Global Warming Fraud?

[lynn]

mycoguy...It's freezing here this morning, again--I don't know about this global warming stuff--if it's true, I wish it would warmup soon, so I can stop paying so much to heat my house.
----------------

I assume that's why the 'man-made-global-warming' people changed their mantra to 'climate change'...It's kinda' hard to convince people to stop driving, and heating their homes because apocalyptic doom is just around the corner due to 'global warming', when icicles are hangin' all over EVERYTHING!...

I have a feeling after this winter, the people in the Midwest are going to drive as much as they can possibly afford to...In hopes the 'man-made-global-warming' people are right...

The climate has only been changing for how many billions of yrs. now?...

[terriann]

I had a few questions, myself, before hearing Professor Schneider speak. Though I have enough of a science background that I never dismiss off-hand what well credentialed scientists have to say. (Those without industry ties--btw, I hear that Rush Limbaugh touts himself as a "climate expert"! Lol). Do you have any inkling of the caliber of work a person must be producing to even be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize? And who it is that bestows it? This is not a lightly bestowed recognition.

Well, I figure those who really want to stay in inquiry and who will look for experts who can explain it for them, will find what they seek. Those who want to stay in denial, will stay there as long as they want to. It doesn't really matter to me.

Actually, the globe, as a whole, is warming. Just as it has cyclically since the beginning of it's existence. The facts are incontrovertible and all legitimate scientists agree. The controversy is, as Lynn states, whether human activity is driving this era's heating trend, and if so, how that will make a difference for life on earth, as compared to past warming trends.

A bulk of Dr Schneider's presentation was an explanation of what the climate scientists are seeing that have led them to the conclusion that this warming cycle is fueled, in large part, by human activity. I, for one (of about 500 audience members) was convinced. Yet I came away optimistic that if we can find the collective will, we can still effect changes for the better for our planet, our home.

Aside: Calling it "climate change" might be a way to have it all make more sense to the majority off people who haven't had enough science education (a major failing of our current public education system, since government began deconstructing that a decade or so ago) to be able to understand how planetary warming could possibly be a factor in all the cold weather and unseasonal storms some regions are experiencing. The term "global warming" is, in fact, not contradictory for folks who understand the principles.

mycoguy...It's freezing here this morning, again--I don't know about this global warming stuff--if it's true, I wish it would warmup soon, so I can stop paying so much to heat my house.
----------------

I assume that's why the 'man-made-global-warming' people changed their mantra to 'climate change'...It's kinda' hard to convince people to stop driving, and heating their homes because apocalyptic doom is just around the corner due to 'global warming', when icicles are hangin' all over EVERYTHING!...

I have a feeling after this winter, the people in the Midwest are going to drive as much as they can possibly afford to...In hopes the 'man-made-global-warming' people are right...

The climate has only been changing for how many billions of yrs. now?...

[lynn]

Larkin..."I wanted to respond to those who do not see the human cause of climate change.....Re-releasing that large amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere over such a short period of time is bound to have some effects, don't you think?"...-----------------

I don't know if anyone said on here that humans have had NO effect...The question usually is how much of an effect...And (let's repeat) many like myself are not convinced humans have that much control over climate changes, and can 'stop' climate change...I still think it's gonna' happen - period...So, I am much more concerned about other envrionmental problems...

---------------------------

Willie..."The key word here was "scientific." When discussing scientific subjects, many people hold opinions for political or psychological reasons that have nothing to do with science."

Of course...And that's what I think many of the 'man-made-global warming' people are doing...

And speaking of the 'science' and 'expert' thingy...I previously posted that link to the little 'global warming quiz'...But, maybe no-one decided to take it...

Maybe I know a teeny weeny bit...since, I scored 100 per cent on the first try (I know you'll have to take my word for it)...Darn, that 'anti-intellectualerism'...

[Orm Embar]

Yeah, it would be too big of a leap to go for the stopping of climate change . . . I'm more of a realist than that. But we can make changes so that our great-grandchildren have LESS of a climate change to deal with and maybe a little bit of Antarctic ice left, since it looks like the Arctic ice will be gone within 50 years. I'm hoping that we can take responsibility (as a global community) for our roll in this and not just shunt it on to future generations. These future generations are our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, for goodness sakes. Why would we want to hand this legacy down to our family? Doing something, or a lot of little somethings, is much better than doing nothing.

Lessening our dependence on petroleum products can not only take a chunk out of the amount of oil we are extracting and burning (causing climate change), but it can help pave the way for future generations who will be living without cheap abundant oil. We have to start somewhere and I don't want to get paralyzed by the enormity of global warming/climate change. Yes, it's big and scary. But humans are amazingly innovative.
Why not apply the same passion that brought us the wonders of areonautical flight to this issue of needing to live in a world without cheap abundant petrol? Why wait until all the easily obtainable oil reserves are gone and pumped into our atmosphere? Why not start now?

. . . so I was walking down the street the other day . . . imagining walking down the same street and having so many others out walking too . . . and they would actually be smiling because there would be no smelly exhaust to breathe . . . and no noisy mufflers . . . our neighbors have have decently-paying jobs within biking distance and are no longer spending 15 hours a week commuting to and from work, so we get to see them and their children a lot more . . . even have each other over for dinner.

There will be many benefits that will arise from this change that we will all have to go through.


Imaginatively yours,
Larkin


[QUOTE=lynn;48360]
I don't know if anyone said on here that humans have had NO effect...The question usually is how much of an effect...And (let's repeat) many like myself are not convinced humans have that much control over climate changes, and can 'stop' climate change...I still think it's gonna' happen - period...So, I am much more concerned about other envrionmental problems...

[mykil]

I just watched yet another global warming ice melting water rising great floods and wild weather show on the GREAT National Geographic Channel. This one put Greenland in the melting pot in around two decades with the sea levels rising 22 feet. And right behind that the South Pole with a rise of somewhere in the range of 150 feet in five decades. I think with all they are showing and the satellite photos to back this up it are going to get wet. What I am wondering is if at some point the cloud cover will cool us down enough to prevent the total melt down. I really think at this point it is are only hope, either that or a giant volcano erupting and the ash coverage cooling the climate down for a few years in order for us to get our shit together and settle this mess down. LMAO! Imagine trying to hope for a giant volcano eruption to save us all! But with all due respect, the cloud coverage that this extra water will bring in, around two hundred feet or so should really cool things down by itself yes? With all the extra cloud coverage the temp is going to fall in those areas. I am thinking this is going to save us. At some point this will level off and only bring in about one third to half of what they are expecting. No one seems to be talking about this aspect of the scenario and they should really try and account for this, unless the plan is really to scare the hell out of us all.

[mykil]

Well yet again I watched another boring show on the NGC and this one sayz that the South Pole only holds about fifteen feet of sea rise. The one I watched the other night sayz it can raise the ocean levels 150 feet. How can these scientists be this far off? Who is right? There will be a show on next Sunday evening Feb 10 I believe that will be called six degrees. I plan on watching this one, for it looks beyond cool and extremely tolerable. Global warming and what will happen if the world’s temps raise six degrees

[Zeno Swijtink]

A discussion of Mark Lynas's book, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet (London: Fourth Estate, 2007) is at

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=503

Each of the chapters examines what the earth might look like as we raise the planet's temperature by 1o, 2o, etc. degrees Celsius, based on what the scientific literature has to say about it.

Well yet again I watched another boring show on the NGC and this one sayz that the South Pole only holds about fifteen feet of sea rise. The one I watched the other night sayz it can raise the ocean levels 150 feet. How can these scientists be this far off? Who is right? There will be a show on next Sunday evening Feb 10 I believe that will be called six degrees. I plan on watching this one, for it looks beyond cool and extremely tolerable. Global warming and what will happen if the world’s temps raise six degrees

[handy]

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:55 AM

By: Phil Brennan

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.

AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.

Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday.

An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam's northern region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle, mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb. 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.

In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.

Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken prefectures were also closed.

Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the Cyclades islands were snowed in.

More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

Temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
*******************************************

I suppose this means that Saint Al will have to give back his Nobel prize. "An Incovienient Truth"? More like a "Convienient Lie". Just say no to CFR/Globalist shills.

[mykil]

Oh WoW; I, convinced inconveniently!

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2.../index.html?hp

February 18, 2008, 12:32 am
Global Heating, Atmosphere Cancer, Pollution Death. What's in a Name?
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

John P. Holdren, the head of Harvard's center on science and technology policy, is sick and tired of "global warming" - not just the problem, but the phrase. As the respondent to a panel on climate and the press at this year's annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston (I was on the panel), he urged the media, and scientists who talk to the press, to substitute "global climate instability" for that all-too-comfortable pair of words.

What are your suggestions for more effective ways to describe human-caused global warming?

"We've been almost anesthetized by this term," Dr. Holdren lamented. The atmospheric buildup of long-lived greenhouse gases is setting in motion centuries of shifts in climate patterns, coastlines, water resources and ecosystems, he said - hardly a transformation one would describe with a gentle word like warming. (A couple of perspectives on the broader issues we explored in this session are on the blogs of Discover magazine and the journal Nature.)

Dr. Holdren's suggestion, which he has elaborated on here, reminded me of James Lovelock's push for "global heating" as the most apt name for human-caused climate change.

James Lovelock (Credit: Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times)

When I did an interview with Dr. Lovelock in 2006, after his book "The Revenge of Gaia" was published in the United States, he explained his word preference this way: "Warming is something that's kind of cozy and comfortable. You think of a nice duvet on a cold winter's day. Heating is something you want to get away from."

After that interview, I did some Web sifting and found a site set up (but not yet built) by Simon Billinge, a physicist at Michigan State University, promoting the idea, suitably called globalheating.org. I hope he expands it.

In an email, Dr. Billinge said he'd been exploring ways to show people how the heat buildup from an increasing greenhouse effect can take time to produce significant consequences. In fact, the demonstration, described below by Dr. Billinge, may help answer the many critics of greenhouse theory on this blog who point to recent cool flutters of climate as evidence that global heating is a fantasy:

I had an undergrad non-physics major do a summer project. The basic idea was the following: educate people about the differen[ce] between heating (transfer of energy) and warming (raising the temperature) and how it pertains to global climate. The greenhouse effect affects the global energy budget (net heating of the earth), global warming and climate change [are] the response of the system to being in this non-steady-state condition and because the earth is a complicated system, we don't completely know exactly how it is going to respond.

We did an experiment where we made a video of a Bunsen burner heating… a beaker of ice and water (that was being stirred) and we plotted the temperature as a function of time. Of course, the temperature stayed constant at 0 degrees C until all the ice melted, then it started going up up up. This showed that something can be "heated" without "warming"… in fact measuring temperature is not such a great way to determine if you are in that net-heating situation or not. Oh, and by the way, a beaker of ice and water isn't such a bad model system for the earth….though there are differences.

There's one more thought about "global warming" that's worth adding here. In 2006, Seth Godin, a popular marketing expert, examined the climate communications challenge from from vantage point of a pitchman:

Is the lack of outrage because of the population's decision that this is bad science or perhaps a thoughtful reading of the existing data?

Actually, the vast majority of the population hasn't even thought about the issue. The muted reaction to our impending disaster comes down to two things:

1. the name.

Global is good.

Warm is good.

Even greenhouses are good places.

How can "global warming" be bad?

I'm not being facetious. If the problem were called "Atmosphere cancer" or "Pollution death" the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

2. the pace and the images.

One degree every few years doesn't make good TV. Because activists have been unable to tell their story with vivid images about immediate actions, it's just human nature to avoid the issue. Why give up something we enjoy now to make an infintesimal change in something that is going to happen far in the future?

We've explored the limits of language in situations like this, but it's worth pushing on this some more. What framing or phrasing do you see capturing peoples' attention in a way that might stick?

--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[handy]

Seems to boil down to whining about how "... the fearmongering isn't working! We need to come up with scarier words!!


[QUOTE=Zeno Swijtink;50472]https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2.../index.html?hp


What are your suggestions for more effective ways to describe human-caused global warming?

Dr. Holdren's suggestion, which he has elaborated on here, reminded me of James Lovelock's push for "global heating" as the most apt name for human-caused climate change.

I'm not being facetious. If the problem were called "Atmosphere cancer" or "Pollution death" the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

We've explored the limits of language in situations like this, but it's worth pushing on this some more. What framing or phrasing do you see capturing peoples' attention in a way that might stick?

-

[Braggi]

Seems to boil down to whining about how "... the fearmongering isn't working! We need to come up with scarier words!!
...
-

So why are we arguing about this? As I've said here before, it's stupid to even argue this question when everything that could or should be done to combat "global heating, warming, climate change, cooling, destabilizing, ice ageing" or whatever is something we should be doing anyway for other more tangible reasons.

No need to debate climate change. We should be switching over to renewable energy anyway. We should become more efficient anyway. We should be less wasteful anyway.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

Seems to boil down to whining about how "... the fearmongering isn't working! We need to come up with scarier words!!
-

Similar as you guys tried to unsell universal health care as "socialized healthcare"??

[lynn]

[

braggi....So why are we arguing about this? As I've said here before, it's stupid to even argue this question when everything that could or should be done to combat "global heating, warming, climate change, cooling, destabilizing, ice ageing" or whatever is something we should be doing anyway for other more tangible reasons.
No need to debate climate change. We should be switching over to renewable energy anyway. We should become more efficient anyway. We should be less wasteful anyway.
Jeff
----------------------------

Yes...that's been my point too!...Let's change things because we want lot's of clean water to drink, good healthy food to eat, clean air to breath...A good quality of life!...

If so called 'environmentalists' around here really want to change something...get the cities to quit building for a while...Get the building codes changed so absolutely NOTHING can be built that isn't total 'eco-design, water efficient'....And stop overpopulation (good luck!)...

I do NOT want to drink my treated sh*t water...

I'm tired of hearing about 'climate change' while watching more weltands, good soil, and hillsides in extreme fire danger get paved over....
--------------

If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.

haha....:)

[lynn]

The local 'climate protection campaign' site has a page called 'Climate Change 101'...

https://www.climateprotectioncampaig...echange101.php

I sent it to a science teacher who had a little fun with it...

-------------------

Who wrote this little jewel on "Climate Change 101?

It should read "Climate Change 001.

This is not written by an "Expert" on Earth's complex atmospheric physics...

I'd say it was written by the author of Dungsberry. You know, the cartoon idiot that knows all about war and politics.

You, of course, know what an "Expert" is?

Learned this in math and physics...

"X" is an unknown.

"Spert" is a drip under pressure.

Most of what we hear, smell, and read these days is written by x-sperts.

Al, as you probably know, is an x-spert on gobble warming and polar bear extinction.

As for the "farticle"...

The "balance" of GHGs in our atmosphere is not "delicate". If you don't believe check "climate change" data back over about, oh, say, the past 65 million years. Life goes on.

If Earth's "average" temperature is now 60 degrees F, it has risen about 4 degrees F in the past 30-40 years. On down in the article it states that Earth's temp has risen about 1 degree in the past 100 years, or since the "Industrial Revolution".

Now, these gobble warmers need to get together on how much temp increase has occurred. There is a big difference between 4 F and 1 F over the entire globe.

Fact is, the caves around here still maintain an annual temp of about 56 F.

Caves maintain the average annual temp of the region they are in. Bottom line is we see no increase or decrease in cave temps.

This little 101 thing says that 60 F is warm enough to support life...
Ho, ho, ho!

Support life?

This dungsberry author needs to learn some science.

Life can exist in temps above the boiling point of water 212 F.

Life can exist well below the freezing point of water 32 F or 0 C.

Life can exist in salt concentrations that are 10X that of seawater.

Life is not a delicate little "thing" that has been specially created in a "Garden of Eden". Life is dammm tough.

This dungsberry dude says that at temps of about 14 F the planet will become "uninhabitable". What?

I just gave you a few temp extremes. A temp of 14 F will be a walk in the park on a sunny afternoon for "life as we know it".

Where do these idiots come from?

Without doubt, this is part of the bunch that fed Al his nobel prize.

I'm now getting bored with this sh....

What about this crap that if atmospheric CO2 doubles by 2050 our global temps will rise from 2.3 to 7.2 F?

2.3 to 7.2 F? Dammm, I wish my statistics teacher had given me that much deviation from the norm on my final exam. I might have passed.

So, finally, since I've had a long day of trying to teach students the facts from the fiction, let us consider one more fiction...

The U.S. is already feeling more frequent and extreme weather events...

Hurricanes are up, even though they are down...

There is more rain, somewhere...

There is more snow, this year in places...

There are more weather related deaths...
(Never mind Earth's population doubles about every 15 years)

And, finally, thousands of "cattle" are being killed by weather
related phenoment annually.

Well, excuse me, I thought the increase in cattle and their ultimate death was due to human overpopulation and the demand for a McDonald's "BIG MAC"!!!

CHEERS...

[thewholetruth]

I wonder if cavemen thought they were responsible when the Ice Age was ending and the Earth was warming back then. I wonder if it's not just the innate self-centeredness that humans have, which makes us believe we're the center of the Universe, coupled with the guilt caused by our unavoidable knowledge that we are polluting the air, land and sea on this planet which causes us to ignore the fact that the Earth has been heating up and cooling down since the beginning of time.

I just wonder about all of that.

Don

According to this PD Editorial from today, Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley is off to attend the global warming conference in Bali.

For years, Kelley, a Republican, has been doubting this problem, and was often the single vote against global climate change measures in front of the Board of Supervisors.

Kelley now says, "Global climate change is something that we all need to deal with. I've definitely shifted."

*****

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/artic...1043/OPINION01

EDITORIALS
Bali quest
Why is a county supervisor headed for Indonesia tonight?

As a rule, local government officials have no business attending overseas conferences. Their time -- and taxpayer dollars -- are better spent locally. That brings us to the issue of Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley, who is attending a global warming conference in Bali.

Kelley, who is flying to the conference tonight, was not always a believer in climate change. In an interview two years ago, he expressed strong doubts about the science behind global warming. But reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have convinced him. Kelley says, "Global climate change is something that we all need to deal with. I've definitely shifted."

Kelley's newfound conviction, coupled with the fact that he is one of the county's most prominent conservatives, could help change the minds of other climate-change skeptics. But that still leaves the question of whether it's worth public funds -- and the carbon emissions generated by his flight -- to attend a meeting halfway around the world. We wait to be convinced.

These aren't only questions for Kelley, but for many of the more than 10,000 people attending the conference, where delegates will negotiate a process to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The UN, which is hosting the event, estimates that 47,000 tons of greenhouse gas pollutants will be generated from the conference.

It might seem a contradiction for delegates to be contributing to a problem they are supposed to be solving, but by meeting face-to-face, they have an opportunity to share information and develop trust. Also, by meeting in Indonesia -- a low-lying country predicted to be severely impacted by rising oceans -- delegates get a clear picture of what's at stake unless nations act aggressively.

As to whether a Sonoma County elected official should attend, Kelley says local governments are "most able to implement the recommendations. We need to make sure they're practical and realistic."

So, junket or opportunity? Time and carbon emission measurements will be the ultimate judge, but at least Kelley has landed on the right side of the issue.
--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Zeno Swijtink]

I wonder if cavemen thought they were responsible when the Ice Age was ending and the Earth was warming back then. I wonder if it's not just the innate self-centeredness that humans have, which makes us believe we're the center of the Universe, coupled with the guilt caused by our unavoidable knowledge that we are polluting the air, land and sea on this planet which causes us to ignore the fact that the Earth has been heating up and cooling down since the beginning of time.

I just wonder about all of that.

Don

Wonder is the beginning of curiosity and curiosity can lead to inquiry. So I hope Don that you will take some books out and start studying this issue.

Yesterday I went to a lecture in the "What Physicists Do" lecture series at SSU (I teach logic, critical thinking, and philosophy of science there, including philosophical issues in global climate change). The topic of the lecture was

THE WARMING WILL ACCELERATE THE WARMING

Dr. Inez Fung of the University of California at Berkeley discussed how climate change will alter the processes that store carbon in the land and the oceans, and hence accelerate climate change itself.

Dr Fung is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at UC Berkeley, in the Department of Earth & Planetary Science. She is a Contributor to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), but also a “Scientist of the Month” in Ms. Maggie Owens’ 2nd grade class, Marin Elementary School, Albany, California. Quite a lady.

If you wish to up the ante on your wonder and turn it into curiosity and study let me know and I can suggest some books or alert you to scientists when they give lectures in the area.

[lynn]

..."THE WARMING WILL ACCELERATE THE WARMING
Dr. Inez Fung of the University of California at Berkeley discussed how climate change will alter the processes that store carbon in the land and the oceans, and hence accelerate climate change itself."...
Dr Fung is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at UC Berkeley, in the Department of Earth & Planetary Science. She is a Contributor to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), but also a “Scientist of the Month” in Ms. Maggie Owens’ 2nd grade class, Marin Elementary School, Albany, California. Quite a lady."...
-----------

Zeno....I think you missed don's point...(Correct me if I'm wrong Don)...He didn't say anything about 'warming' not happening...He's making the point, that so many are making - scientists included...EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES!...Caveman, or no Caveman...Industrial Revolution, or no Industrial Revolution...

From what I gather...Currently, there is NO scientific PROOF that the current climate change is 'man-made'...
--------

And as far as Paul Kelley goes...He's your typical political opportunist...Geez...a nice little political conference in Bali, eh?...Yeah, he and whole heck of a lot of other political opportunists wouldn't have been so keen to jump on the 'global warming' bandwagon thingy if those conferences were being held in the slums of Bangladesh...

Wow!...If Paul Kelley has finally been converted...It must be true!...

Give me a freakin' break...

take care,
lynn

[Zeno Swijtink]

..."THE WARMING WILL ACCELERATE THE WARMING
Dr. Inez Fung of the University of California at Berkeley discussed how climate change will alter the processes that store carbon in the land and the oceans, and hence accelerate climate change itself."...
Dr Fung is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at UC Berkeley, in the Department of Earth & Planetary Science. She is a Contributor to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), but also a “Scientist of the Month” in Ms. Maggie Owens’ 2nd grade class, Marin Elementary School, Albany, California. Quite a lady."...
-----------

Zeno....I think you missed don's point...(Correct me if I'm wrong Don)...He didn't say anything about 'warming' not happening...He's making the point, that so many are making - scientists included...EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES!...Caveman, or no Caveman...Industrial Revolution, or no Industrial Revolution...

From what I gather...Currently, there is NO scientific PROOF that the current climate change is 'man-made'...

I think I understood that, and by referring to Dr Fung as a member of IPCC I indicated that.

At her lecture yesterday at SSU's Physics Department she presented her argument that the current climate change is man made.

[lynn]

zeno....At her lecture yesterday at SSU's Physics Department she presented her argument that the current climate change is man made.

Okay...And what was her 'proof'?...

[thewholetruth]

"Zeno....I think you missed don's point...(Correct me if I'm wrong Don)...He didn't say anything about 'warming' not happening...He's making the point, that so many are making - scientists included...EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES!...Caveman, or no Caveman...Industrial Revolution, or no Industrial Revolution...

From what I gather...Currently, there is NO scientific PROOF that the current climate change is 'man-made'..."

You are correct, Lynn. And it looks like we're BOTH still waiting for him to post Fung's supposed "proof". I wonder what's taking him so long. Seems like if there WAS valid "proof" of Fung's contentions, Zeno would have jumped at the opportunity to shove it down our-...I mean, Zeno would have offered it up immediately. :-P

Don

..."THE WARMING WILL ACCELERATE THE WARMING
Dr. Inez Fung of the University of California at Berkeley discussed how climate change will alter the processes that store carbon in the land and the oceans, and hence accelerate climate change itself."...
Dr Fung is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at UC Berkeley, in the Department of Earth & Planetary Science. She is a Contributor to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), but also a “Scientist of the Month” in Ms. Maggie Owens’ 2nd grade class, Marin Elementary School, Albany, California. Quite a lady."...
-----------

Zeno....I think you missed don's point...(Correct me if I'm wrong Don)...He didn't say anything about 'warming' not happening...He's making the point, that so many are making - scientists included...EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES!...Caveman, or no Caveman...Industrial Revolution, or no Industrial Revolution...

From what I gather...Currently, there is NO scientific PROOF that the current climate change is 'man-made'...
--------

And as far as Paul Kelley goes...He's your typical political opportunist...Geez...a nice little political conference in Bali, eh?...Yeah, he and whole heck of a lot of other political opportunists wouldn't have been so keen to jump on the 'global warming' bandwagon thingy if those conferences were being held in the slums of Bangladesh...

Wow!...If Paul Kelley has finally been converted...It must be true!...

Give me a freakin' break...

take care,
lynn

[thewholetruth]

...And what was her 'proof', Zeno?...

Don

I think I understood that, and by referring to Dr Fung as a member of IPCC I indicated that.

At her lecture yesterday at SSU's Physics Department she presented her argument that the current climate change is man made.

[Orm Embar]

...And what was her 'proof', Zeno?...

Don

Don and Lynn,

I'm curious what you mean by "proof"? Science is a form of inquiry. There is rarely any such thing as absolute knowledge.

I'm also curious why this matters enough for you to repeat the same disbelief every time new info gets posted.

Curiously yours,
Larkin

[Zeno Swijtink]

"Zeno....I think you missed don's point...(Correct me if I'm wrong Don)...He didn't say anything about 'warming' not happening...He's making the point, that so many are making - scientists included...EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES!...Caveman, or no Caveman...Industrial Revolution, or no Industrial Revolution...

From what I gather...Currently, there is NO scientific PROOF that the current climate change is 'man-made'..."

You are correct, Lynn. And it looks like we're BOTH still waiting for him to post Fung's supposed "proof". I wonder what's taking him so long. Seems like if there WAS valid "proof" of Fung's contentions, Zeno would have jumped at the opportunity to shove it down our-...I mean, Zeno would have offered it up immediately. :-P

Don

My interest in this recent conversation with you, Don, was to encourage you to go to some of these scientific lectures on climate change at Bay Area universities, not to report to you any "proof" (your words) that you seem to be looking for. At these lecture you can directly talk with the scientists that do this work.

If you could give me examples of arguments that would "prove" the case for anthropogenic global climate change we could take this conversation to the next level and I could see whether I can find arguments in the literature that provide what you are looking for; or, as the case may be, would have to point out that such proof does not even exist for many of the scientific theories that are commonly accepted.

[thewholetruth]

Hi Larkin,

YOU ASKED: "I'm curious what you mean by "proof"?"

Respectfully, Larkin, that question seems ludicrous to me. It's not rocket science, asking someone for "proof" of their claim. When a scientist contends aNyThInG, anything at all, which they claim to be factual (in this case, that the warming we're experiencing is being caused by us), the conclusion, by any intelligent person, will be drawn by the facts that prompt them to DRAW that conclusion in the first place. There is nothing wrong (or confrontational, unreasonable, pick your description) with asking what facts they base their statement upon.

"Science is a form of inquiry."

I agree. No one disputes that. But when science CONCLUDES something, it's because they've discovered something that LEADS THEM to that conclusion. When scientists state that something is FACTUAL, it's because they've discovered FACTS which support their conclusion. I'm asking for the proof that we are responsible for global warming, because when I think back to the Ice Age, and the "global warming" that took place afterward, I have a hard time concluding that we're responsible for it this time, unless someone can prove that to me. Anything less than proof is nothing more than opinion, and opinion proves nothing.

"There is rarely any such thing as absolute knowledge."

I'm not sure this has anything to do with this thread.

"I'm also curious why this matters enough for you to repeat the same disbelief every time new info gets posted."

I repeated the request this one time (not "every time new info gets posted") because I saw that it hadn't been answered yet. I was encouraging him to answer by asking the question again.

Don

Don and Lynn,

I'm curious what you mean by "proof"? Science is a form of inquiry. There is rarely any such thing as absolute knowledge.

I'm also curious why this matters enough for you to repeat the same disbelief every time new info gets posted.

Curiously yours,
Larkin

[Orm Embar]

For those who want some answers to your questions surrounding human-influenced climate change, I suggest you check out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website here: https://www.ipcc.ch/

Give yourself plenty of time to read through the various reports. The summaries for policy-makers might be the best place to start.

(my first post in this thread is the simple easy answer, but the IPCC has all the research)

The problem with answering a simple question like "where is your proof?" is that the answer is incredibly multi-faceted and has taken teams of world-class scientists several years of research to come to these conclusions. I don't have the time to recreate all that I have learned so I refer you to the original sources at IPCC.

Here is a small excerpt from one of the FAQ sections, which may address some of your questions. (see below) I would then encourage you to read a good chunk of the info at he IPCC site. Their footnotes are quite informative.

See full text here: https://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.2.html

Excerpt:
"A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature.
Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years."

Respectfully submitted for your reading pleasure.
-Larkin

[thewholetruth]

Respectfully, Larkin, I have so many problems with so-called scientific conclusions. First, scientists disagree on time lines for the history of the Earth, and frankly, there is no sure-fire way to even measure time. Carbon dating? Give me a break. That's pure speculation. They have nothing with which to validate their guesswork, except for more guesswork. Some scientists disagree by millions of years differences in how long the Earth has been here, with some believing it's been thousands of years, some say tens of thousands, and some up to millions of years. There is no agreement because there is no valid yardstick with which to gauge time.

Secondly, scientists need to qualify their existence. Clearly, spending a lifetime just guessing about stuff doesn't really do much to validate a paycheck or a job. So scientists, like politicians, psychoanalysts, doctors, lawyers, and pastors have to make sure those around them know how important their work is, even if they're in a field that is based on nothing but guesswork. I consider it the biggest joke of all, Larkin, these scientists who are pretending they know what cannot be known, all puffed up about themselves and conning others into buying their guesswork b.s. It's nothing more than interesting, their conclusions, because it's nothing more than guesswork.

Case in point, from the exerpt you offered: "Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming."

Hmmm. So now stating that a LACK OF EVIDENCE is EVIDENCE? LOL Noooo. Pure conjecture.

And this: "...there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years."

Again, they're building their premise on "We don't know yet, since no evidence has been discovered".

Well then, along those theoretical lines, I can state this and all of those who buy the global warming nonsense can jump on my bandwagon, too: Men evolved from aliens from Pluto because there's no evidence that we didn't.

It's such a farce, Larkin, using a negative to prove a positive. It doesn't hold water, sir. It's so unsound and unprofessional to build a career off of nothing but speculation, like these fools who claim to be proving that we caused global warming. The truth is that they don't have enough information to even make that assessment, so all they are doing is trying to puff themselves up in order to qualify their existence as speculators...oh, I mean to qualify their existence as sCiEnTiStS.

The Emperor has no clothes, Larkin. A lack of evidence doesn't prove a positive. That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

Don

For those who want some answers to your questions surrounding human-influenced climate change, I suggest you check out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website here: https://www.ipcc.ch/

Give yourself plenty of time to read through the various reports. The summaries for policy-makers might be the best place to start.

(my first post in this thread is the simple easy answer, but the IPCC has all the research)

The problem with answering a simple question like "where is your proof?" is that the answer is incredibly multi-faceted and has taken teams of world-class scientists several years of research to come to these conclusions. I don't have the time to recreate all that I have learned so I refer you to the original sources at IPCC.

Here is a small excerpt from one of the FAQ sections, which may address some of your questions. (see below) I would then encourage you to read a good chunk of the info at he IPCC site. Their footnotes are quite informative.

See full text here: https://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.2.html

Excerpt:
"A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature.
Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years."

Respectfully submitted for your reading pleasure.
-Larkin

[thewholetruth]

Zeno, we don't even know how long the Earth has existed. There is no proof of any actual time period. It's all guesswork, sir. So not knowing what time lines actually are from the beginning of Earth's existence to the Ice Age we know about (there may have been more, but we don't know) until now is nothing more than speculation.

What this latest "global warming" hoax is all about is that it's the Concern de Jour, nothing more, and nothing less. It's the "Save the Redwoods" of the new millenium. It's something people can feel self-righteous about, and feel self-righteous indignation about, a place to vent their frustrations and pretend they are making a difference, when the truth is that no has any proof that the warming taking place isn't just a natural phenomena.

There is no proof, either way, Zeno. You can pretend it's our fault, and get up on a soapbox and preach at us all. Or you can go downtown and help feed, clothe and house the homeless, addressing a REAL problem and being part of a REAL solution.

The goats who have bought into the global warming scam are, IMO, foolish. That none of them demands proof, and instead react emotionally rather than rationally - without proof there is nothing rational about these claims - says volumes about how gullible people still are.

Like I told Larkin, the Emperor has no clothes, Zeno. Demand proof and see what you get. Nothing. There is no proof. There is only speculation.

Don

My interest in this recent conversation with you, Don, was to encourage you to go to some of these scientific lectures on climate change at Bay Area universities, not to report to you any "proof" (your words) that you seem to be looking for. At these lecture you can directly talk with the scientists that do this work.

If you could give me examples of arguments that would "prove" the case for anthropogenic global climate change we could take this conversation to the next level and I could see whether I can find arguments in the literature that provide what you are looking for; or, as the case may be, would have to point out that such proof does not even exist for many of the scientific theories that are commonly accepted.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I was looking forward to hear from you one thing in science that you think has been proven, and you've given it to me: the existence of an Ice Age. And you say that there may have been more, but we don't know.

I disagree: the very same kind of evidence that showed us the existence of an ice age shows us the existence of at least four distinct Ice Ages (Calibrating the Isotopic Paleothermometer, Jean Jouzel, et al., Science 29 October 1999 286: 910-911).

Zeno, we don't even know how long the Earth has existed. There is no proof of any actual time period. It's all guesswork, sir. So not knowing what time lines actually are from the beginning of Earth's existence to the Ice Age we know about (there may have been more, but we don't know) until now is nothing more than speculation. (snip)

Don

[theindependenteye]

>There is no proof, either way, Zeno.

Zeno, you're talking to a man for whom science as a mode of discovery is bogus because "scientists disagree" about whether the Earth is thousands or millions of years old (not to mention billions). I thought he was joking when he said something about cave men and dinosaurs existing at the same time, but I guess that's all guesswork. Scientists say one thing, Fred Flintstone says another.

And a man for whom, unless there's ABSOLUTE PROOF (which by his own account cannot exist) that there's a danger in some human endeavor, it's nonsense to oppose it.

I freely admit that I restrained my small children from running into the street, even though I had no absolute proof that they might be killed; that i've gone to church even though preachers disagree; and that I've actually trusted the wacko principles of aerodynamics, physics, chemistry, and a spherical Earth to get me to Europe a couple of times, even though I have friends who feel that all sensory experiences are a Veil of Illusion.

Don has described himself as a man for whom there *are* absolute values, and so I assume that these derive from sources of absolute certainty. The Bible? The Koran? The Epic of Gilgamesh? Rush Limbaugh? I'd like to know, as I'm retaining his posts as models for a character in a forthcoming play: fascinating.

These are ungenerous comments, and I'm not given to ad hominum attacks. I welcome all the divergent views expressed on various threads recently. Mayhap he's such a blazing truth-bearer that I just can't stand it. Maybe he reminds me of the used car dealer I worked for when I was a kid. But there's definitely something there that's important to understand.

Peace & joy--
Conrad