the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Your making it up

Marty4650 wrote:

Ryan...

The earth has been "warming" for 10,000 years now. Since the last
ice age ended. We are in an "interglacial" period, which is what
happens when the natural cycle of warming and cooling occurs. In
fact, 800 years ago the earth was considerably warmer than it is
today. And there were no SUVs to blame for it back then....

Yes, of course the earth's temperature varies enourmously over time. The time in question in VERY short.

Logic is wasted on those for who have adopted "Global Warming
Alarmism" as their religion. Like other religions, you just can't
talk people out of their beliefs. No amount of real scientific data
will sway them. They will always insist that the "debate is over"
and "they won."

Of course there is NO scientific date. You are left with the reality that all of the climatologist organisations without exception buy into this "religion." All you can do is point to three of four scientists who disagree. And literally that's it. The situation is SO bad that thee Bush administration spends its time censoring that well know group of religious fanatics called NASA.

The very next step is they will criminalize disagreement with them.
I'm not making this up. The EU is actually considering making
"Global Warming Denial" a crime....

Your making this up. I assume the basis is that one loud mouth has proposed this. Such being the case I'm sure I can make a case that those who opposed the reality of global warming also believe that the value of pi is 3. But I wont site this indiviudal, who was on the school board of the state of Kansas, because this is not my style - I leave it to you.

Incidentally, since Global Warming Alarmism had been thoroughly
debunked by real science, the environmental whackos have switched
it to "Global Climate Change" as their real concern. All their past
predictions of "Ice Age 1975" were wrong. Every 10 years Al Gore
tells us we have "ten years left before the planet dies."

Al Gore is not the issue. The issue is Global Warming and ALL the climatologist groups are in 100 percent agreement. The question being debated is not whether global warming is occuring - the question being debated is the extent of the coming catatrophe if we do nothing.

Dave

The main advantage of "Global Climate Change" over "Global
Warming," is that anytime the weather changes they will be right.
It did change! This will prevent the embarassment of them
constantly being wrong.

kessler Contributing Member • Posts: 909
Don't be fooled

I took a look at this link and the paper that is at the heart of this petition. One thing that caught my eye is that I couldn't find the journal anywhere on the paper; normally it will be there somewhere. So, I did some googling and found out that although this looks exactly like a peer reviewed scientific paper in the way it is formated, it has never been peer review or published in a peer reviewed journal.

Why do you think that is?

And, why did they format it to make it look just like a journal paper?

-m

Ryan McDaniel Regular Member • Posts: 449
So true...

Marty4650 wrote:

The very next step is they will criminalize disagreement with them.
I'm not making this up. The EU is actually considering making
"Global Warming Denial" a crime....

I've heard something to that effect, but haven't looked it up. That is truly chilling.

Incidentally, since Global Warming Alarmism had been thoroughly
debunked by real science, the environmental whackos have switched
it to "Global Climate Change" as their real concern. All their past
predictions of "Ice Age 1975" were wrong. Every 10 years Al Gore
tells us we have "ten years left before the planet dies."

LOL! I remember Ted Danson on Letterman telling the audience we had about 10 years to save the planet. That was over 10 years ago.

I guess we're doomed then. I'm going to go shoot some pictures before it all falls apart

Matt Sergeant Regular Member • Posts: 471
Re: please be specific

You're really quite scary. That's your idea of science? Did you even research that petition?

Try this link out for size:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

(see Case Study: The Oregon Petition).

Real science isn't about getting people to put their name on a petition.

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Debunking the "Petititon Project" 1

The Oregon Petition is the name commonly given to a petition opposed to the Kyoto protocol, organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) between 1999 and 2001, shortly before the United States was expected to ratify the protocol. Professor Frederick Seitz, the past President of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.

The Oregon Petition was the third, and by the far the largest, of five prominent efforts intended to show that a "scientific consensus" does not exist on the subject of global warming. The petition site asserts that total number of independently verified signatures received is 17,800.[1]

Text

The text of the petition (which was on a reply card) reads, in its entirety:[2]

“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, the petition's website states that "scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis."[3] The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption , not "global warming." The article attached to the petition (see below) did mention "global warming" twenty-one times and "climate change" four times.[4]

[edit] Covering letter and attached article

The petition had a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, who identified himself as "Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.; President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", and an attached article. The six paragraph letter said that the attached article was "an eight page review of information on the subject of 'global warming'."[5]

The senior author of the article was Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, a biochemist. The second and third authors were Drs. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Both Baliunas and Soon have ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which has taken a skeptical position on global warming since the 1980s. The fourth and final author was Zachary W. Robinson, Arthur Robinson's 22-year-old son.

The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal.[6] Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago, and (now) member of RealClimate, said that it was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths". F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[7]

Among other things, the article states that "over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly" and says that this was based on comparison of satellite data (for 1979-1997) and balloon data from 1979-96. At the time the petition was written, this was unclear. Since then the satellite record has been revised, and shows warming. (See historical temperature record and satellite temperature measurements.)

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal." It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Re: Debunking the "Petititon Project" II

Signatories

Because of various criticisms made of the two Leipzig Declarations, the Oregon Petition Project claimed to adopt a number of measures, though none of these claims have been independently verified:

  • The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail, to limit fraud. Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed. The verification of the scientists is listed at 95%,[9] but the means by which this verification was done is not specified.

  • Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree. The petition sponsors stated that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but provided no details confirming this claim.

  • Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. The petition sponsors state that 2,660 scientists were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences.[10]

  • The Petition Project itself avoided any funding or association with the energy industries. A few of the scientists who signed the petition are affiliated with organizations funded by groups such as Exxon or the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition's Patrick Michaels.

The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories. The petition requests signatories list their degree (B.S., M.S., or Ph.D.) and to list their scientific field.[11] The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".

The Petition Project itself states:

“ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[12] ”

In 2005, Scientific American reported:

“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400* signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[13] ”

One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:

“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

****************

The petititon project is in fact an extremely dishonest group that seeks to claim that a real debate is still in progress. It is not - At least on the question of whether there is global warming and whther this global warming is caused bty human activity. The real debate that is going on is the EXTENT of the coming catastrophe.

Dave

Ryan McDaniel Regular Member • Posts: 449
Something for you to read

Chato wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

Ryan...

The earth has been "warming" for 10,000 years now. Since the last
ice age ended. We are in an "interglacial" period, which is what
happens when the natural cycle of warming and cooling occurs. In
fact, 800 years ago the earth was considerably warmer than it is
today. And there were no SUVs to blame for it back then....

Yes, of course the earth's temperature varies enourmously over
time. The time in question in VERY short.

No, it's not. There's nothing in the climate record to suggest that a 0.6C rise over a century is outside natural variability or excessive.

Of course there is NO scientific date. You are left with the
reality that all of the climatologist organisations without
exception buy into this "religion."

No they do not. Of course this is an extremely WEAK argument either way. Anyone can get a few people together and start an "organization." Appeal to authority is a fallacy, and is not science.

All you can do is point to
three of four scientists who disagree.

There are far more than that who disagree.

But I don't make my decisions based on scientists voting, because appeal to common belief is also a fallacy, and not science. Science is NOT determined by consensus. E = MC2 is not considered true because of a vote. It is true because its predictions match experimental observation.

You might want to read a piece by Michael Crichton.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Incidentally, since Global Warming Alarmism had been thoroughly
debunked by real science, the environmental whackos have switched
it to "Global Climate Change" as their real concern. All their past
predictions of "Ice Age 1975" were wrong. Every 10 years Al Gore
tells us we have "ten years left before the planet dies."

Al Gore is not the issue. The issue is Global Warming and ALL the
climatologist groups are in 100 percent agreement.

If you haven't gotten the hint yet, these are fallacies:

  • Claiming that ALL people agree with you.

  • Defining those that don't agree with you as cranks so that you can continue, in your mind, to make the claim that ALL people (who are not cranks) agree with you.

  • Appealing to the authority or beliefs of any organization or group. Science is NOT a vote!

Please read the piece by Michael Crichton.

Ryan McDaniel Regular Member • Posts: 449
More ignorance...

I get the impression that none of you people ever read any scientific papers, do you?

It's easy to fall hook, line, and sinker for the claim that ALL scientists agree when you don't actually read anything by scientists, but simply watch the nightly news.

There's no consensus, as if science was ever determined by consensus to begin with. Opinions are all over the map. Some think man is background noise. Others think he has an impact, but not significant. Still others think it's significant, but not worth worrying about. And still others would agree with the "sky is falling" crowd.

The "sky is falling" crowd is pretty much centered at the U.N. btw.

Let me get you started with just one paper here: Khilyuk, L.F., and G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50, 899–910.

Have fun!

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Deecy

I gather that neither you nor I are scientists. But it is a fact that all the sceintific organisations have accepted the theory of human made global warming. You may if you choose call them whatever names you want - But such is the case. Moreover this consensus developed before Al Gore became a headline figure on this question.

Gore is a concerned citizen and made a movie - Fine. He is not the subject of this debate.

Scientists NEVER said that there was a danger of a global freeze. These were newspaper reports which "said" that this is what science was claiming. It is completely false.

The scieintific community REJEECTED both the idea of global warming and the idea that is was caused by humans. This was thirty years ago. But the data has mounted and the scieintific community has slowly changed their minds - To the point where they no longer feel that this is even a debatable question.

There is in fact a tremendous amount of intellectual dishonesty amongst those attacking this reality. Whether the so called "Petititon Project," or the rather grotesque comments found in the Neocon press.

This is not a liberal issue. And I say this despite the fact that environmental groups have long said this is the case - They were MOCKED by the very SAME people who now agree with them.

How important is the Polar Bear?

How important is the canary that coal minors carry down in the shafts?

So whether we are talking about Polar bears, or the fact that numerous speices of animals are changing their ranges, in a manner never seen before. These are symptoms of what is going on. I am a bird hunter and I find it amusing to read that the American Oystercatcher is never seen north of Virginia. I am amused of course because I photograph (New York) them every summer - Yet that is what my fieldguide of 1937 states. And my field guide of 1964 states that the occasionally wonder as far north as Deleware. The same is true for dozens of species.

Thank you, but I belive the canary when he keels over from a lack of oxegen and not the mine owner who tells me that all is well.

Dave

Ryan McDaniel Regular Member • Posts: 449
I don't want to be misconstrued...

Matt Nelson wrote:

Wow - the anti-global-warming voices here are pretty scary.
Complete denial that there may be any merit in the opposing camp's
statements.

I went off on a rant because I was in a bad mood and things like the polar bear photo annoy me. It scares me that a crowd of people can be so ignorant as to be pushed to panic by a photo of bears clinging to ice.

My humble opinion? Man's CO2 output probably has some impact on climate, but that impact is below the threshold of natural variability. We can't detect our own signature, it's background noise.

I'm perfectly open to evidence I'm wrong, and keep up on the latest literature as best as I can. For the record, screaming that ALL scientists agree or showing photos of polar bears does not constitute evidence.

The people who are the most hysterical about climate change are the ones who have never studied Earth's climate history. I have. Nothing unusual happened in the 20th century.

On the one hand, you've got a bunch of scientists saying "Human
activity is causing the planet to warm." On the other hand, you've
got a bunch of scientists saying "Human activity is NOT causing the
planet to warm."

At best, there is some debate about the issue

I would be fine if the "other side" could admit there's a debate, rather than resorting to personal attacks to discredit people they disagree with.

(OK, OK...I know I attacked Gore...but there's just something wrong with him telling me how to live when he is the most wasteful human on Earth.)

The problem is, we've only got one planet to experiment with. If
it's true that humans are changing climate (either warm or cool,
btw), then we are on the road to really screwing up the planet in
ways that we may never be able to reverse.

Study the planet's climate history.

Ryan McDaniel Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: False Argument

kessler wrote:

Matt Nelson wrote:

On the one hand, you've got a bunch of scientists saying "Human
activity is causing the planet to warm." On the other hand, you've
got a bunch of scientists saying "Human activity is NOT causing the
planet to warm."

You could make this argument about almost anything. There are some
scientists that argue the evolution occurs and others that argue it
doesn't. Does that mean it's a debated issue among scientists?

I am a scientist in a related field to climate sutdies and I don't
recall ever speaking personally to a scientist that argued there is
not global warming. I've never seen a talk at a conference in
which anit-global warm was pesented either.

All I'm saying is that it smacks of bias to present this as if
there is no general consensus.

It smacks of bias to consider your personal experience as representative of anything. Maybe you live in the boondocks, or maybe you avoid the conferences where you would meet and talk to the dissenters. How should I know?

One think I do know, and you should know this to if you're in a field of science: the scientific method is NOT ABOUT CONSENSUS.

The Catholic church had a consensus on Earth being the center of universe. That didn't make them scientific or right.

Ryan McDaniel Regular Member • Posts: 449
You didn't look very hard...try again. (NT)

Nothing else to say to that claim.

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 126
Hey, I was there!

at the conference on march 22nd.

Very nice picture by the way.

Remi

Art Caputi Regular Member • Posts: 161
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

I don't think there is much debate over the fact that the earth is in a warming cycle, nor that the consequences could be unfortunate. The debate seems to to what extent carbon dioxide caused by fossil fuel combustion is responsible. The respected scientists interviewed in BBC's "The Great Global Warming Swindle" point out that historical evidence show CO2 increases lag behind warming by 500 - 1000 years, which would make it seem to be an unlikely culprit. At any rate, there do seem to be two sides to the story. Nevertheless, it would seem prudent to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, especially petroleum, because they are a finite resource, and at the very least contribute to air pollution and various respiratory diseases. So it's probably a very good thing to do, even if it's for possibly the wrong reason.

I recently talked to a climatologist who had given a talk on the implications of global warming for agriculture in the US. When I prodded him about the contirbution of anthropogenic sources to the current warming trend, he indicated he felt it was somewhere between 0 and 25%. He thought closer to zero, but did not want to be quoted. He suggested that publicly going against the current politically correct positions would reduce his chances for advancement in his university and for research funds.

I am not a climatologist nor an atmospheric scientist, so I have no idea who is right. I do know that not every scientist in those fields blames anthropogenic sources for the warming trend, and I believe they have a right to have their views publicized and held up to scientific scrutiny. History records at least a few people whose views differed from those generally held and who were ridiculed but ultimately vindicated.
--
Art Caputi

TomFid Senior Member • Posts: 2,592
Symbolic of the fraudulent climate _skeptic_ movement

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

Let's see...we have the infamous "hockey stick" graph showing
dramatic warming, beyond anything in Earth's history, in just the
past century. Completely and thoroughly debunked as a lie and
quietly removed from the U.N.'s latest report (even though many
enviros no doubt still use it).

How exactly does a graph that starts in the year 1000 show warming "beyond anything in Earth's history"? Even if there are technical issues with one study, how do you get a "thorough debunking" from the fact that multiple studies arrive at similar results, using different temperature proxies and statistics, including robust nonparametric methods? Are you sure that temperature reconstructions have been removed from the latest report? (Hint: the full AR4 WGI report hasn't been published yet.)

Then we have the computer simulations predicting run away warming
for the 21st century. That is, as long as you feed them the "right"
inputs. Only problem is they're not matching what we've observed in
just the few years we've been using them to alarm the world. So the
U.N. quietly reduced their predicted range of warming in the latest
report.

Could you please link some peer-reviewed articles about those computer simulations? Or perhaps you prefer Patrick Michaels' fraudulent debunking of correct predictions by removing lines from graphs?

The IPCC Third Assessment Report writes:

"Climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C. This estimate is unchanged from the first IPCC Assessment Report in 1990 and the SAR. The climate sensitivity is the equilibrium response of global surface temperature to a doubling of equivalent CO2 concentration."

In the Fourth Assessment the range is 2 to 4.5, with a best guess of 3. Predicted temperature changes for various scenarios are also similar across reports. There has been no quiet reduction.

What a pathetic joke this all is. And to think of all the time and
money wasted on "global warming" while their are children in the
world starving to death.

I'm sure the future citizens of coastal Bangladesh will benefit tremendously from all the money you're saving by not reducing your carbon emissions.

Tom

 TomFid's gear list:TomFid's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +3 more
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Re: Something for you to read

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

Chato wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

Ryan...

The earth has been "warming" for 10,000 years now. Since the last
ice age ended. We are in an "interglacial" period, which is what
happens when the natural cycle of warming and cooling occurs. In
fact, 800 years ago the earth was considerably warmer than it is
today. And there were no SUVs to blame for it back then....

Yes, of course the earth's temperature varies enourmously over
time. The time in question in VERY short.

No, it's not. There's nothing in the climate record to suggest that
a 0.6C rise over a century is outside natural variability or
excessive.

It's pretty unprecedented. And when one considers that here in the States we have been keepinbg records for over a 120 years, and nine of the warmest have taken place in the last ten, it would appear that this is accelerating.

Of course there is NO scientific date. You are left with the
reality that all of the climatologist organisations without
exception buy into this "religion."

No they do not. Of course this is an extremely WEAK argument either
way. Anyone can get a few people together and start an
"organization." Appeal to authority is a fallacy, and is not
science.

We are talking about ALL the sceintific organisations. We are talking about all the peer reviewed literature. From the National Academy of Scieince to Nasa itself. From all the climatologist organisations, etc, etc.

But what makes them authoratative in my mind, is that these SAME groups mocked the environmentalists thirty years ago. A fanatic doesn't change their minds no matter what the evidence. A sceptical scientist DOES change their mind when they are faced with evidence.

All you can do is point to
three of four scientists who disagree.

There are far more than that who disagree.

None of them have composed or written peer reviewed article. I believe that there are TWO scientists with serious crednetials that take a modified version of your position.

But I don't make my decisions based on scientists voting, because
appeal to common belief is also a fallacy, and not science. Science
is NOT determined by consensus. E = MC2 is not considered true
because of a vote. It is true because its predictions match
experimental observation.

Absolutely correct!

You might want to read a piece by Michael Crichton.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

And after your long song and dance above you wish me to take a medical doctor as an authority on climatology?

Incidentally, since Global Warming Alarmism had been thoroughly
debunked by real science, the environmental whackos have switched
it to "Global Climate Change" as their real concern. All their past
predictions of "Ice Age 1975" were wrong. Every 10 years Al Gore
tells us we have "ten years left before the planet dies."

Al Gore is not the issue. The issue is Global Warming and ALL the
climatologist groups are in 100 percent agreement.

I want to be careful not to call you personally a liar. But NO SCIENTIST ever claimed that there was going to be a global freeze. This was a media extravaganza based on one very cold winter in the North East. This has become an Urban Legend.

And I remember it well, because I am a heating mechanic and remember that winter and all the cute predictions of a coming ice age. And at the time I thought it was BS and at the time I checked and found that this was ALL media hype.

If you haven't gotten the hint yet, these are fallacies:

  • Claiming that ALL people agree with you.

  • Defining those that don't agree with you as cranks so that you

can continue, in your mind, to make the claim that ALL people (who
are not cranks) agree with you.

  • Appealing to the authority or beliefs of any organization or

group. Science is NOT a vote!

Please read the piece by Michael Crichton.

I'm sure the good doctor can give me good advice on bolting together the minicuis of my knees, as I can give him and YOU good advice on what heating system to install

Dave

TomFid Senior Member • Posts: 2,592
Khilyuk & Chilingar ... funny not fun

Let me get you started with just one paper here: Khilyuk, L.F., and
G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the
Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50,
899–910.

If this is the best evidence you can muster, you're in trouble. This is an entirely laughable article. God put "yuk" in the author's name for a reason. It's been cited twice - once by the authors, and once in a devastating rebuttal in the same journal.
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html

Tom

 TomFid's gear list:TomFid's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +3 more
dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

Art Caputi wrote:

I don't think there is much debate over the fact that the earth is
in a warming cycle, nor that the consequences could be unfortunate.
The debate seems to to what extent carbon dioxide caused by fossil
fuel combustion is responsible. The respected scientists
interviewed in BBC's "The Great Global Warming Swindle" point out
that historical evidence show CO2 increases lag behind warming by
500 - 1000 years, which would make it seem to be an unlikely
culprit. At any rate, there do seem to be two sides to the story.
Nevertheless, it would seem prudent to reduce the consumption of
fossil fuels, especially petroleum, because they are a finite
resource, and at the very least contribute to air pollution and
various respiratory diseases. So it's probably a very good thing to
do, even if it's for possibly the wrong reason.

I recently talked to a climatologist who had given a talk on the
implications of global warming for agriculture in the US. When I
prodded him about the contirbution of anthropogenic sources to the
current warming trend, he indicated he felt it was somewhere
between 0 and 25%. He thought closer to zero, but did not want to
be quoted. He suggested that publicly going against the current
politically correct positions would reduce his chances for
advancement in his university and for research funds.

I am not a climatologist nor an atmospheric scientist, so I have no
idea who is right. I do know that not every scientist in those
fields blames anthropogenic sources for the warming trend, and I
believe they have a right to have their views publicized and held
up to scientific scrutiny. History records at least a few people
whose views differed from those generally held and who were
ridiculed but ultimately vindicated.

There are quite a few cases of this in the past. The earliest supporters of global warming are likely a good case in point.

There are ALWAYS a few scientists that go against the grain. Some holdouts against rapidly growing consensus. For a great example of this, look at the evolution "debate".

That's why I follow the actual peer reviewed science journals. Instead of playing to the ignorant, they have to convince actual scientists that they are right.

DIPics

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
He's a petroleum geologist

TomFid wrote:

Let me get you started with just one paper here: Khilyuk, L.F., and
G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the
Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50,
899–910.

If this is the best evidence you can muster, you're in trouble.
This is an entirely laughable article. God put "yuk" in the
author's name for a reason. It's been cited twice - once by the
authors, and once in a devastating rebuttal in the same journal.
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html

Tom

And their article is shot full of basic errors that even a lay-person can understand...

When you consider that Exxon Moble are "publicly" offering $10,000 buck for article "refuting" global warming, you have to wonder...

Dave

**************************

"It seems that the authors forgot to take the time factor into account. The anthropogenic emission happened during 200 years, whereas the natural degassing during geologic history spanned 4.5 billion years. Thus, the above numbers yield a yearly anthropogenic flux that is about 50 times larger than the mantle degassing flux, which hardly is negligible. It appears that the authors assume that the 4.63 • 10^23g of CO2 degassed from the mantle all remained in the atmosphere. Yet, the present day atmosphere contains less than 3 • 10^18 g of CO2, and compared to this number the total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 1 • 10^18g certainly is significant."

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: You didn't look very hard...try again. (NT)

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

Nothing else to say to that claim.

Ok, please cite a few for us. Something in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. After all, I'm not the only person who couldn't find any. After all, Naomi Oreskes did a similar search. She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and found just as many as I did that took the position that the current climate change is natural. Zero.

DIPics

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads