I looked at wikipedia to see what they said about global warming and was surprised to see that it had been protected because of disputes and frequent repeated vandalism.

It is very noticeable that those who deny global warming is occurring, or deny its source are often highly antagonistic. This may also be said of a few of the more extreme pro GW groups.

Anyway, I was highly shocked to discover that the GW entry had been vandalised. Of course, this could just be plain mindless & moronic behaviour. However, I suspect that this is unlikely. It seems much more the anti crowd or at least an active subset, are deliberately venting their spleen toward the environmentalists.

I's a great shame that people cannot be bothered to acquaint themselves with some science and unbiased facts.

I know the anti faction focus on the uncertainties declared by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/), but there is no cast-iron guaranteed method of perfect prediction for the behaviour of any complex system, especially something as complex as the climate. It's also unlikely that there ever will be.
However, the antis frequently focus on the uncertainties, because the antis alone know it's not going to happen.

This kind of impasse will seemingly never be resolved until GW gets so bad that it can no-longer be either ignored or denied and it's too damn late to stop the positive feedback mechanisms.
[B]At that point we will have the once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity to observe and participate in our very own global extinction, just like those preserved in the fossil record - brought upon humanity by humanity.

The monument to mankind's folly will be likewise preserved in the fossil record!

Not too many people are arguing against the fact that the climate changes, it has never stayed static. It changes every morning and night, in fact.

The argument is over that fact that it is claimed that an infinitesimal input by man is the cause for the latest changes, and that there is anything man can do to stop it from changing.

The most likely cause is due to the energy input. And that comes from the sun. The other planets are experiencing it too. And the last time it happened, it was better for life on earth, particularly humans. The political solutions being proposed would do violence to humans on a global scale.

--97T--

Not too many people are arguing against the fact that the climate changes, it has never stayed static. It changes every morning and night, in fact.

The argument is over that fact that it is claimed that an infinitesimal input by man is the cause for the latest changes, and that there is anything man can do to stop it from changing.

The most likely cause is due to the energy input. And that comes from the sun. The other planets are experiencing it too. And the last time it happened, it was better for life on earth, particularly humans. The political solutions being proposed would do violence to humans on a global scale.

--97T--

I'm sorry but the changes to which you refer do not amount to climate change, these are natural diurnal changes and actually form part of the climate.

While there is no doubt that the weather and the climate are in a dynamic state of flux and the energy input is from the Sun, there is no substantial evidence of any read across from other planets to the Earth. The reasons are that the differences are just too numerous and great. First of all the gaseous composition of the atmosphere and surface oceans renders comparisons with other planets in the Solar System extremely tenuous at best. Then there are other factors including the Earth's magnetic field, and the length of the Solar year and seasons of each planet which varies greatly from that of Earth. The final nail in the coffin of this rather over-simplistic idea is that we still don't fully understand our climate, and we understand the climates of the other planets even less! Naturally, this state of affairs is likely to change.

Whether the energy output of the Sun has changed rather depends upon which group of scientists one believes. If its output is determined to have increased then clearly this would need to factored-in to the models. However as far as I can determine, the jury is still out.

The IPCC rate the [I]Level of Scientific Understanding regarding the solar aspects of global warming as 'very low'. Ref. IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) SPM-2

However, the same cannot be said for enhanced the greenhouse effect. The largest and most thorough international study so far has concluded that the effects are real and worse than thought originally.

Regarding the infinitesimal input from man - I'm not sure what you mean by this. The IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)states:

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.


Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}

The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions4 increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] 5 GtC (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s, to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty. {7.3}
The global atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 715 ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s, and is 1774 ppb in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb) as determined from ice cores.
Growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. It is very likely6 that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined. {2.3, 7.4}
The global atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration increased from a pre-industrial value of about 270 ppb to 319 ppb in 2005. The growth rate has been approximately constant since 1980. More than a third of all nitrous oxide emissions are anthropogenic and are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 7.4}


This is a direct quote without editing on my behalf.

Based on these figures, in 2005 CO2 was 26% up on the highest [pre-industrial] figure in the last 650,000 years. There has been a lot of talk about runaway greenhouse with increased temperatures releasing huge stores of trapped methane [a serious greenhouse gas]. I couldn't find the reference, but if I remember correctly, the magic figure being bandied-about was 400 ppm, at present rates of increase [1.4 ppm p.a.] that will be reached by 2020!

I'd rather not play Russian roulette! Except in the case of Russian roulette the player only gets to kill themself.

In Global Warming Roulette, we all burn together when we burn-Rather like Tom Lehrer!

Makes Osama Bin Laden look rather insignificant and trivial!

Well, you pretty well made my point for me.

The polar caps on other planets are shrinking, but the effect of solar input (which is the main energy input for the whole system) on the poorly understood earth's climate is very low.

It appears that clouds might be a little (a lot) more important than carbon dioxide. And it appears that condensation might have a lot to do with influx of energetic particles coming from the sun.

I think researchers on the public dole who are being paid to conclude that we need to have a new world government with dictatorial control over everyone's economic activity (your life) are a more dangerous threat than the weather is. Not just because of the life or death question of whether people will be allowed to support themselves, but also because of the wars that will ensue when the attempt is made to prevent entire countries from supporting themselves.

--97T--

Edit: The energetic particles are moderated by solar activity, not generated by the sun.

Well, you pretty well made my point for me.

The polar caps on other planets are shrinking, but the effect of solar input (which is the main energy input for the whole system) on the poorly understood earth's climate is very low.

It appears that clouds might be a little (a lot) more important than carbon dioxide. And it appears that condensation might have a lot to do with influx of energetic particles coming from the sun.

I think researchers on the public dole who are being paid to conclude that we need to have a new world government with dictatorial control over everyone's economic activity (your life) are a more dangerous threat than the weather is. Not just because of the life or death question of whether people will be allowed to support themselves, but also because of the wars that will ensue when the attempt is made to prevent entire countries from supporting themselves.

--97T--

No you misunderstand entirely.

Since the Solar effects are so little understood , they require more research. That in no way implies whether they are important or otherwise.
Added figures
The solar effects are assessed by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) at 0.12 [0.06 to 0.3] Wm-2 (Global), whereas CO2 alone is assessed at 1.66 [1.49 to 1.83] Wm-2 (Global), so the solar contribution is much smaller than man-made CO2.

What has been clearly demonstrated is a strong relationship between significant man-made changes in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
[B]The changes are not trivial as you claimed previously -your adjective was 'infinitesimal', which is demonstrably wrong: example 26% increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times based on the findings of the IPCC.
The certainties have been stated as has the level of scientific understanding. Your reference to 'polar caps on other planet[s]' is spurious as you well know. I refer you to my previous statements about the much less well understood climates of other planets.

Mercury has none. At 400 degrees C, Venus is rather unlikely to have ice caps. There is only one other planet in the solar system with ice caps [other than Earth] and that is Mars. The rest are mostly gaseous worlds and are covered in clouds.

Mars has virtually no water [subject to study], no significant magnetic field and a Solar year 1.88 that of Earth, so atmospheric parallels with Earth are neither easily drawn, nor probably of much relevance.

The way science works involves peer reviews and a single piece of scientific research is rarely significant. The IPCC involves hundreds of scientists and their work is subjected to peer review.

You appear to quite concerned about the potential political implications of attempts to combat Global Warming.
What about the immense potential political implications of not successfully combating Global Warming? The prospects for the world seem very likely to be far worse if we do nothing. Widespread food shortages, degradation of ecosystems including the oceans, inundation of many of the world's the fertile coastal plains, starvation, large-scale population movements.

The IPCC rewrites the work of contributors, some of whom have resigned in protest while their names were used anyway, in order to promote the conclusion that man-made changes are responsible for a looming apocalypse that requires a world government to regulate the energy use of every human being on the planet. Their peer review system is designed to filter out evidence to the contrary and to silence dissent. They have been caught discarding later data from their own sources in order to publish charts that show a dramatic temperature rise as part of a push to get countries to sign a treaty that would surrender sovereignty to their new world order.

When evidence contrary to their pre-ordained conclusion is presented, they trot out the old 'consensus' argument. There is not an overwhelming consensus, as evidenced by the signatures of over 17,000 scientists who have publicly signed a statement in opposition, demonstrating that their success in keeping dissenting scientists out of the media has failed to completely silence them, despite a policy that denies funding to those who dare to question the orthodoxy. As if consensus were somehow a substitute for truth anyway.

Their data is used to support computer models that cannot predict the present, when fed information from the past. Therefore the models are not predictive of the future, even though all of our money is paid to collect only evidence that will support the political conclusion.

The above is why they cannot be trusted, especially with the kind of power they seek.

On the specifics, water vapor as a greenhouse gas is many times more influential than CO2, therefore my 'infinitesimal' comment. The IPCC models ignore it. And the evidence is stacking up that it is cloudiness that is driving the greenhouse effect, and that the cloudiness is affected by energetic particles that are moderated by solar activity. (Edit: My previous post mis-stated this.) This explains the politically inconvenient correlation of temperature with solar activity.

Further, if you look into the data a little further yourself, you will see that it appears that historically, temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, and you might consider that the oceans give up some dissolved CO2 as they warm. Also, the present major warming trend began before the industrial revolution, and included several significant cooling periods (enough to bring calls for global government to combat the coming ice age) which should not have happened if the rising CO2 is a major determinant of temperature.

The IPCC has been publishing these warnings for awhile now. They pick and choose data to fit their theory and their political agenda, and their predictions from the past have not materialized. They appear to understand that none of this matters if the public relations machine can inundate all media with the message, giving common idiots confidence in spouting the commonly accepted 'truth that everybody knows'.

The man-made CO2 driven global warming hypothesis does not fit the data and is therefore invalidated. Climate change is a fact of history, and warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels have happened before. All the evidence shows that life prospers under these conditions, much better than during an ice age. The next ice age will certainly be blamed on mankind as well, if he has not yet immolated himself on the altar of his own ignorance.

I will not willingly hand them a gun and a whip to rule me with.

There is incontrovertible evidence that the main threat to human life on this planet is unrestrained government power. The death toll is there in plain view for anyone who wishes to consider the option of surrendering their freedom along with their ability to resist.

I ask you to consider what they will do with this power if you give it to them.

--97T--

Here is what unlimited government power gets you:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

The IPCC rewrites the work of contributors, some of whom have resigned in protest while their names were used anyway, in order to promote the conclusion that man-made changes are responsible for a looming apocalypse that requires a world government to regulate the energy use of every human being on the planet. Their peer review system is designed to filter out evidence to the contrary and to silence dissent. They have been caught discarding later data from their own sources in order to publish charts that show a dramatic temperature rise as part of a push to get countries to sign a treaty that would surrender sovereignty to their new world order.

When evidence contrary to their pre-ordained conclusion is presented, they trot out the old 'consensus' argument. There is not an overwhelming consensus, as evidenced by the signatures of over 17,000 scientists who have publicly signed a statement in opposition, demonstrating that their success in keeping dissenting scientists out of the media has failed to completely silence them, despite a policy that denies funding to those who dare to question the orthodoxy. As if consensus were somehow a substitute for truth anyway.

Their data is used to support computer models that cannot predict the present, when fed information from the past. Therefore the models are not predictive of the future, even though all of our money is paid to collect only evidence that will support the political conclusion.

The above is why they cannot be trusted, especially with the kind of power they seek.

On the specifics, water vapor as a greenhouse gas is many times more influential than CO2, therefore my 'infinitesimal' comment. The IPCC models ignore it. And the evidence is stacking up that it is cloudiness that is driving the greenhouse effect, and that the cloudiness is affected by energetic particles that are moderated by solar activity. (Edit: My previous post mis-stated this.) This explains the politically inconvenient correlation of temperature with solar activity.

Further, if you look into the data a little further yourself, you will see that it appears that historically, temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, and you might consider that the oceans give up some dissolved CO2 as they warm. Also, the present major warming trend began before the industrial revolution, and included several significant cooling periods (enough to bring calls for global government to combat the coming ice age) which should not have happened if the rising CO2 is a major determinant of temperature.

The IPCC has been publishing these warnings for awhile now. They pick and choose data to fit their theory and their political agenda, and their predictions from the past have not materialized. They appear to understand that none of this matters if the public relations machine can inundate all media with the message, giving common idiots confidence in spouting the commonly accepted 'truth that everybody knows'.

The man-made CO2 driven global warming hypothesis does not fit the data and is therefore invalidated. Climate change is a fact of history, and warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels have happened before. All the evidence shows that life prospers under these conditions, much better than during an ice age. The next ice age will certainly be blamed on mankind as well, if he has not yet immolated himself on the altar of his own ignorance.

I will not willingly hand them a gun and a whip to rule me with.

There is incontrovertible evidence that the main threat to human life on this planet is unrestrained government power. The death toll is there in plain view for anyone who wishes to consider the option of surrendering their freedom along with their ability to resist.

I ask you to consider what they will do with this power if you give it to them.

--97T--

Do you really expect anyone to take this rant seriously!
I didn't know that padded cells have internet access. Keep on taking the tablets.

Keep on posting, I need a good laugh.

Errr, OK, I'm really convinced now. Thanks for educating me. I'm sure your arguments have really persuaded anyone else who happens to come by here as well.
--97T--

Errr, OK, I'm really convinced now. Thanks for educating me. I'm sure your arguments have really persuaded anyone else who happens to come by here as well.
--97T--
The IPCC rewrites the work of contributors, some of whom have resigned in protest while their names were used anyway, in order to promote the conclusion that man-made changes are responsible for a looming apocalypse that requires a world government to regulate the energy use of every human being on the planet. Their peer review system is designed to filter out evidence to the contrary and to silence dissent. They have been caught discarding later data from their own sources in order to publish charts that show a dramatic temperature rise as part of a push to get countries to sign a treaty that would surrender sovereignty to their new world order.

When evidence contrary to their pre-ordained conclusion is presented, they trot out the old 'consensus' argument. There is not an overwhelming consensus, as evidenced by the signatures of over 17,000 scientists who have publicly signed a statement in opposition, demonstrating that their success in keeping dissenting scientists out of the media has failed to completely silence them, despite a policy that denies funding to those who dare to question the orthodoxy. As if consensus were somehow a substitute for truth anyway.

Their data is used to support computer models that cannot predict the present, when fed information from the past. Therefore the models are not predictive of the future, even though all of our money is paid to collect only evidence that will support the political conclusion.

The above is why they cannot be trusted, especially with the kind of power they seek.

On the specifics, water vapor as a greenhouse gas is many times more influential than CO2, therefore my 'infinitesimal' comment. The IPCC models ignore it. And the evidence is stacking up that it is cloudiness that is driving the greenhouse effect, and that the cloudiness is affected by energetic particles that are moderated by solar activity. (Edit: My previous post mis-stated this.) This explains the politically inconvenient correlation of temperature with solar activity.

Further, if you look into the data a little further yourself, you will see that it appears that historically, temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, and you might consider that the oceans give up some dissolved CO2 as they warm. Also, the present major warming trend began before the industrial revolution, and included several significant cooling periods (enough to bring calls for global government to combat the coming ice age) which should not have happened if the rising CO2 is a major determinant of temperature.

The IPCC has been publishing these warnings for awhile now. They pick and choose data to fit their theory and their political agenda, and their predictions from the past have not materialized. They appear to understand that none of this matters if the public relations machine can inundate all media with the message, giving common idiots confidence in spouting the commonly accepted 'truth that everybody knows'.

The man-made CO2 driven global warming hypothesis does not fit the data and is therefore invalidated. Climate change is a fact of history, and warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels have happened before. All the evidence shows that life prospers under these conditions, much better than during an ice age. The next ice age will certainly be blamed on mankind as well, if he has not yet immolated himself on the altar of his own ignorance.

I will not willingly hand them a gun and a whip to rule me with.

There is incontrovertible evidence that the main threat to human life on this planet is unrestrained government power. The death toll is there in plain view for anyone who wishes to consider the option of surrendering their freedom along with their ability to resist.

I ask you to consider what they will do with this power if you give it to them.

--97T--

Please provide detailed evidence to support every detail of every allegation you have made in your post. Almost needless to say this evidence must be properly sourced, so that the details may be scrutinised.

Well said 97T.

There's something the left is starting to say now that really has me worried. Many times lately I've heard them start their argument with something like: "Everyone agrees global warming is happening, there is just disagreement on what to do about it".

Do you really expect anyone to take this rant seriously!
I didn't know that padded cells have internet access. Keep on taking the tablets.

Keep on posting, I need a good laugh.


Actually, I was just forming the opposite impression of 97T: Sensible, logical, articulate; not condescending.

Thank you, Madclicker and Dynosor.

Mr. Totally,

There is a thread in this section with the word 'links' in the title. Fizzissist, myself, and others have posted links to the relevant material. If you read the rest of this Global Warming Discussion section you will find that every point I raised has been discussed at length. If you have any difficulty finding any of the information let me know and I will Google it for you.

Here is a nice place to start ... http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I'm glad you are willing to look at the evidence instead of letting the authorities do your thinking for you.

--97T--

Thank you, Madclicker and Dynosor.

Mr. Totally,

There is a thread in this section with the word 'links' in the title. Fizzissist, myself, and others have posted links to the relevant material. If you read the rest of this Global Warming Discussion section you will find that every point I raised has been discussed at length. If you have any difficulty finding any of the information let me know and I will Google it for you.

Here is a nice place to start ... http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I'm glad you are willing to look at the evidence instead of letting the authorities do your thinking for you.

--97T--

A quick look and search revealed no reference to your claims regarding the conspiracy to impose a World Government.

Source please.

Hint: Global carbon tax. Carbon credits. The treaties being pushed by the IPCC.

A goal of reducing CO2 emissions by any appreciable fraction will require the reduction of energy use by humans. Since humans require energy to survive, ulitmately the goals will not be met without some mechanism to insure compliance. Which is codespeak for 'Force Them To Do It'. And a relief valve -- pay them off so that they will let you stay in business.

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32007

Most of them are careful not to explicitly mention their new world order. But Chirac did, a translation is here:

http://sovereignty.freedom.org/center/chirac.html

They cannot achieve their aims without force. The power is the goal. Turning that power into wealth is the payoff.

--97T--

Can you find the gun in this article?
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10977

A quick look and search revealed no reference to your claims regarding the conspiracy to impose a World Government..

See "United Nations": http://www.un.org/esa/index.html

Thank you, Madclicker and Dynosor.

Mr. Totally,

There is a thread in this section with the word 'links' in the title. Fizzissist, myself, and others have posted links to the relevant material. If you read the rest of this Global Warming Discussion section you will find that every point I raised has been discussed at length. If you have any difficulty finding any of the information let me know and I will Google it for you.

Here is a nice place to start ... http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I'm glad you are willing to look at the evidence instead of letting the authorities do your thinking for you.

--97T--

I must admit that you really had me going there! I must admit foolishly, but I genuinely thought that there was a serious scientific basis to this and that it really needed a great deal of time to go through to read and digest the references, but then the penny dropped. It's just the equivalent of the discredited so-called 'intelligent design' dreamed-up by the creationists and intended to counter Darwinism and Evolution theory, except this time it's the energy companies who see their nemesis in GW. Selective science, bad science and doubtless all funded by the energy companies, [my suspicions based upon comments on the Sourcewatch website]. It's misinformation, disinformation and lies. Cleverly contrived to defame the IPCC and undermine the threat from GW at the same time.
I will not waste my time on this 'review' a moment more. I don't believe the so-called petition of 17000 scientists is 100% genuine either. Since the 'Review' itself is suspect, the names could have been harvested from the telephone directory.

I had already 'smelled a rat', then I decided to find out more about the OISM. A quick Google brought up loads on the OISM.

Regarding this 'review' Quote 'its neutrality is disputed'./Quote


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

The 'review' from the OISM isn't worth the paper it's written on! Even as an electronic document! My comment.
Quote
The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming
/Quote

Don't forget that this 'review' is supposedly 'peer reviewed'.

I think for myself, but I'd rather read scientific reports that are actually based upon science and not predetermined, rather like you were claiming about the IPCC. I suspect that a lot of what you have stated was based-upon similarly dubious sources and not based on fact. If I were you, I'd review my sources and the OISM for one is to be discarded.

If the anti-GW case was so solid and already proven, it wouldn't need to be made-up!

If the anti-GW case was so solid and already proven, it wouldn't need to be made-up!

I have provided countless links to peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals which show without question that the AGW debate is anything BUT over, in favor of one side or the other.

You sound like a brain-dead James Hansen fan rather than a curious student of science. We're seeing a lot of finger pointing from you, typical of an AGW droid, and an abject lack of scientific discussion.

Btw, you might be surprised to learn that the environmental groups outspend the energy industry by a factor of about 3:1 for research. So much for your oil argument, and the objectivity of Sourcewatch. (Has Sourcewatch mentioned the dollars accepted by Hansen from Kerry's group??)

I have provided countless links to peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals which show without question that the AGW debate is anything BUT over, in favor of one side or the other.

You sound like a brain-dead James Hansen fan rather than a curious student of science. We're seeing a lot of finger pointing from you, typical of an AGW droid, and an abject lack of scientific discussion.

Btw, you might be surprised to learn that the environmental groups outspend the energy industry by a factor of about 3:1 for research. So much for your oil argument, and the objectivity of Sourcewatch. (Has Sourcewatch mentioned the dollars accepted by Hansen from Kerry's group??)

I believe that you are mistaken, I never said in so many words that GW was proven [and since I am not a climatologist it wouldn't mean much if I did], in-fact my understanding is that the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf) doesn't claim this either! What I actually said was Quote 'If the anti-GW case was so solid and already proven, it wouldn't need to be made-up!' /Quote. Altogether somewhat different!

Sourcewatch wasn't the only source critical of this OISM 'review'. There were others.

I refer you to Google or almost any search engine.

There may be some good science in it somewhere, but I looked at 97T's first reference and it fell on the first hurdle. I'm working on the basis that the best would be first, and the first just wasn't plain good enough. If it had been what it purported to be, I would have been prepared to read further, but it wasn't and as far as this forum goes I'm not. I have too many other things to do than waste my time trawling through what may or may not be pseudoscience. I am seeking the truth, but sadly I realise that I will have to look elsewhere. 97T had his chance and blew it!

Finger-pointing
I stand by my previous posts, especially regarding Creationists and others who would manipulate and rewrite both science and history to suit their own agendas.
There has been a lot of what I believe to be mischievous and mendacious finger-pointing regarding the IPCC. Special interest groups like the right-wing and creationists have a long track-record regarding this, by using the combined tactics of mislead, confuse and undermine against their perceived opponents. It's perfectly clear that the OISM fits in very well with the right-wing mindset and those who would wish to encourage profligate energy use, and I admit that I am assuming that this isn't just a mere coincidence. So, I'm sorry, but the OISM and its 'review' doesn't amount to a bucket of cold spit. Apart from its significant but insidious role in misleading people with its misinformation which is presumably intentional.

FYI: I am not a member of any special interest group.

PS I've heard of Kerry, but I don't know or care who this other person is. I'm non-US and proud of it!

I believe that you are mistaken, I never said in so many words that GW was proven [and since I am not a climatologist it wouldn't mean much if I did], in-fact my understanding is that the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf) doesn't claim this either!....

Where do you get that the IPCC does not claim that Global Warming is proven?

All references I have seen to the latest round of releases is that they state that Global Warming is a certainty and it is highly likely human activities are the cause.

Of course in a lot of news media the words get moved around to: human activities cause Global Warming.

But I do have to compliment you on being the first person to accuse me of being in the Creationist/Intelligent Design camp; which you do by lumping everyone who disagrees with Anthropogenic Global Warming together.

What's really funny is that while you deride someone for possible flaws in their 'first' reference, YOUR reference is the IPCC!!! In itself probably the WORST and singularly most flawed compilation you could chose.....

From the IPCC's Statement for Policy Makers, we need only look as far into the doc as page 7 for a myriad of holes....

The IPCC SPM writes on page 7,

“The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.”

That's NOT what these guys have published......

Smith, T. M., X. Yin, and A. Gruber (2006), Variations in annual global precipitation (1979–2004), based on the Global Precipitation Climatology Project 2.5° analysis, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06705, doi:10.1029/2005GL025393,

They write for the period 1979–2004 that precipitation tends “have spatial variations with both positive and negative values, with a global-average near zero.”

Also on page 7, the IPCC writes:

“Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system.”

It is correct that the ocean is where most of the heat changes occur, but the finding conveniently neglected to report on the significant loss of heat in the period from 2003 to at least 2005;

Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033.

In stark contrast to the IPCC's statements, these researchers find:
“The decrease represents a substantial loss of heat over a 2-year period, amounting to about one fifth of the long-term upper-ocean heat gain between 1955 and 2003 reported by Levitus et al. [2005].”

The global average surface temperature trend in the 2007 SPM (fromFigure SPM-3 top in the IPCC SPM) continues to show warming, but as we find in this paper.....

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, J. Steinweg-Woods, R. Boyles, S. Fall, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press,

....there is a significant warm bias in the construction of a global average surface temperature trend.

You like to read the science? Then go look these up. Whoops...I forgot...you're too busy...If it isn't in the Guardian....

You don't know who Hansen is? Maybe you know who James Annan is....since he's on your side of the pond...he had this to say back in '06...

"........Meanwhile, we have people like Gavin Schmidt quite prepared to openly dismiss the bulk of peer-reviewed literature in this area with such comments as "Basically no one really believes that those really high sensitivities are possible," and "even Hegerl's top limit is too high". Not that I'm criticising him for that - quite the reverse, but the fact that there is such a credibility gap between what has appeared in the literature, and what at least some responsible and reputable scientists think, should surely be seen as rather worrying by all who are interested in ensuring that the scientific process works as intended. It is quite clear that (unless our arguments are wholly invalid, and so far no-one has suggested why they should be) none of the published "pdfs" actually provide any credible support for the belief that S is greater than 6C even at as little as the 5% level (for example), but according to Nature, as long as everyone keeps on getting this wrong together, they aren't interested in correcting the mistaken (and alarmist) impression that they have helped to foster. We feel like the boy who tells the emperor that he has no clothes, except that we are not even being allowed to say it, at least not anywhere that it will be seen."

posted by James Annan at Friday, May 12, 2006
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/05/ho-hum.html

This makes an interesting read if you want to see examples of scientific suppression....not by Evil Big Oil, Neocons, Creationists....but by liberal greenies at Nature.

Your own Bennie Peiser has also suffered the same from Science, and I've already posted links on him.

Might I suggest you change your handle to "self-screwed"?

....Since you brought up the IPCC.....here's some "science" from the IPCC's AR4 SPM that we should all be humbled by.. :)

From page 7 of the Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

Table SPM-1. Observed rate of sea level rise and estimated contributions from different sources.

Difference
(Observed minus sum of estimated climate
contributions)

The period of 1961-2003 0.7 ± 0.7
The period of 1993-2003 0.3 ± 1.0

No, that is not a typo. That really says "point three, plus or minus one."

But get this.....prior to 1993 the data is from direct measurements, after 1993 the data is from satellite altimetry.

.... We feel like the boy who tells the emperor that he has no clothes.......

First a comment: I wish to point out that my reference somewhere to the emperor has no clothes syndrome was not plagiarised from the stuff posted by fizzissist.:)

It is not just Nature. New Scientist has jumped on the alarmist band wagon also which in a way is more worrisome. I would expect more non-scientists would go to New Scientist as an accessible and presumably authoritative source, than Nature.

First a comment: I wish to point out that my reference somewhere to the emperor has no clothes syndrome was not plagiarised from the stuff posted by fizzissist.:)


'Preciate it...but I don't mind if you plagiarize my stuff, as long as you keep it in context...whatever that means...

Seriously though, what is really alarming is not just Science, Nature, New Scientist...but the mainstream broadcast media like Discovery, the Science Channel, and National Geographic having their productions being accepted as gospel. Oh yeah, and my old favorite Scientific American.

Anyone remember the issue that was proposing 'salting' the oceans with iron oxide (?) to sequester CO2???

So now I'm a creationist, hehe.

And someone's assertion that "its neutrality is disputed" is all you need to discredit the research, all of the sources that are so carefully documented, and all of the verified names of all of the scientists who risked the consequences of signing their names to their own independent judgment of the evidence. And it's all you need to support the IPCC, who have not only been discredited, but twice now it has been documented how they cooked the data to come up with their alarmist conclusions. To me, that means "proven liars".

I guess I'm satisfied!

--97T--

Silencing objectivity:

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USL1829984220070418

One man alone:

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1

--97T--

Roy Spencer is only one of many, not just a few, as he supposedly says in the article.

Thank you, Madclicker and Dynosor.

Mr. Totally,

There is a thread in this section with the word 'links' in the title. Fizzissist, myself, and others have posted links to the relevant material. If you read the rest of this Global Warming Discussion section you will find that every point I raised has been discussed at length. If you have any difficulty finding any of the information let me know and I will Google it for you.

Here is a nice place to start ... http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I'm glad you are willing to look at the evidence instead of letting the authorities do your thinking for you.

--97T--

As I said previously about this piece of rubbish (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm), I suspected that the 'petition' of '17,000 scientists' that it accompanied was worthless. I admit I was wrong - it wasn't as valuable as that!

Well, I'm not alone, according to a report (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf) from the Union of Concerned Scientists, page 16
Quote/
But it was soon discovered that the list contained few credentialed climate scientists. For example, the list was riddled with the names of numerous fictional characters.96 Likewise, after investigating a random sample of the small number of signers who claimed to have a Ph.D. in a climate-related field, Scientific American estimated that approximately one percent of the petition signatories might actually have a Ph.D. in a field related to climate science.97
/quote

Apparently the fictional characters from the TV show M.A.S.H. were among the signatories. Mmmm! Fictional signatories, fictional evidence showing global warming is not harmful. Perhaps there's a connection somewhere? I wonder who might be behind this? - I'll let you guess. Hint – It's not very hard to work out!

On the subject of independent thought, it rather seems that you are the one that has been letting the oil companies do the thinking for you!

By the way, the IPCC are not 'the Authorities', except in the field of Climate research.
It's the energy companies and oil companies in particular that fear the IPCC, because if the IPCC's recommendations are acted upon, the these energy companies are liable to lose a great deal of money.

Don't forget that the 'allegedly invalidated' IPCC and their research has been endorsed by the combined memberships of:

The National Academies of Science of the G8, Brazil, China and India, which means that some of the most eminent and well respected scientists in the world are mistaken. And that's ignoring the hardly insignificant groups such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the Union of Concerned Scientists, they're most definitely big players especially regarding scientific excellence and integrity.
Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not even remotely convinced by your arguments which appear to come directly or indirectly from 'The Big Book of Why Fossil fuels are not the cause of GW and other stories', and not based upon good science.

You really have been taken in by the oil companies' propaganda, haven't you!

You didn't even read the intro page, did you? These ad hominem attacks were anticipated and answered.

I particularly like the reference to Scientific American as some kind of authority. They have been neither scientific nor American since about the mid 1980's. Bunch of socialist wimps, every article skewed towards the need for government to regulate everything, dreaming that someday scientists will pull the levers and government will make policy to enforce their wishes.

The IPCC has been caught lying about their data, and they keep the algorithms for the models that predict doom secret.

There might be some emotional appeal for goring the energy companies. But if you destroy them or just increase their cost of doing business, you will only hurt yourself -- unless you are a parasite who gets your money from taxpayers by the use of the government gun, and you are figuring that you will be able to maintain your own standard of living while everyone else can just do without.

All of the societies who support the need for a new world order -- sure, they need more tax dollars to study how bad the problem is, and more influence to gain power. What they don't realize is that history shows that once they help give governments the kind of power they seek, they will be dealt with in a most brutal fashion the first time they say something inconvenient to the rulers. They keep their place only so long as their pronouncements serve to broaden and consolidate the power of the government that pays them.

Big oil propaganda? I don't know, but all of the most damning evidence seems to come from independent sources.

I suppose 'good science' means someone speaking from authority, with credentials granted by those who approve the message and filter out dissent. Sorry, but logic and reason are not the exclusive domain of some man behind the curtain.

--97T--

97T,
....as usual, not one single shred of scientific evidence or discussion.

We're taken in by "big oil"....but this guy is swallowed by "big insurance", and "big science", as if that's better.

"Scientific Consensus"

http://www.dfg.de/en/news/press_releases/2006/press_release_2006_10.html