Wikipedia, Anti GW Vandalism and Global Extinction

[totally_screwed]

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 [but not always] 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, 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.
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!

[NinerSevenTango]

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--

[totally_screwed]

Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango 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 [in particular the amount of water] 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 Level of Scientific Understanding regarding the solar aspects of global warming as 'very low'. Ref. IPCC 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 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!

[NinerSevenTango]

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.

[totally_screwed]

Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango 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 [by anyone], 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 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.
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.

[NinerSevenTango]

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--

[NinerSevenTango]

Here is what unlimited government power gets you:

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

[totally_screwed]

Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango 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.

[NinerSevenTango]

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--

[totally_screwed]

Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango 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--

Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango 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.

[Madclicker]

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".

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by totally_screwed 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.