NO MORE Climate malarkey! I am fed up with this snake-oil drummed-up Climate Change Crap

Mr Conundrum wrote:

read excellent good posts - minimal bias indicators.

Mr Conundrum wrote:

Of course I have bias. But when discussing any issue a good indicators of the degree of bias include: (1) Does the person acknowledge any points of the opposing view. (2) Does the person only respond to some aspects of the topic that fit (3) How emotional and hostile does the person become (4) Does the person attack the person who disagrees.

Read some of the posts and see who has the most bias.

You're inventing your definition of bias and then cramming him into it. Is that not bias itself?

nimbus, can you list some empirical evidence that supports the theory of anthropogenic driven warming. Or at least point me to a source for such evidence. I've been asking supporters of the theory to provide such evidence for a few years now, but none have.

Al Gore warned us about the hole in the ozone layer in Earth in the Balance. That was a huge crisis. Turned out to be nothing.

When temperatures drop, people will forget about the crisis, and a new one will take its place. And so it goes. . .

Out.

nimbus wrote:

I happen to be a climatologist by profession. I actually study global climate. My only comment here, as I prefer to leave work at work, is that your wikipedia list contains exactly ZERO scientists I would consider even remotely informed on global climate models. The list does contain many geographers and petroleum geologists. Humanity's precise role in climate change is still unquantified, but that we are having a noticeable and measurable influence is simply no longer an issue that is argued within the climatology community. The public does not seem to have grasped this.

Agreed. I had to laugh at this: "F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg"

Professor of GEOGRAPHY! If you're discussing climate change, your sources should be works by climatologists. Petroleum geologists?! Their work has nothing to do with studying climate change.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that public opinion and politics rarely keep up with science. Galileo is a great example.

excellent good wrote:

Can I ask you, do you believe we should be increasing or decreasing the amount of pollution in the air?

at what cost?

why prolong the debate by not answering the obvious question?

of course we should reduce pollution, but what if the increased costs to companies causes them to lay off workers or raise prices?

do we know that our efforts will be worth that?

Some climatologists who dispute the theory of anthropogenic warming:

Dr. Roy Spencer - University of Alabama - Huntsville, formerly of NASA.

Dr. Fred Singer - University of Virginia.

Dr. William Gray - Colorado State University, former head of CSU's Atlantic Hurricane Forecasting Group.

Dr. Tim Patterson - Carleton University, main research area is paleoclimatology.

Dr. George Kukla - retired professor of climatology at Columbia University.

If I wanted to stay up all night I could make the list much longer. Also, Dr. John Christy, one of the lead authors of the 2001 IPCC report, disputes the predictive ability of the models used when creating the report. He also disputes the dire predictions of climate catastrophe.

Turns out there are a lot of climatologists who dispute the theory that people cause global warming.

Do you deny that significantly more climatologists hold the opposite view? How do you respond to this fact?

Like I said, the list was from Wikpedia, and it could have included some flawed data. Flawed data could make people skeptical of the material. Flawed data leads people to think all kinds of things. Kinda like...hmmmm...the coming Ice age...the global cooling dangers of the 1970's...Ted Danson (who has the same scientific background as Al Gore) who said that whales were going to disappear in ten years, oh fifteen or twenty years ago...the domino theory of communism in southeast Asia...and the climatology folks telling us about global warming, no wait, it's climate change, no wait it's carbon pollution...

Flawed data does that to people.

Ticktock wrote:

Do you deny that significantly more climatologists hold the opposite view? How do you respond to this fact?

wasn't there a time when most scientists believed the earth was flat?

it doesn't matter how many people believe something. This is science. What matters is who is correct.

My point was not that we are close to deadly levels. It was that a substance capable of killing an organism can do damage even in small concentrations. It is a pollutant. We are not plants. (I assume you didn't mean an industrial plant...)

About the crisis, yes, the media and politicians are the cause of that talk. I said no scientists use the word. I don't believe anyone is just looking for control over another part of the economy for the hell of it. You don't think this regulation will be watched closely enough to avoid an abuse of power?

Streamlining the EPA would be a start.

Here's the deal: Forget about climate change and lets talk about energy. America wants cheap energy forever. That's not going to happen unless it gradually moves to a more sustainable energy policy over the next 100 years. If done correctly this will result in cheap energy forever and less carbon emissions, so everyone wins. It just won't happen as fast as everyone wants it to.

you are the cutest wrote:

wasn't there a time when most scientists believed the earth was flat?

Not really. Scientists have known that the earth was round for about as long as there have been people that we might call scientists. They figured it out first.

it doesn't matter how many people believe something. This is science. What matters is who is correct.

And we, the non-climatologists, are left to take the word of people who actually know what they are talking about. I'll go with the humongous majority on this one.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Some climatologists who dispute the theory of anthropogenic warming:

Dr. Roy Spencer - University of Alabama - Huntsville, formerly of NASA.

Dr. Fred Singer - University of Virginia.

Dr. William Gray - Colorado State University, former head of CSU's Atlantic Hurricane Forecasting Group.

Dr. Tim Patterson - Carleton University, main research area is paleoclimatology.

Dr. George Kukla - retired professor of climatology at Columbia University.

If I wanted to stay up all night I could make the list much longer. Also, Dr. John Christy, one of the lead authors of the 2001 IPCC report, disputes the predictive ability of the models used when creating the report. He also disputes the dire predictions of climate catastrophe.

Turns out there are a lot of climatologists who dispute the theory that people cause global warming.

No, it does not turn out that there are a lot of climatologists who dispute anthropogenic warming. By all means, stay up all night and produce a longer list. It will still be a minute fraction of the number of active climate researchers who claim otherwise.

In the graphs on this page you will see that temperatures have in fact cooled in the past few years. However, if you look at the long term data you will see that there are other several year/decade periods that have cooled as well but the overall trend is a warming climate since the industrial revolution. If you question these data then review the papers that they are published in.

Barnacle Billy wrote:

It was first Global Warming. Since the earth has not warmed ANY in a decade it is now "Climate Change." We had a "Global Cooling" Crisis in the 70's with the same amount of hyperbole as the current Global Warming Crisis but that was proved to be a farce.

grif wrote:

Like I said, the list was from Wikpedia, and it could have included some flawed data. Flawed data could make people skeptical of the material. Flawed data leads people to think all kinds of things. Kinda like...hmmmm...the coming Ice age...the global cooling dangers of the 1970's...Ted Danson (who has the same scientific background as Al Gore) who said that whales were going to disappear in ten years, oh fifteen or twenty years ago...the domino theory of communism in southeast Asia...and the climatology folks telling us about global warming, no wait, it's climate change, no wait it's carbon pollution...

Flawed data does that to people.

Get a clue. Mainstream science never really predicted large-scale global cooling. Why? Because they knew their data was "flawed" (i.e. incomplete since there was no way to get global temperature readings at the time and their climate models were in their infancy) Their incomplete data showed cooling trends and the media whipped up the frenzy. So, over the next few decades, they actually went and got global temperature data which showed a warming trend instead. You see, the way this works is, when the data is "flawed" (i.e. incomplete), they know it before you do. They don't read letsrun and go, "HOLY SH!T!!! Did you read grif's comment!? Our data is flawed! It's all a waste!!" Instead, they actually go out and get more data to fill in what they don't know, to verify what they've already collected, and to better their models. Not that knowing any of this would stop you from discarding all of their latest studies out of hand based on trends of scarce data from 1970.

As for the rest of your incoherent ramblings: I don't know why you think Ted Danson represents the scientific community, or what communism in southeast Asia has to do with any of this.

Instead of positing all of this "he said she said" crap let's look at some facts and do a little analysis.

According to a Seattle times article from 2004 the U.S. burned 8.93 million barrels of gasoline a day in 2003. At 42 gallons per barrel this amounted to 375,060,000 gallons a day. Now, multiply that times 365 days and the total comes to 136,896,900,000 gallons a year.

Ok, so we burn around 137 billion gallons of fuel a year in the United States alone.

Now, let's say assuming historical use trends that we use this number to average the past 30 years. This is imprecise, but given that oil usage hasn't changed much since the 1970's it's not completely unrealistic either. Our final number should come out to, roughly, the equivalent of the past 35 years of use.

137 billion times thirty years equals 4,106,907,000,000 gallons!

The bottom line? Even while cutting corners it's pretty obvious that the United States has burned 4.1 trillion gallons of gasoline or more in recent history. To put this in perspective that comes out to 4/5ths the volume of the Great Salt Lake. Throw in the rest of the world and a lot more has been burned.

The details beyond this I'm not qualified to cover, but seeing as we know that matter can't be created or destroyed it's safe to say when gas burns the vast majority goes into the atmosphere.

Bottom line is, true or false, there's reason to believe our actions *could* have consequences.

Sources:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001918066_gascomment30.html

http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/GSL_WQSC/docs/related_fact_sheets/GSLcharacteristics.pdf

2 pages and not one word from you "experts" on the biggest/fastest climate changer out there - ASPHALT.

Haven't you heard about Urban Heat Effect UHE - that is real; that is a fact; that is not some made up statistic.

Asphalt traps and releases heat slowly...meaning the overnight low doesn't get very low, so you start the next day at a higher temperature. It is not going to get cooler in FL, TX, AZ anytime soon.

Overnight LOW temperatures have risen 10 degrees in these states in the last 20 years....THOSE ARE FACTS.

How say u?

I think you're confusing a lot of things, notably climate and microclimate. But the melting of glaciers and ice caps makes for a darker surface of the earth (lower albedo) which has been observed to affect larger patterns.

nicely,

the domino theory in southeast Asia was a flawed theory and did not exist, but it was created by the US government, and it was manipulated by those in governmental power to create the US involvement in Vietnam- simply analagous to what's happening with global warming/climate change/carbon pollution

Al Gore is taken very seriously in climate circles, and Ted Danson, the actor from Cheers, has done as much scientific study as Mr. Gore- simple comparison

And why isn't nuclear power an option. It's utilized in France, Japan and China? Oh, that's right, the millions who died from the three mile island accident, or was that the millions that died from watching Jane Fonda's movie?