Consensus Corner

[fizzissist]

I've taken the liberty of starting a thread specifically for the AGW hardcore...that is, those who just can't, or won't accept that the debate isn't over, and that humanoids are responsible for global warming.

All the links I post here are bona fide, card carrying, denier bashing, global warming zealot blogs or websites. Some are genuinely scientifically based, such as Gavin Schmidt's. Others are just clever sites to con you out of your hard earned dollars...but you have to decide which is real, and ....which is an illusion.

You can't just read one side and know the truth. Science IS both sides of argument, and sometimes 3 sides. The beauty of science is its constant evolution.



Starting with WorldChanging:

Climate "skepticism" is not a morally defensible position. The debate is over, and it's been over for quite some time, especially on this blog.

We will delete comments which deny the absolutely overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, just as we would delete comments which questioned the reality of the Holocaust or the equal mental capacities and worth of human beings of different ethnic groups. Such "debates" are merely the morally indefensible trying to cover itself in the cloth of intellectual tolerance.

So, if you're a climate skeptic, you may be well-intentioned and you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but we're not interested.

Thanks.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008132.html

[fizzissist]

Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Casper Ammann are principle hosts of Real Climate...Climate science from climate scientists

http://www.realclimate.org/

[bradcan]

This might just get you thinking for your self again http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/

It did me! I've been a global warming alarmist since the 60s, but no more.

I've reviewed the science with a newly open mind.

Here it is: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ read it, then tell me where you stand.

[debogus]

bradcan
Thanks for the link
But common sense and logic are feeble tools against panic .

Dave

[fizzissist]

Reality Check
The Global Warming Debate Is Over. It's Real, Inexorable, and Headed Our Way


"In 1995, more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reported to the United Nations that our burning of oil, coal and natural gas is changing the Earth's climate. Five years later, many of the same researchers are very troubled by two things: The climate is changing much more quickly than they projected even a few years ago; and the systems of the planet are far more sensitive to even a very small degree of warming than they had realized. Average U.S. temperatures, the report said, will rise by five to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (F) by the end of the 21st century."

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1049

my comments:

....In actuality, many of those aforementioned scientists who were submitting authors to the IPCC contested the language of the IPCC editors. In many instances where the IPCC used the terms "likely", "very likely", or "probable" the contributing scientists, those that were the very authors of the scientific papers and journals used to base the AR4 and SPM upon, objected and in many cases their objections were rejected.

The fact is, and well documented, that the Summary For Policy Makers (SPM) was released 3 months prior to the release of the underlying report upon which the SPM was based....and in the IPCC's own words....

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."--from the IPCC procedural document

?????? The literal translation is that the science is to conform to the policy. As noted climatologist Tim Ball states, "This is like an Executive writing a summary and then having employees write a report that agrees with the summary."

Gray and McIntyre's objections were repeatedly rejected, even when they pointed out that the IPCC's own statements were inconsistent. Richard Lindzen's work is cited by the IPCC, and he disagrees with them.

Even Penn & Teller are skeptical..........
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/178/218/

(click on part 1)

[bloefeld]

Scientific consensus is not the same as scientific proof. Its just an opinion poll of scientists. I know some of they guys on the UN list personally and they work in fields with zero connection to climate. One of them was a freakin sociologist who lied about the existance of his Ph.D. another is a pharmakinetisist. He can tell you how drugs are metabolised, but certainly knows less about the climate than I do and he would tell you that if he met you.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

[bloefeld]

The evidence shows that temperature and CO2 concentrations have a correlation of between .4 and .9. It also shows a lag of about 800 years between the two events.

The higher probability scenario is therefore that temperature increase causes increased levels in CO2.

The only actual hard evidence is that the earth's temperature has increase by .7 degrees F since the start of the industrial revolution. This is well within the reading error of a thermometer. The instrument used by the various Empire outposts to measure this rise in temperature.

If one looks at the actual records themselves at the British Museum one can see that jumps of 1 or 2 degrees on average took place when one colonial officer retired and another replaced him. The same thermometer was used but one guy simply read it differently than the other.

Al Gore's inability to to report anything but the most extreme of temperature rises has made his position a joke.

Meanwhile the biggest US network promoter of wind energy is NBC, the third largest producer of wind turbines and the largest producer of natural gas powered generators is GE. Who also owns NBC. Can ya see the link here!

Its got nothing to do with real science and everything to do with greed.

That being the case, figure out something to machine that you can sell to the alternative energy cause. It isn't stoppable, so we may as well all make a nice living from it.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

[NinerSevenTango]

Too bad we gave back the .7 degree this year already.

As for the alternative energy machine, it doesn't have to really work. All you need is lots of political pull and some prestige. Energy Conversion Devices comes to mind. I remember when the former CEO of General Motors sat on the board, and the local paper dutifully printed an article written by him detailing the coming Hydrogen Economy. Nobody cared that hydrogen isn't a fuel. The tax and stock swindle went on anyway, and continues unabated, even though the noise about using hydrogen as a fuel (which it isn't) has died down. They just received a huge tax gift from the state of Michigan to build a plant that will produce energy-negative solar power panels. I haven't checked since a few months ago, but up to that time, you still couldn't go on their website and buy anything that they make and sell. Just stock info, and a whole lot of ordure about alternative energy. The cashing-in has been going on for a long time now, and with farm subsidies and HUGE grants to ADM, they are busily getting ever more people lined up at the tax dollar trough. Those who invest in these companies deserve the fleecing they are certain to get. The politicians who dole out this money and the press that fawns over them for being socially responsible deserve much worse, and for me to say what they deserve would be in bad taste.

--97T--

[Geof]

..... using hydrogen as a fuel (which it isn't)....--97T--

I have a reputation for being picky and pedantic so I may as well confirm it.

Hydrogen can be, is, a fuel, but it is not an energy source. Most people confuse the two.

[NinerSevenTango]

OK, let's go there, because I know you're very good at it.

I make the distinction between "fuel" and "energy carrier" as follows:

Fuel is something you can obtain from nature, getting more usable energy for your purposes than it takes to get it and transform it into a usable form, because nature has stored the energy in it and it remains only for the energy to be captured and liberated somehow.

An energy carrier is a means of transporting or storing the energy originally obtained from the fuel.

So, by my meaning a river, the wind, the sun, oil, and coal qualify as examples of fuels (or potential fuels if they can be harnessed efficiently).

And a battery, electricity, compressed air, or hydrogen are energy carriers. Although they might seem like fuel in a strictly localized sense, in the larger view, they cannot be, since they only store or transport energy that we must ourselves first capture somewhere else and impart to them (with losses, made up for by convenience).

Deeper into semantics, I expect that the concept of 'fuel' is a human-oriented concept, presupposing the idea of who it is for and what its purpose is, wrapped up with concept of efficiency measured by energy returned versus energy expended to get it. So, hydrogen could be considered a fuel by the thief who steals it, but never by the person who has to buy it or produce it. You can run an oil rig off the energy it delivers, but I've never found a hydrogen well to invest in.

In sum, the way I use the term, the idea of "fuel" subsumes the concept of "energy source", combining it with the concept of "useful".

Do you think I've got it backward?

I hope everything is going well for you up there in your neck of the woods. Cheers,

--97T--

[Geof]

......Do you agree?.....--97T--

Not necessarily.

But I am getting too old and mellow to bother arguing.

[NinerSevenTango]

It's past my bedtime, so I'm off for a snooze. Good night to you and yours.

--97T--
I'm gettin' old too!