if you want the actual data I will point you towards either the rest of my article,...

...or this film YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle, part 1 of 9 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs) which covers much more ground, and goes into much more detail regarding the true science.
The majority of scientists do not have the luxury or time to make films on YouTube; that is too time consuming. I suspect that most (not all) that do are more like Al Gore than you would want to admit. I have done some reading though.

You may be right. This is already a politicized issue, as well as a scientific issue. I personally think its important to understand the science thoroughly before we make this into a political issue. That is the standard stalling tactic of the comfortable and the powers that be.
Anyway, here are a few references that relate to 'your' topic thread
Methane hydrates and global (https://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html)warming (https://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html)

The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO2 Emission (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-acid-ocean-the-other-problem-with-cosub2sub-emission/)

The cold truth about climate change (https://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/)

Here is an example of so-called quasi scientific (political) manipulation of fact that some "GW denier's would possibly use (again) to show "proof" of CO2 rise to over 450 (or more) ppb is not Enough to be concerned about because the (known about) thermal resistance of CO2 is higher as it becomes thicker in the atmosphere but the actual calculation figures can be changed to be favorable to GW skeptics (or whomever).
My model, used for deception (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/) (No Not Me (MY) but the author of the article).

False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/)

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al (1998) temperature reconstruction have recently been discredited by the following peer-review article:Rutherford et al 2005 highlights (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/rutherford-et-al-2005-highlights/)

The next link is more up to date and is regarding the stolen IPCC e-mails.
Rep. Sensenbrenner projects “fascism” and “fraud” onto scientists, is rebutted at hearing (https://%20https://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/sensenbrenner-fascist-fraud-allegations-rebutted/)

Unfortunately we are already at the point of constructing public policies with the assumption that GW is fact and that the scientific debate is over. And our policy makers have been largely convinced by Mr. Gore, either directly YouTube - AL GORE: Global Warming Testimony @ Congress 3.21.07 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo7rmajxxnc) or indirectly through the millions of constituents who have been converted by Mr. Gore's film.

You (conveniently) forgot to mention the peer-reviewed science that supports the actual trend of human caused GW.
Exon (and others) have the $ to keep the "debate" going until doomsday.

That actually was not my intention. My intention is to point out some of the most pervasive myths attributed with GW science. Many of those myths have been perpetuated by this film. Maybe you can highlight the 'manner' in which I used this article to have others assume its okay poop on all other science. :wink:

Weather intentional or not, I don't know, but you apparently have overlooked the most stated things by the peer reviewed, scientific community of climatologists of the world that positively state that GW is a reality; not a myth, and that there are human caused changes, specifically (and not limited to); deforestation, CO2 emissions, and other greenhouse emissions that are causing the overall global temp to increase more than what can be accounted for by only non human natural forces amongst other concerning things like ocean acidification.

So what is the point of you posting here if your not going to read my article?
Are you claiming either possession of or that you are the one that wrote an article or are you referring to this thread?
BTW, I do not believe you or any other individual owns this thread. Besides the title is "Global warming believers, this ones for you." (Note the main aspect of the term of the title: "Global warming"):wink:.

I did read this (amongst many other articles): https://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf (https://web.hwr.arizona.edu/%7Egleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf)

It seems to me that your only out to attack my POV because you've already made up your mind about me and my POV and you dislike it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I have an opinion about your persona here on waccobb (I don't know you personally); it tends towards liking more then not.
You are confusing "attack" with challenging.
I do disagree with your stated POV. But so what? We are each entitled to our own POV's.

[I]Hotspring 44 said:"that is Al Gore's problem. Take it up with him instead of me if you are so concerned with that single track way of thinking."

Well dude I never took it up with you. You decided to click on my article. You decided to post. This article was not posted for you, per se. So take your unfounded complaining elsewhere, its not welcome here my friend.
Pardon me, I did not mean to convey me per-se. You took it up with all of us that have the POV that GW is real and that it is being exasperated if not caused by human activity etc.
As I stated; just because Al gore makes mistakes does not negate the entirety of the factual peer reviewed science as some have suggested here on waccobb.
What "unfounded complaining"?:hmmm:
BTW If you are expecting me to stay within a particular box, you will most likely be disappointed.Big Smile

someguy

01-24-2010, 12:55 PM

Okay, Im glad you brought up Fox. I don't watch Fox news but I understand the mainstream conservative (biased) position that they take. I wonder if you were aware that Rupert Murdoch is a definite supporter of the MMGW theory. "Rupert Murdoch sounded like Al Gore, saying that "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats" and that "We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."" Rupert Murdoch Picks Liberal Son as Successor (https://www.aim.org/aim-column/rupert-murdoch-picks-liberal-son-as-successor/)

In fact did you ever hear of Live Earth? Live Earth was/is a massive global awareness benefit concert for MMGW utilizing MSN and Fox to broadcast this concert on the web and through television reaching nearly 2 billion people. Furthermore Fox is leading many international broadcasting companies and international corporations in 'going green'. I say this not because I'm trying to say that Fox is good but rather that they play both sides of the game (as other politicians and corporations do, but we'll dive further into that later on). On one hand Rupert Murdoch has Fox News that dissents GW, and on the other hand R.M. strives for his programs to get the message out about the MMGW problem. It really is an interesting and complicated issue. But why would an evil man like Rupert Murdoch do such a thing? Weird isn't it? TV Shows Are Going Green | Live Earth (https://liveearth.org/en/liveearthblog/tv-shows-are-going-green)

Also I'd like to point out that my video that I had posted is not just some Youtube video, but has been broadcast on television as a documentary program in the UK several times. I do find it to have a great deal of legitimacy. The reason why is because in the film, we hear from several highly regarded scientists who have conducted experiments using todays actual data to compare with the IPCC's models proving they are not at all accurate. When these scientists have put the real life data into the IPCC's models and compare the results of the models with what is actually happening in the real world, they find gross inaccuracies.

But before we go any further Id like to address the issue of consensus vs. objectivity. The consensus that we always hear about is the consensus of the IPCC. The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change. In other words, the IPCC only exists to publicize information that will prove MM climate change exists. They are not set out to look for information that proves otherwise.

Also the IPCC's members are appointed by governments and organizations, not elected, but appointed. The previous head of the IPCC was Robert Watson and apparently Exxon Mobile had something to say about that In April 2002 when the United States pressed for and won his replacement by Rajendra Pachauri as IPCC chair. According to New Scientist, "The oil industry seems to be behind the move." The industry campaign to oust Watson had begun days after George W. Bush's inauguration in January 2001, with a memo to the White House from Randy Randol of oil giant ExxonMobil asking "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?" He was replaced by Pachauri who is definitely pushing the MMGW agenda even harder than Watson. The 2001 IPCC report headed by Watson was mild compared to (GWB and Exxon-appointed) Pachauri's report in 2007. So in other words, it appears that Exxon and Bush pushed for a more outspoken voice in favor of MMGW. Weird huh?

It is also very interesting to note that Exxon even has such influence on the IPCCs appointments. If Exxon has this much power and truly wants to discredit the theory of MMGW in order to increase their oil profits, why push for someone like Pachauri? And why wouldn't Exxon push for another guy to replace Pachauri after his 2007 report (which definitively stated that GW is man-made) came out while George Bush was still in power? It seems to me Exxon has vested interest in MMGW, just like Rupert Murdoch, George W Bush, and all other oil companies (who have invested billions of dollars into renewable energy technology). Oil companies are first and foremost concerned with profit. What better way to increase profit than to sell both oil and renewable energies, especially when the public sentiment leans heavily towards clean energy? My point here is that this is a win-win situation for the oil companies. They can sell their oil to everyone who is dependent on it for energy (like you and I), and they can simultaneously make obscene profits selling renewable energy to those who can afford the luxury.

The IPCC is not an independent and objective panel. They are not even comprised mostly of scientists or climatologists. The IPCC repeatedly uses individual examples of extreme weather to support their position, which Zeno and I have already agreed are useless to support any global warming theory. Weather and climate are very different things, yet the IPCC doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that. They have one purpose and that is to exacerbate the issue of MMGW. They are heavily influenced by multi-national corporations and imperialistic governments. And yet this is the consensus that we are supposed to trust. Every time someone says something like 'well your just siding with the oil companies and fox news conspiracy theorists', I can't help but roll my eyes. For it is truly the GW advocates who are serving the interests of the oil companies and multi-national corporations. These elite powers that control our resources and policies strive to create confusion and division through rhetoric and misinformation (through outlets such as fox news and msn) in hopes of creating a global tax that will benefit only them. They are not really interested in solving the real problem of pollution.

As I have shown, the IPCC is heavily biased in favor of MMGW. So their consensus holds little to no meaning to any objective scientist. The link below provides ample evidence of the IPCC's blatant bias.

The IPCC under the Microscope (https://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm)

Blogs such as RealClimate.org I can not take seriously. The first article I looked at on their non peer-reviewed blog had references that were riddled with grammatical and spelling errors that make it difficult to trust their data. The article began with a personal attack on Lord Monckton, and then it went on to assert that Monckton was misrepresenting the IPCC's projections. Rather than provide a link to the IPCC's actual projections, the authors made their own graph, which I found to contain a major error. The article did NOT question Monckton's actual conclusions; rather, it attempted to discredit him through his personality, which admittedly is a bit eccentric. Personality, however, has little to do with science and data.

Here is a link to the article in question:
RealClimate: Monckton’s deliberate manipulation (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/)

I am a firm supporter of objective reasoning and look down upon group think. Group think (or consensus based reasoning) is almost always doomed to be abused by some individuals with ulterior motives. If we can not rationally, objectively and sanely examine anything and everything then as I said we are almost always in danger of being abused. But if we can't agree on this very important premise I don't see the point in continuing this conversation. Otherwise we are just going around in circles, because I can't take seriously any of your consensus based arguments, whereas you can't take seriously any of my objective reality based arguments. This is a fundamental difference in the way we think, and it only serves as a block between us. So if I have done a good enough job of convincing you that the IPCC's consensus based conclusions are biased, politicized, and cherry picked and you are willing to look at this issue objectively let's continue. Or if you can convince me that the IPCC's consensus has absolute legitimacy we can also continue.

Zeno Swijtink

01-24-2010, 01:05 PM

In fact did you ever hear of Live Earth? Live Earth was/is a massive global awareness benefit concert for MMGW utilizing MSN and Fox to broadcast this

Is there any semi-technical climatology text book you can recommend?

Zeno Swijtink

01-24-2010, 01:08 PM

The IPCC repeatedly uses individual examples of extreme weather to support their position (...) .

Weather and climate are very different things, yet the IPCC doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that.

Can you substantiates these two claims?

someguy

01-24-2010, 01:19 PM

Is there any semi-technical climatology text book you can recommend?

No, I'm not a climatologist. Also, what does that have to do with Live Earth? That's what you quoted me on. I don't see the connection.

Zeno Swijtink

01-24-2010, 01:56 PM

No, I'm not a climatologist. Also, what does that have to do with Live Earth? That's what you quoted me on. I don't see the connection.

From someone who makes claims that are highly technical - such as on the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas and its relative importance in comparison with CO2 - one would expect the ability to recommend a text book.

Or is you knowledge solely based on reading blogs and watching video clips, and on monitoring pop culture?

Please spell out the water vapor point you made earlier. What physics/chemistry issues are involved in a comparison of the relative forcing of gaseous H2O and CO2?

someguy

01-24-2010, 01:59 PM

Can you substantiates these two claims?

A severe heatwave over large parts of Europe in 2003 extended from June to mid-August, raising summer temperatures by 3 to 5 °C in most of southern and central Europe
AR4 WGII Chapter 12: Europe - 12.6 Case studies (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-6.html#12-6-1)

Box 1.1. Retreat of Chacaltaya and its effects: case study of a small disappearing glacier in Bolivia
AR4 WGII Chapter 1: Assessment of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and Managed Systems - 1.3.1 Cryosphere (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-3-1.html)

Droughts have mainly affected the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and southern Africa, particularly since the end of the 1960s (see Section 9.6.2; Richard et al., 2001; L’Hôte et al., 2002; Brooks, 2004; Christensen et al., 2007; Trenberth et al., 2007). Floods are also critical and impact on African development. Recurrent floods in some countries are linked, in some cases, with ENSO events. When such events occur, important economic and human losses result (e.g., in Mozambique – see Mirza, 2003; Obasi, 2005). Even countries located in dry areas (Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Somalia) have not been flood-free (Kabat et al., 2002).
AR4 WGII Chapter 9: Africa - 9.2 Current sensitivity/vulnerability (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-2.html#9-2-1)

Extreme weather events in Asia were reported to provide evidence of increases in the intensity or frequency on regional scales throughout the 20th century.
AR4 WGII Chapter 10: Asia - 10.1 Summary of knowledge assessed in the Third Assessment Report (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-1.html#10-1-1)

Mean winter precipitation is increasing in most of Atlantic and northern Europe (Klein Tank et al., 2002). In the Mediterranean area, yearly precipitation trends are negative in the east, while they are non-significant in the west (Norrant and Douguédroit, 2006). An increase in mean precipitation per wet day is observed in most parts of the continent, even in some areas which are becoming drier (Frich et al., 2002; Klein Tank et al., 2002; Alexander et al., 2006).
AR4 WGII Chapter 12: Europe - 12.2 Current sensitivity/vulnerability (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-2.html#12-2-1)

Here is a report copied from Energy & Environment that discusses in more depth some of these examples cited by the IPCC. The author asserts that the IPCC focused on extreme weather that supports their position while ignoring peer-reviewed literature that contradicts their theories.
https://icecap.us/images/uploads/MLKEEMay2008.pdf

Zeno Swijtink

01-24-2010, 02:08 PM

These are not individual weather data points, but considerations of masses of data points and some of their statistical measures.

A severe heatwave over large parts of Europe in 2003 extended from June to mid-August, raising summer temperatures by 3 to 5 °C in most of southern and central Europe
AR4 WGII Chapter 12: Europe - 12.6 Case studies (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-6.html#12-6-1)

Box 1.1. Retreat of Chacaltaya and its effects: case study of a small disappearing glacier in Bolivia
AR4 WGII Chapter 1: Assessment of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and Managed Systems - 1.3.1 Cryosphere (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-3-1.html)

Droughts have mainly affected the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and southern Africa, particularly since the end of the 1960s (see Section 9.6.2; Richard et al., 2001; L’Hôte et al., 2002; Brooks, 2004; Christensen et al., 2007; Trenberth et al., 2007). Floods are also critical and impact on African development. Recurrent floods in some countries are linked, in some cases, with ENSO events. When such events occur, important economic and human losses result (e.g., in Mozambique – see Mirza, 2003; Obasi, 2005). Even countries located in dry areas (Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Somalia) have not been flood-free (Kabat et al., 2002).
AR4 WGII Chapter 9: Africa - 9.2 Current sensitivity/vulnerability (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-2.html#9-2-1)

Extreme weather events in Asia were reported to provide evidence of increases in the intensity or frequency on regional scales throughout the 20th century.
AR4 WGII Chapter 10: Asia - 10.1 Summary of knowledge assessed in the Third Assessment Report (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-1.html#10-1-1)

Mean winter precipitation is increasing in most of Atlantic and northern Europe (Klein Tank et al., 2002). In the Mediterranean area, yearly precipitation trends are negative in the east, while they are non-significant in the west (Norrant and Douguédroit, 2006). An increase in mean precipitation per wet day is observed in most parts of the continent, even in some areas which are becoming drier (Frich et al., 2002; Klein Tank et al., 2002; Alexander et al., 2006).
AR4 WGII Chapter 12: Europe - 12.2 Current sensitivity/vulnerability (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-2.html#12-2-1)

Here is a report copied from Energy & Environment that discusses in more depth some of these examples cited by the IPCC. The author asserts that the IPCC focused on extreme weather that supports their position while ignoring peer-reviewed literature that contradicts their theories.
https://icecap.us/images/uploads/MLKEEMay2008.pdf

someguy

01-24-2010, 02:23 PM

From someone who makes claims that are highly technical - such as on the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas and its relative importance in comparison with CO2 - one would expect the ability to recommend a text book.

Or is you knowledge solely based on reading blogs and watching video clips, and on monitoring pop culture?

Please spell out the water vapor point you made earlier. What physics/chemistry issues are involved in a comparison of the relative forcing of gaseous H2O and CO2?

Well first of all, how was I supposed to know that you wanted to know about water vapor when you quoted me about Live Earth, a concert?

Second, I never made any "highly technical" claims about water vapor. Where are you getting that? The statement I made was about the atmospheric quantity of greenhouse gases, of which water vapor happens to be the largest. It also contributes the most to the greenhouse effect (see below). Co2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, but clearly not as much as water vapor. And when factoring in human contribution to Co2 production, it is a relatively small percentage when considering all of the sources of Co2.

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect[12][13] the four major gases are:

water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases)

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,
NCDC: Greenhouse Gases (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#wv)

someguy

01-24-2010, 02:25 PM

These are not individual weather data points, but considerations of masses of data points and some of their statistical measures.

What are you talking about? How can you say that a case study on the heat wave of 2003 in Europe is not a specific example of extreme weather that the IPCC is using to forward their agenda?

Zeno Swijtink

01-24-2010, 02:53 PM

What are you talking about? How can you say that a case study on the heat wave of 2003 in Europe is not a specific example of extreme weather that the IPCC is using to forward their agenda?

If you go to the text you'll see that the discussion of this highly complex event, recorded in thousands of data points, is itself of statistical nature - comparing it with data comprising many years - and that the authors use it in a consilience argument as one of a number of case studies, in an area of research where there are hundreds of such case studies.

Zeno Swijtink

01-24-2010, 02:58 PM

Well first of all, how was I supposed to know that you wanted to know about water vapor when you quoted me about Live Earth, a concert?

Second, I never made any "highly technical" claims about water vapor. Where are you getting that? The statement I made was about the atmospheric quantity of greenhouse gases, of which water vapor happens to be the largest. It also contributes the most to the greenhouse effect (see below). Co2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, but clearly not as much as water vapor. And when factoring in human contribution to Co2 production, it is a relatively small percentage when considering all of the sources of Co2.

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect[12][13] the four major gases are:

water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases)

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,
NCDC: Greenhouse Gases (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#wv)

If you go to the reference [12] from which these numbers are taken - from realclimate.com - you'll see that it argues that water vapor concentrations are a feedback, not a forcing. You cannot belittle the impact of CO2 emissions, as you did when you first mentioned water vapor, just by referring to these numbers, but you need to understand and explain the dynamical process behind these numbers.

someguy

01-24-2010, 03:18 PM

Zeno Swijtink

01-24-2010, 03:30 PM

Could you provide a link to the "text" in question?

The text in the IPCC report you linked to.

someguy

01-24-2010, 04:58 PM

If you go to the text you'll see that the discussion of this highly complex event, recorded in thousands of data points, is itself of statistical nature - comparing it with data comprising many years - and that the authors use it in a consilience argument as one of a number of case studies, in an area of research where there are hundreds of such case studies.

I understand what you are saying... this event was recorded in thousands of different places, and it was compared with data over many years. The authors conclude that this was a highly unlikely event under current climatic conditions. They also say that this event fits their models. However, this doesn't change the fact that this is an example of a single extreme weather event (a heatwave) that the IPCC is pointing towards as evidence to support their theories of MMGW. In your own words "The weight of evidence of single events for climate change is nil."

The author of the following article makes the case that the IPCC picks and chooses certain changes in natural systems that support their GW hypothesis (such as the 2003 heatwave in question) to use in such case studies, while ignoring other significant changes that contradict their hypothesis (examples in the excerpt below). He says that the IPCC reports concentrate on events that highlight the adverse impacts of climate change while ignoring other events that show a positive impact, such as increased crop yield or Co2 enrichment of forests. That seems like fear-mongering to me. He also asserts that the IPCC often cites unpublished studies to support their hypothesis while ignoring published studies that refute them. He supplies examples of peer-reviewed papers, including his own, to support his points.

https://icecap.us/images/uploads/MLKEEMay2008.pdf
2. The European summer 2003 heat wave: The heat wave in Europe during
June-July of 2003 was an exceptional event and received wide publicity
because of a large number of fatalities due to dehydration and heat stress
which affected several thousand elderly people in France and elsewhere in
Western Europe. Although an exceptional weather event, the 2003 European
heat wave was by no means unprecedented and was a result of a persistent
upper-level ridge of high pressure over the Continent (see AMS Bulletin,
June 2004). Linking the 2003 heat wave in Europe to human activity is
unconvincing and without any merit. Such heat waves have occurred in the
past in various parts of the earth and have been triggered by various
reasons, most commonly due to an anomalous but not uncommon
atmospheric flow pattern. What is of interest here is that just six months
earlier, the winter months of December 2002 and January 2003 were
unusually cold in many parts of North America, Europe and this unusually
cold winter was felt even in the tropical latitudes of Vietnam and
Bangladesh where several hundred people died of long exposure to
significantly below normal temperatures. The winter season of 2002/03 over
Northern Hemisphere was much more wide-spread globally than the
European heat wave of summer 2003. The IPCC authors highlighted the
European heat wave as an example of human activity induced EW event,
but completely ignored the unusually cold winter season of 2002/03. Also
the summer (June/July/August) of 2004 was one of the coldest over most of
North America. These and many other recent climate anomalies of cold as
well as warm season are most certainly due to natural climate variability
and are in no way associated with human activity.

Zeno Swijtink

01-24-2010, 06:00 PM

You are right: I should have been more careful in expressing the matter:

1. One cannot prove that a single extreme event was "caused by climate change," in the sense of "would not have happened without climate change."

2. A single extreme event generally does not prove climate change.

3. A pattern of many events that are highly improbable under the no climate change model but fit the climate change model gives strong evidence for climate change. How strong is a question of statistical reasoning and could be expressed in terms of a likelihood ratio.

Whether the heat wave was a single event or a pattern of many events is up to discussion, but it does not matter since it is one of many weather patterns that is improbable under the no climate change model.

The climate change hypothesis predicts both a trend of higher average temperatures but also greater variability, and hence fits an extreme cold spell.

I hope this makes clear how I think about this.

I understand what you are saying... this event was recorded in thousands of different places, and it was compared with data over many years. The authors conclude that this was a highly unlikely event under current climatic conditions. They also say that this event fits their models. However, this doesn't change the fact that this is an example of a single extreme weather event (a heatwave) that the IPCC is pointing towards as evidence to support their theories of MMGW. In your own words "The weight of evidence of single events for climate change is nil."

The author of the following article makes the case that the IPCC picks and chooses certain changes in natural systems that support their GW hypothesis (such as the 2003 heatwave in question) to use in such case studies, while ignoring other significant changes that contradict their hypothesis (examples in the excerpt below). He says that the IPCC reports concentrate on events that highlight the adverse impacts of climate change while ignoring other events that show a positive impact, such as increased crop yield or Co2 enrichment of forests. That seems like fear-mongering to me. He also asserts that the IPCC often cites unpublished studies to support their hypothesis while ignoring published studies that refute them. He supplies examples of peer-reviewed papers, including his own, to support his points.

https://icecap.us/images/uploads/MLKEEMay2008.pdf
2. The European summer 2003 heat wave: The heat wave in Europe during
June-July of 2003 was an exceptional event and received wide publicity
because of a large number of fatalities due to dehydration and heat stress
which affected several thousand elderly people in France and elsewhere in
Western Europe. Although an exceptional weather event, the 2003 European
heat wave was by no means unprecedented and was a result of a persistent
upper-level ridge of high pressure over the Continent (see AMS Bulletin,
June 2004). Linking the 2003 heat wave in Europe to human activity is
unconvincing and without any merit. Such heat waves have occurred in the
past in various parts of the earth and have been triggered by various
reasons, most commonly due to an anomalous but not uncommon
atmospheric flow pattern. What is of interest here is that just six months
earlier, the winter months of December 2002 and January 2003 were
unusually cold in many parts of North America, Europe and this unusually
cold winter was felt even in the tropical latitudes of Vietnam and
Bangladesh where several hundred people died of long exposure to
significantly below normal temperatures. The winter season of 2002/03 over
Northern Hemisphere was much more wide-spread globally than the
European heat wave of summer 2003. The IPCC authors highlighted the
European heat wave as an example of human activity induced EW event,
but completely ignored the unusually cold winter season of 2002/03. Also
the summer (June/July/August) of 2004 was one of the coldest over most of
North America. These and many other recent climate anomalies of cold as
well as warm season are most certainly due to natural climate variability
and are in no way associated with human activity.

Hotspring 44

01-25-2010, 12:55 AM

But before we go any further Id like to address the issue of consensus vs. objectivity. The consensus that we always hear about is the consensus of the IPCC. The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change. In other words, the IPCC only exists to publicize information that will prove MM climate change exists. They are not set out to look for information that proves otherwise.

I do not disagree with that.

Also the IPCC's members are appointed by governments and organizations, not elected, but appointed. The previous head of the IPCC was Robert Watson and apparently Exxon Mobile had something to say about that In April 2002 when the United States pressed for and won his replacement by Rajendra Pachauri as IPCC chair. According to New Scientist, "The oil industry seems to be behind the move." The industry campaign to oust Watson had begun days after George W. Bush's inauguration in January 2001, with a memo to the White House from Randy Randol of oil giant ExxonMobil asking "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?" He was replaced by Pachauri who is definitely pushing the MMGW agenda even harder than Watson. The 2001 IPCC report headed by Watson was mild compared to (GWB and Exxon-appointed) Pachauri's report in 2007. So in other words, it appears that Exxon and Bush pushed for a more outspoken voice in favor of MMGW. Weird huh?

If not weird, ironic.
There may be a true scientist at work instead of a politically motivated one.

It is also very interesting to note that Exxon even has such influence on the IPCCs appointments. If Exxon has this much power and truly wants to discredit the theory of MMGW in order to increase their oil profits, why push for someone like Pachauri? And why wouldn't Exxon push for another guy to replace Pachauri after his 2007 report (which definitively stated that GW is man-made) came out while George Bush was still in power? It seems to me Exxon has vested interest in MMGW, just like Rupert Murdoch, George W Bush, and all other oil companies (who have invested billions of dollars into renewable energy technology). Oil companies are first and foremost concerned with profit. What better way to increase profit than to sell both oil and renewable energies, especially when the public sentiment leans heavily towards clean energy? My point here is that this is a win-win situation for the oil companies. They can sell their oil to everyone who is dependent on it for energy (like you and I), and they can simultaneously make obscene profits selling renewable energy to those who can afford the luxury.

The dependency on foreign oil is going to make volatile economics in the not so distant future. They just see it coming.

The IPCC is not an independent and objective panel. They are not even comprised mostly of scientists or climatologists. The IPCC repeatedly uses individual examples of extreme weather to support their position, which Zeno and I have already agreed are useless to support any global warming theory. Weather and climate are very different things, yet the IPCC doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that.

The scientists involved do take those things into consideration though.

They have one purpose and that is to exacerbate the issue of MMGW. They are heavily influenced by multi-national corporations and imperialistic governments. And yet this is the consensus that we are supposed to trust.

The IPCC is not the only entity involved. You are intelligent enough to know that, I am sure.
Also governments are not controlling what the scientists think or the total peer revue process either.

Every time someone says something like 'well your just siding with the oil companies and fox news conspiracy theorists', I can't help but roll my eyes.
I understand that... ...Cool!

For it is truly the GW advocates who are serving the interests of the oil companies and multi-national corporations.
That could also be expanded to everyone that needs and uses any of the energy products in a large range of (the oil and power companies) production; such as 99.99% of us. simply put that is absolutely true in that respect.

These elite powers that control our resources and policies strive to create confusion and division through rhetoric and misinformation (through outlets such as fox news and msn) in hopes of creating a global tax...
Or whatever it's going to be called or labeled as.

...They are not really interested in solving the real problem of pollution.
Not when it cuts into their profits!... ...You got that one.:thumbsup::hammer:

As I have shown, the IPCC is heavily biased in favor of MMGW.

I humbly disagree with the premise of that point. But I do understand how one can easily come to that conclusion.

So their consensus holds little to no meaning to any objective scientist. The link below provides ample evidence of the IPCC's blatant bias.

The IPCC under the Microscope (https://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm)

Instead of merely going to only that article, which is mostly a compilation of links (some are ones that have been hashed-out before) I did a little research on the web page and the author of it.
Here is what I found so far: His name is John McLean, he is a "Computer consultant and occasional travel photographer" as he puts it on his home page (https://mclean.ch/).
He has some good data links here:
Climate Data Sources (https://mclean.ch/climate/data_sources.htm)
I see no climatology degree listed for him. But that doesn't negate his study using his computer skills to make his points on GW and all. But also like myself, Zeno, and; I think you, he is not a climatologist, he is more so a computer blogger (Geek?) and photographer.

Blogs such as RealClimate.org I can not take seriously. The first article I looked at on their non peer-reviewed blog had references that were riddled with grammatical and spelling errors that make it difficult to trust their data.

I noticed the grammatical errors too. But I think that may be due to the language translation into English from other languages and the older language translator programs used and the common data glitches with some servers etc.

The article began with a personal attack on Lord Monckton, and then it went on to assert that Monckton was misrepresenting the IPCC's projections.

The personality thing is a bit of a side issue. I can see where personality's have a role in the direction that the conversation goes.
I do think that the gist of the statement made in regards to the claim of "Misrepresentation" is legitimate anyway.

Rather than provide a link to the IPCC's actual projections,
He did, you missed it! It is on this page:
RealClimate: Monckton’s deliberate manipulation (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/)

The link is between some graphs at the end of this sentence: "Lest this be thought a mere aberration or a slip of his quill, it turns out he has previously faked the data on projections of CO<sub>2</sub> as well.
This graph is from a recent presentation of his, compared to the actual projections: (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GCM_2004.html)"... ...

That link goes to a page that has:
Forcings in GISS Climate Model: 2004 Runs
observation data: 1850-2000 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GHGs.1850-2000.txt) (2004_03_03)
observation data: 2001-2004 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GHGs.Obsv.2001-2004.txt) (2005_08_31)
alternative scenario: 2001-2100 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GHGs.AltS.2001-2100.txt) (2004_06_07)
2 degree C scenario: 2001-2100 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GHGs.2deg.2001-2100.txt) (2004_06_08)
IPCC scenario A1B: 1991-2100 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GHGs.IPCC.A1B.txt) (2004_05_06)
IPCC scenario B1: 1991-2100 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GHGs.IPCC.B1.txt) (2004_06_08)
IPCC scenario A2: 1991-2100 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GHGs.IPCC.A2.txt) (2004_06_15)...

...Note the bottom link: IPCC scenario A2: 1991-2100

(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GHGs.IPCC.A2.txt)
the authors made their own graph, which I found to contain a major error. The article did NOT question Monckton's actual conclusions; rather, it attempted to discredit him through his personality, which admittedly is a bit eccentric. Personality, however, has little to do with science and data.

As far as I can tell, they were showing how Monckton's errors were gross. Those were Monckton's errors and an example of those (Monckton) errors.
Here is a link to the article in question:
RealClimate: Monckton’s deliberate manipulation (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/)

I also disagree with your assessment that it attempted to discredit him through his personality only. But I do admit that Monckton's personality is grating to me too.

There are other issues that I could get onto about Monckton that I am very suspicious of regarding his psychological stability and judgment regarding some statements he made on a film clip. (sorry i can't find the link for that right now but on another thread I posted on, I linked to it and pinpointed the specific thing and exact place in the video.).

I am a firm supporter of objective reasoning and look down upon group think. Group think (or consensus based reasoning) is almost always doomed to be abused by some individuals with ulterior motives.

You could have said; politics instead of "group think" as far as that goes. Same thing here I think.

If we can not rationally, objectively and sanely examine anything and everything then as I said we are almost always in danger of being abused. But if we can't agree on this very important premise I don't see the point in continuing this conversation. Otherwise we are just going around in circles, because I can't take seriously any of your consensus based arguments, whereas you can't take seriously any of my objective reality based arguments.

I take your "arguments" "seriously" enough to spend hours researching links you provide and more too. I also spend time writing on waccobb to your thread as I also do on other threads.

Excuse me but I can't help it if you have some sort of hang-up over my objectivity/personality.

BTW you (nor I) have a monopoly on "objective reality based arguments".
My reality is equally valid as yours... ...Dude.

This is a fundamental difference in the way we think, and it only serves as a block between us.

I don't think it has to. But if you insist on it then I can't do anything much to change that. That one is on you.

So if I have done a good enough job of convincing you that the IPCC's consensus based conclusions are biased, politicized, and cherry picked and you are willing to look at this issue objectively let's continue. Or if you can convince me that the IPCC's consensus has absolute legitimacy we can also continue.

"absolute legitimacy"? That is a little too much to require of me. Are all of the sources and their links that you provide so absolutely legitimate?... ...Of course not, so that as a requirement is bogus.

You absolutely haven't convinced me that the IPCC's consensus based conclusions are biased, politicized, and cherry picked.

I believe I have been objective.

I know I haven't changed your mind (it's your own mind and yours only to change if you so choose) So if you have a issue with that it is your issue.

I do not think that it is an absolute requirement to agree on the IPCC issue to have an objective, intellectual conversation about it.

I think you are being too up-tight about it if you require an agreement on the basic issue regarding the IPCC and weather it is so completely bias or not.

We do not have to end up agreeing on all points to have an objective, intellectual, reality based, conversation.

Like I said you (or anyone else) will probably be disappointed any time you expect me to stay in a confining box. That is not how I operate... ...I generally operate Outside of the "box" so to speak.

someguy

01-25-2010, 08:43 AM

Zeno Swijtink

01-25-2010, 09:57 AM

Hotspring 44

01-25-2010, 01:13 PM

@hotspring44

One thing before I go to work. The first thing you said in your reply was that you did not disagree with me that the IPCC is only out to prove MMGW exists and not to look for information that proves otherwise. At the end of your post you say that I have not convinces you that the IPCC is biased.

someguy, It is disingenuous to use the term (..." only out to prove MMGW exists"...) in this reply in your response to my saying that "I do not disagree with that."... ... to:
someguy wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccoreader/62797-global-warming-sympathizers-ones-you-post105862.html#post105862)
But before we go any further Id like to address the issue of consensus vs. objectivity. The consensus that we always hear about is the consensus of the IPCC. The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change. In other words, the IPCC only exists to publicize information that will prove MM climate change exists. They are not set out to look for information that proves otherwise.

Bias- a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
Biased Definition | Definition of Biased at Dictionary.com (https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/biased)

:hello:I know good and well what bias is.

The IPCCs tendency or inclination is to look for information that supports their hypothesis.

As I have stated before, I disagree with that characterization of the IPCC as a whole.

In my opinion this is prejudiced consideration of a question. When you add that to the fact that most of the IPCC panel is made up of non-scientists, it makes the issue that much more clear.

I did not intend to ..."add that to the fact that most of the IPCC panel is made up of non-scientists"...; in the firts place.
I do not believe that I implied that either.
Maybe you are using rhetorical conjecture?... ...I am guessing so.

To me this appears to be a very clear example of a bias and I am confused as to how you could say otherwise.

It is simple really, I just disagree with your hypothesis.

Also I wanted to say real quick that I had no idea you were taking me seriously as you stated before that you felt no need to read the article that originally started this thread, and yet you attacked it. I'm glad to see that you took this last one seriously. Off to work I go.

I did read into the article some at first. please excuse me for giving the impression otherwise.

It was in my judgment that it was not worth spending the time to nitpick Al Gore's overstating of some facts.

I have gone through many of those links (and even more like them) that you posted later within this thread in the past.

I was not into rehashing many of them. that would have been unnecessary and too time consuming.

Please understand that I have disagreements and some agreements with what you have said here.
However I should say that I do differ quite a bit from the gist of the thought that the IPCC is so absolutely prejudiced towards peer reviews to thwart actual scientific findings. I just don't buy into that.