Frank75

Joined

• started 6 topics
• posted 585 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Frank75

• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Qcmbr:

  Thanks for the vote of confidence and putting your finger on the button with the debating style of Abaddon.

  1/ The sun is not stable in its output of material, the study of sunspots (as an indicator of sun activity) correlates very closely with temperature fluctuations.

  Although there could be a connection or correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. We should rightly be circumspect because the evidence to support it is far from conclusive and open to wide and often emotional interpretation. Occam's razor does not apply to the correlation that alarmist continually try drawing, in fact argues against it.

  Above Graph Source material

  To sum up I'm sure we are trying to solve the wrong thing, I think we are focusing on a non-existing problem (global temperature change is not a problem), we are demonising an element on the periodic table (one that boosts plant growth in increased concentrations), we are confusing environmentalism and our need to care for our beautiful planet with global cycles and solar fluctuations and we are using science to scare people and force behaviour - to the potential detriment of those in dire need (by diverting funds and trying to reduce economic development which is currently driven by abundant fossil fuels).

  At the very least we are meddling with something that truly is of an enormous scale. Who do we think we are?

  Is the IPCC Chicken Little? Is a little white lie justified for the greater good of the environmentalist extreme left?

  "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

  "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

  60 minutes did a bit on Coal miners over the weekend and said the US derives 50% of its power generation from Coal. If that is true, something should be done to change that number, but concocting a panic is not one of them. We need inexpensive forms of energy but we do not need to be stupid about what the next step is. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is wrong. Cleaning up or converting these sources of pollution to one less objectionable is a better idea than the Peter Pan approach of building vast wind mill and solar fields, rushing to build more 3 mile islands or building cities in the clouds for that matter!

  Aids and poverty in the third world is a far more important task for dedicating these trillions of dollars to. Oprah has endorsed people like Darrel Hanna and DiCaprio because she loves Hollywood, but she still drives her Expeditions around Chicago! On the other hand she has put her money into a real problem with the opening up of a girls school in Africa.

  Those nations will never be able to pull out of the misery and poverty without our help. Likewise if cheaper fossil fuels are withheld from them to help their development we might as well just end their misery now.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Abaddon:

  Now the 10 myths issue. First I will try to provide citations as I feel appropriate to prove the source. I do not claim to be a repository of information and do not need to spend time providing proof to everything I point out when you yourself rarely point out anything to back up your comments other than Wikipedia which I have shown to be biased at least when it comes to GW.

  People like me who speak out are often accused of not caring about the planet, people, the environment or conservation. This is the BAD of the whole debate on GW, the issue is confused with the separate matter of conservation of fossil fuels and air quality. You join in to this charade by making me to be a pawn of the oil lobbyists, without providing proof. The same proof that when used on your supposed sources would not uncover the same circumstantial evidence of shilling for big business.

  LittleToe:

  I don't know to what degree the propaganda about GW is accurate; but I do know that the rate at which we are using the non-renewable resources of this planet is squandering our childrens' future...

  Further, the comments I make do not as you suggest make me a disciple/slave to everything that scientist, website or news-source has ever written, said or published. All I have been saying since the start is that it is not an open and shut case as you have presented. Likewise, the more that pro AGW supporters, marginalize the dissent, name call, mud sling, intimidate, refuse to answer skeptics, and walk away from open debate, the more critical thinkers become suspicious.

  Again here is David Suzuki refusing to answer questions of an interviewer, lying about how many scientists signed the IPCC report, and accusing others of being on the payroll of big oil, denying that he has any ties to corporation himself. Lies, Lies, Lies! http://www.canadianvalues.ca/audio/Oakley_Suzuki_complete.wav

  Without dealing with every fit of objection you have made, I feel that the arguments I have already advanced are sufficient to cast doubt on your religious certitude for the jury of opinion.

  MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

  FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.

  This is where a scientific background is an advantage; I can see the lie. This is a red herring. During the Medieval Maximum and Little Ice Age there were forcings that explained the temperature change.

  Those same orbital volcanic and solar forcings do not explain the current temperature change.

  I am having a hard time with this one. Let me see....You support Mann's Hockey stick graph and join in to ridicule those who have pointed out its errors. You know that the Mann et al. graph if taken as accurate undermines the very existence of the medieval warming and Little Ice Age. And further more that Mann defends that omission because he claims it was a local phenomenon to North Western Europe.

  Not only do several papers disprove that defense, but your argument above now embraces those climatic events and pulls in Volcanic and Solar forcing that would surely make those past events global.

  The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

  Red Herring. "Ignore the ice cores, we can't quibble with them, lets o for the weather stations in urban centres."

  Who is ignoring Ice Cores? You are the undisputed King of Red Herring my friend. Change the topic. You are ignoring the data inconsistencies that have been shown to exist time and time again with ground station temperature reading.

  Fact: Ground station data used in the Mann et al 100/1000 years that he crazy glued onto his 900/1000 year inferred data, is predominantly located in the US and Europe. Secondly his choice of data used represents only 7% of the area he sought to compare as a hemisphere wide argument. That data relied upon came primarily from Urban sites that have been shown to suffer from the well documented heat island effect. That is as much as 11 degrees C variant increasing ambient temperature by day and due to slow release at night keeping cities much warmer than surrounding rurals.

  http://www.epa.gov/heatislands/

  http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/heatisl.html

  One can easily spot Pittsburgh, Cleveland, NY City, Philidelphia, Baltimore, Washington and many smaller towns in this Satellite image:

  

  "There has been no catastrophic warming recorded."

  Straw man. Define 'catastrophic'. For ice cubes -0.01 degrees C to + 0.01 degrees C is pretty catastrophic.

  OK, I can play that game, define overwhelming consensus!

  Catastrophic in reference to the recent past is probably a poor choice of words although it clearly means in keeping with the Myth being promulgated, namely "rising at a rapid unprecedented rate".

  As Defreitas said in his paper in 2002 " We are lead to believe that the evidence is all around us. The occurrence of cold spells, heat waves, floods, droughts, and increased frequency of storms are often cited as proof of global warming. Global warming has become the scapegoat for climate variability and for prophesies of future catastrophe" (de Freitas, 1991, 1994).

  The IPCC Summary report Feb 2007 itself has a graph on page 9 which under the heading "Post 1960 20th century trend" says "likely" beside "Heavy Precipitation events", "Droughts", "Intense Tropical Cyclone Increase", "extreme high sea levels".

  MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

  SixfNine has covered this very well.

  Actually the the Mann et al graph used by IPCC shows a gradual decline in the global temperature for the past 900 years then the sudden increase.

  I don't think 6of9 covered this at all. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/130204/2313220/post.ashx#2313220 provides a Red Herring if it is meant to deal with the 10 Myths presented by FOS.

  The paper quoted is a fanciful list of supposed arguments against Mann's Hockey Stick Graph by the Website entitled REAL CLIMATE http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

  Nowhere does 6of9 give credit to the source used, but you do not point that out but you take great pains in sifting through my posts that are full of hyperlinks and point out items I may have overlooked listing the citation or giving credit. That is just the type of unscientific approach the community of doomsday sayers use in fomenting this hysteria. Birds of a feather!

  The truth is as the Myth above states that the historical proxy data of the Hockey Stick graph with its unconventional shell came for the last 100 years data proves nothing more than it's authors wanted it to prove.

  FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17 th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
  

  The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

  This Hockey Stick Graph is really quite miraculous as John Daly pointed out. In the 1990 IPCC report they used this commonly accepted temperature graph for the past 1000 years:

  

  However with the Third assessment (TAR-2000) the IPCC adopted the new Mann graph Watchtower style without so much as an apology for misleading us all with the old graph above.

  

  John Daly assesses it this way "In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large."

  "This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy."

  The version of the Hockey Stick graph in the IPCC report shows in yellow the large error margins in Mann et al.'s own rendition of the data. This is often overlooked as the casual observer is not informed directly what it means. In fact the US National Assessment took the same graph, removed the error margins and called it a Global climate graph instead of what Mann et Al called it a Northern Hemisphere graph. Mann knows this is a misrepresentation of his data but says nothing.

  Defreitas casts more than enough doubt onto the Mann et al graph and conclusions. I already posted a link to his paper.

  MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

  FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time.

  Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth Brate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.

  Red Herring. The argument 'there is no proof' ignores the facts that CO2 has a specific heat capacity and that thus if it's concentration increases one can actual CALCULATE how much better at holding on to heat the atmosphere is. Thus the lack of definitive proof CO2 is a forcing is irrelevant; there is no other forcing than GHG's that explains current trends, and the law of physics explain how CO2 would increase the average temperatures as concentrations increased.

  That is a pretty circular way of deflecting the issue and ignores the point being made about CO2 in the past. Unlike mutual funds, PAST performance is all we can go by when it comes to extrapolating data. If it is as you and IPCC say, it would naturally follow that high CO2 levels from the paleoclimate records would show CO2's role as a forcing in past periods of warming. The fact is that they do not!

  CO2 as part of the GHG mix of our atmosphere is not disputed nor is a correlation to air temperature. What is disputed is the causation of human activity along with catastrophic modeling for the future. As you will note it is the contention of certitude that CO2 is the "main driver" that is disputed in the myth above. No one disputes that CO2 levels are rising a fact that I am not totally comfortable with. However historic models are all over the place when it comes to CO2 levels. Depending on which one you choose is really the basis for your particular brand of dismissiveness. The following graph illustrates just how variable the historic data is.

  Rothman seems to be the only one who shows that historic levels have been constant, although most of his history shows as the others do that past CO2 levels were higher than at present.

  

  Another graph shows there is little correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

  On a separate issue, I would be happy to see the US and Canada work towards reducing the human spectrum of this dispute, which is industrial reliance on coal and fossil fuels. It is again the hysteria that we should concentrate all of our know how and resources to reducing CO2 when the full dynamics of causality is not really understood that I am opposed to.

  The above two graphs illustrate the discrepancy. CO2 levels have indeed risen steadily for the past 100 years, however temperature increase has not followed the CO2 as shown between 1940 and 1980. Also, the graph shows a much higher temperature climb between 1900 and 1940's peak, that is more pronounced than the period of highest CO2 increase in the last 20 years. Further the temperature anomaly (in this pro ICPP graph at bottom) is set arbitrarily at 0 C that is meant to harness the fear of global warming by means of the red temperature bars. The fact is there is no such thing as temperature constants as our earths history and collected data provide no basis for setting such a constant. Temperature has always been in flux and will continue to do so.

  Growth rates of Greenhouse forcing graph on page 3 of Hansen & Sato paper show a marked decrease of CO2 forcings along with other GHG forcings from 1995-2000. (actually declining since 1980's peak) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_Sato.pdf this shows that the total picture of our Global GHG engine is not understood. Computer models cannot predict the results of dampening by the earths own mechanisms. Such as increased cloud cover that acts to cool the earths climate. As well the earth itself has been shown to be absorbing much of the excess. Just one component are trees and grasses and there have been a myriad studies.

  Defreitas:

  Assuming a doubling of CO

  2 release as compared to current emissions, it has been estimated that atmospheric CO 2 levels will rise by about 300 ppm before leveling off (Idso, 1991a). At that level, CO 2 absorption by increased terrestrial biomass may be able to absorb about 10 Gt of carbon per year (Soon et al., 1999). This is over three times the current net annual increase in atmospheric CO 2 from world fossil fuel combustion. These studies indicate that we are anticipating larger CO 2 concentrations in future than will actually occur.
  

  Humans have proposed a drastic and mostly unattainable goal of CO2 reduction while the earth itself is capable of moderating any change on its own by more efficient means as it has over the earths climatic past. Earth has maintained its atmosphere over millennia through its own equilibrium and many scientists expect that earth will continue that maintenance no matter what humans throw at it.

  As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

  A citation, a citation, the credibility of the argument depends on a citation! Unfounded claim, but on the balance of probabilities given the quality of claims you have made or supported thus far, a fallacy or rubbish.

  CO2 levels lag behind global temperature rise Fischer et al, 1999,

  Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO 2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations

  Hubertus Fischer,Martin Wahlen,Jesse Smith,Derek Mastroianni,Bruce Deck

  Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and therelation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolutionrecords from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrationsincreased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 yearsafter the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite stronglydecreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations canbe sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the sizeof this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of thepreceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverageand the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

  Monnin et al. (2001)

  Atmospheric CO 2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination

  Eric Monnin, 1 * Andreas Indermühle, 1 André Dällenbach, 1 Jacqueline Flückiger, 1 Bernhard Stauffer, 1 Thomas F. Stocker, 1 Dominique Raynaud, 2 Jean-Marc Barnola 2

  A record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentration during the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene,obtained from the Dome Concordia, Antarctica, ice core, revealsthat an increase of 76 parts per million by volume occurred overa period of 6000 years in four clearly distinguishable intervals.

  Close examination of the rise in temperature and atmospheric CO 2 concentration at the end of the last glacial maximum revealed that the increase in temperature took place 17,800 ±300 years ago, while the increase in the CO 2 took place 17,000 ± 200 years ago. The researchers conclude “the start of the CO 2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ±600 years.”

  Sediment studies confirming this Oppo, D.W., McManus, J.F. and Cullen, J.L. 1998;

  Also another geological study confirms this conclusion http://www.csa.com/ids70/linkabst.php?issn=0028-0836&vol=408&firstpage=698&sid=gsa The Veizer et al. (2000) Paper entitled "Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO (sub 2) and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon" says this " the simulations based on [the] climate model yield[ed] temperatures that are in serious disagreement with the delta 18 O-scaled tropical temperatures." Defreitas extrapolates the data from Veizer and concludes:

  The CO

  2 - driven climate model over-predicted the reconstructed temperatures by as much as 7°C, which is equivalent to predicting a warm interglacial when the earth is actually in the midst of an ice age. The results of these studies do not support the notion that CO 2 is the all-important driver of climate change that some have made it out to be.
  

  Oceanographic relationship to CO2 levels:

  There are papers proving the ocean is and has been historically expelling CO2 during warming periods (as a result of warming not because) and others describe the ocean as a sink for CO2. If I can find my sources before I my ability to edit this post evaporates I will do so.

  I will give some thought to your other challenges to the myths 4 thru 10 as I have time.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  How is the fact that the editors of an American news periodical chose Hitler as their Man of the Year 70 years ago an appropriate analogy to the consensus of the scientific community regarding GW?

  That's just stupid!

  "Well dumbdumb" (just remembering the Flintstones character Kazoo in your picture)

  HITLER 1938? That was the consensus at the time, why is it so hard to understand the connection? With your "Kazoo" powers you should be able to figure it out.

  You are misrepresenting what I posted and the thread topic. There is some consensus about GW (Global Warming) you clever dick. What is lacking is consensus about Human causality, or AGW (Anthropogenic GW)

  It seems I am not the only one drawing analogy from Hitler! http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/OxfordUnionDebate.htm

  In recent days, we have been warned that global warming is a greater threat than the rise of Adolf Hitler in the 1940s. According to Jim Hunter, a Scottish environmental campaigner, "Global warming is a more insidious and longer-term danger than Hitlerism, but it's one that could be far more deadly. Ultimately, it might extinguish humanity itself."

  This preposterous hyperbole echoes the alarmist statement by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr Pachauri told an international climate conference in January that unless there are "very deep" cuts in CO2 emissions, humanity may not "survive". Such scare tactics are the typical traits of alarmism.

  To start with, alarmism has a propensity for invoking worst-case scenarios. Alarmism necessitates the assertion of certitude and conviction. It abhors doubt or even-handed evaluation of evidence because any balanced assessment might delay political action which is regarded imperative.

  Science, on the other hand, requires a sober consideration of all relevant evidence. Instead of emphasising certainty and fervour, it readily admits knowledge gaps and ambiguity. It weighs up all data and arguments unconditionally - pro and con - and evaluates the evidence in an impartial, detached and fair-minded manner - irrespective of political considerations or implications.

  Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying this is how science generally works today - but this is how science should be working. - B.J. Peiser

  However saying that there is a consensus or an "overwhelming consensus" of AGW by scientists now is not only a misrepresentation of the facts if not an outright lie, but more or less an apeal to democratic analysis.

  Such dismissiveness is not supported by fact but by careful manipulation such as Suzuki claiming on the radio interview I mentioned earlier that over 2500 scientists ( http://www.canadianvalues.ca/audio/Oakley_Suzuki_clip_2.wav ) endorsed the IPCC report, when in fact there are only 51 signatories to the document. Even though there are likely more than 51 scientists who endorse it, if only partially (not agreeing with everything), the above shows the challenge posed to the general public when Scientists change hats from one being analytical to the next being general or even exaggerating their findings.

  Add to the above misdirection is the group speak switcheroo from "Global Warming" to the expression "Climate Change". To say there is a consensus on Climate change is true only as it broadly covers GW, AGW and even those who would drag in unrelated issues such as Katrina or Tsunami activity even Global Cooling. http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/StateFear-Deming.htm That is not a consensus.

  The "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" paper by Oreskes heralded to confirm the so called consensus is critiqued by several scientists for many reasons first the terminology (the title being Consensus) used and selection criteria is the flawed term "climate change"

  http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

  Paper unpublished produced by Benny J Peiser Faculty of Science Henry Cotton Campus Liverpool John Moores University 15-21 Webster Street Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM

  METHOD

  I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

  RESULTS

  The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.

  Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".

  67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.

  87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.

  34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".

  44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

  470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

  The above paper by Peiser deals with Oreskes chosen theme "Consensus". Peiser himself in a recent interview submits that he believes an "overwhelming majority" endorse specifically AGW, but that this group is far from being on the same page or unanimous with a further minority disputing the science on an academic level. His closing words:

  Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.

  http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

  See also http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm for his ongoing position regarding Oreskes paper and conclusions.

  Again Peiser is entitled to his opinion in the later document about majority this or minority that, but nowhere does he present it as anything more than his own view, all the while standing behind his paper critiquing the idea of Scientific Consensus in general, of Oreskes and the GW Hysteria

  Yet, a sober and even-handed risk analysis of the most probable developments over the next one or two generations suggests that most societies will be able to adapt to moderate climate change. In short, there is absolutely no cause for alarm. B.J. Peiser
  Also http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Peiser/Peiser_Exeter2005_report.html Commenting on the "Dangerous Climate Change" conference : I return from this meeting with a determination not to give in to this doom-laden mood but to maintain my confident view of humankind that has been capable of coping with whatever nature has thrown at us for millions of year.
  We often hear the claim that the science of climate change is settled, that there is general agreement that humans have been causing most of the recent warming trend, and that it will all end in global disaster unless we “do something about it”. Let me state at the outset that I am not sure any of these blanket claims are accurate.
  http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Cardiff-conference.htm At the same time, I ponder the role of consensus as well as the role of the dissident researcher in the workings and politics of modern science.

  I and others here agree!

  Frank75

  Here is a listing of some of the scientists who disagree with the idea of consensus, their qualifications and some expressions. http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Frozen:

  Thanks for entering the fray with your calm approach to the subject. I have been swatting a fly that has been buzzing around this thread and as I have been balancing his need for attention and my desire to comment "on point" about the hysteria, all or nothing thinking and intellectual intimidation from the AGW camp, scientists, pseudo scientists and bloggers alike.

  What one has to understand though is that the human caused climate change fold are not interested in what happened to your glaciers or why elephant seals had a colony in the now frozen Ross Sea. As Abaddon wrote in one of his replies in this thread, "this time."

  Precisely! It is all of this special pleading of circumstances that is fueling the debate. It is the old "Sabres win because I wear my lucky Sabres hat" "Well they won games before you got interested in the Sabres and started going to the games"...."Yeah but that doesn't count because it was different!" Sorry Abaddon for not referencing the true author, can I just put author unknown?

  Interesting about your glacier maps, Hillary. I tend to look at the current warming period as being part of the natural cycle also. I spent a few years working in Antarctica back in the 90's and am and will always be interested in Antarctic research. I recently read in the Antarctic Sun an article about mummified elephant seals found on the beaches of the Ross Sea. This was a significant find as the presence of elephant seals indicates that the area was much warmer than it is today. The kicker is that the mummified remains are estimated to be 1,000 - 2,500 years old. That isn't all that long ago. (If anyone is interested you can download the pdf at http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/2006-2007/documents/02-04-2007_antarcticsun.pdf and scroll down to page 7. The article is called "Extinct Hunt - Vanished elephant seal colonies indicate Ross Ice Shelf survived warmer climate in recent past.") I've noticed a trend among the man caused warming advocates. Anytime someone presents research that doesn't agree with the man caused global warming proof they tend to dismiss the research by attacking the researcher.

  That scientist is from the wrong discipline, this researcher is funded by big business, that project was funded by big oil or coal or the auto industry or whatever boogeyman that springs to their mind. It is classic a "shoot the messenger" approach.

  These Ad Hominem attacks are truly what is losing the debate with the public's critical thinkers. David Suzuki storming out of an interview is just but an example of the tantrums being taken by the AGW proponents. Naturally if their side is right, there is urgency to avoid impending doom, but yelling "they're idiots", "that's baloney" or "shilling for big business" ( http://www.canadianvalues.ca/audio/Oakley_Suzuki_clip_3.wav ), is just showing who is losing the debate! The worst is the "Big Oil" lie. Suzuki uses it all the time yet his annual report for Suzuki Foundation shows big business and big Oil is in his camp of donors as well as ATCO the Alberta Natural Gas giant.

  Ken Lay recognized from the beginning of the global warming debate that a huge profit potential for Enron existed if it were "proved" that the warming was caused by humans in general and carbon dioxide in particular. Lay had access to the Clinton White House and was an advisor to the President. Ken Lay helped the Clinton administration develop positions for the Kyoto negotiations. Some of the positions that Lay pushed were:

  - The official position of the US government is global warming is human caused.

  - Carbon dioxide is a pollutant and should be regulated.

  - Developing nations would be exempt from carbon emission caps.

  How would Enron reap huge benefits if global warming became a human caused issue? Enron was in the natural gas business. If carbon dioxide was declared a pollutant and regulated coal fired electrical utilities would switch to natural gas. The result would be an increase in demand for natural gas and the price would rise. Enron was also in the pipeline industry and the more natural gas transported via Enron's pipeline system meant more profit. Enron was a major player in alternative energy being the owner of the largest wind farm in the world. Enron also was a co-owner of the largest solar energy array with British Petroleum. In addition Enron owned several natural gas fired electical utilities. If carbon dioxide were declared a pollutant and regulated, Enron was in a position to to claim scores of carbon credits that would have to be purchased by coal fired "polluters" when they exeded their allocated carbon caps. Enron's excess carbon credits would be a cash cow. Enron's desire to see emerging nations exempted from the warming debate stemmed from the fact that Enron had invested billions in places like India and former Soviet Bloc nations building coal fired power plants and carbon caps would be detrimental for those investments.

  The same agenda can be seen in the Canadian Kyoto arena. I think that we can all admit that bias and agendas exist on every level of human society, bit for the most part many who get into legislative bodies like parliaments or the US Congress, really do want to get at the truth of issues that affect their constituents. While legislators try to cut through all of the rhetoric and propaganda it is hard for them not to see the connecting dots in the arguments of the Suzuki's out there.

  Unknown to me while I was putting together my last post, Frozen One is drawing the same conclusions from the evidence. Suzuki and Sierra Club/Green Peace, WWF et al are themselves deriving funds from the very same companies that they accuse the skeptics. Therefore they cancel themselves out.

  Frozen One does not need to provide Peer Reviewed research papers to back up what he says because it is a given. OPG (who also sponsors Suzuki) is one of the largest Power Generating concerns in Canada. They are one of the worst polluters and yet at the same time run fields of Wind Power, Natural Gas Power, and Major Nuclear Power Generators. No matter what happens with the debate, they win. Why? The same reasons that Frozen One points out!

  Encana, ATCO and others will profit from the supply, distribution and infrastructure of increased use of Natural Gas. OPG who is poised to move whatever the decision is by the government stands to profit as well.

  You see people, when the government gets involved, we the tax payers pay the bill. Either through direct funding to these corporate giants, or tax and rebuilding incentives that do not exist at present.

  Another aspect that the average person is not aware of is how the money flows. Insiders at the top of our establishment, also profit by knowing what is happening in the future. If it is known by the natural gas sector as an example, that the Government is making a push towards converting oil and coal generating plants into that fuel source, then the major players will be buying up the appropriate companies who stand to profit from that policy. Exxon, Encana, Suncor, ATCO etc will use their cash reserves, or issue shares to raise money to buy into companies who stand to benefit, even start their own divisions to harvest profit from the new growth industries. It is a simple process to the war on terror catch phrase...."Follow the Money"!

  Companies such as Exxon will profit directly or indirectly from Global Warming Hysteria.

  The funny part is that many people from the green side accused the Bush administration of being an Enron puppet while conveniently forgetting that Enron was a crucial player promoting the global warming movement.

  I am not directly aware of the above as I find Canadian business scandals depressing enough, let alone looking closely at what is going on south of the border. I wouldn't be surprised as what you say is typically what happens in our politics here. One government F&*%'s up the economy and the next government gets the blame for the ensuing bad times inherited.

  My own conclusion is that the global warming movement has little to do with drowning polar bears and a lot to do with expanding power for politicians and skyrocketing profits for firms that are positioned to exploit the guilt and fear associated with the percieved destruction of Mother Earth. It is truely shameless.

  Polar bear advocates http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/ (if there is such a thing) make a connection with Global Warming and Polar bear decline in the West Hudson Bay population of 22%. They only mention that group because it is actually the only group experiencing decline according to environment Canada (60-70% of world population is in Canada) Our friends at Wikipedia pick up on the 22% figure and imply that the 20% figure is across the entire population of Polar Bears. Truly investigative, accurate and of course misleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear

  What truly makes Polar Bear populations susceptible to environmental change, hunting or their food supply (related to environmental change) is their "low reproductive rates". So many variables weigh in on that impact that it is just childish and absurd to point to one factor. The USFWS currently reports that Aboriginals have been allocating their subsistence kills of Polar Bears to Sport Game Hunters. Environmentalists refuse to acknowledge these "Forcings" on the Bear populations citing treaties that ban sport hunting since the 80's.

  Naturally Global warming will have an affect on the arctic wildlife as they go through a period of adaptation. I do not deny Global Warming as it is a fact that we are in a period of interglacial warming. Websites like this naturally evoke emotions that we are the cause (although not dogmatic, they do lean to AGW argumentation citing IPCC and other unnamed or cited papers) and can do something about this "if each of us do our part to reduce CO2", but unfortunately the arctic wildlife populations such as what Frozen One pointed out have changed and adapted in the recent past, they will be adapting to the present climate changes and on into the future.

  Are Polar Bear populations declining? Well the one population found on the above website is one of 11 groups I posted about earlier that is declining. 3 are stable and 7 are growing. The Alaska/Kamchatka peninsular group is growing http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/s034.htm ,

  http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868&k=5287

  The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s. As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400. The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

  As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

  The emotional pleas over the Polar Bear ignore the declining global populations of bears in general. The Black, Grizzly, Kodiak, Panda etc, have declined because of human encroachment into their territories. Why don't we depopulate Western Canada, the US and even formerly Panda populated areas of China so that those bear populations can recover?

  Like you said the whole debacle is "shameless"

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Abaddon:

  As anyone could see the two posts in response to your refutation are in order of appearance in your post. I explained why I am responding the way i have, and yet you continually taunt me to respond to the 10 myths which is well down the page from where I am with your response so far. Surely someone with your command of Science can grasp that.

  Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,

  LOL. This guy believes in global warming, but believes human produced CO2 is special and that we should just sit tight and enjoy the ride. So, you like his opinion about CFC's but NOT about Global Warming?

  I believe in Global Warming!! I just don't believe in the Athanasian Creed of it. I simply believe until I can be convinced otherwise that the Global Warming of the past century, even centuries can be explained by other means than those theorised by Anthropogenic Global Warming as it relates to CO2.

  The above comment is the type of silliness I referred to about debating with you. You continue to confirm those predictions. You pull Baliunas' views about CFC's as a means to discredit her. Why does her opinion about an off topic matter become relevant? If I accept the argumentation as whole in the Soon and Baliunas paper under discussion, it does not mean I embrace every, letter, vowel, coma and facet of it. Nor does it mean I want to become a Buddhist or Kabbalist just because they may be such either. So how does it begin to mean I embrace her views on CFC's? We are not talking about CFC's. How ridiculous can one person be?

  Then what about you? Ellsaesser disputes CFC's as well but believes in Global Warming, so then you must accept his view of CFC. So shut up!

  Someone who ignores a consensus so deep and so well evidently supported the originators of the theory get Noble Prizes had better have some extremely clear and unambiguous science behind them. She doesn't.

  Hitler was Time's Man of The Year in 1938! I doubt anyone but a skin head would agree with that now, but back in 1938 only a minority was not impressed! So how can you believe that a "deep consensus" (no references cited by you to support such) and a Nobel prize winner makes them 100% and eternally right. Views on CFC' are argued to be the present truth, but science may be burning those Nobel prize winners in effigy one day and hailing Baliunas as a prophetess if further studies vindicate her views. That is why you need to stay focused on the topic. Which in my view is related to the title which deals with not Global Warming so much as the Hysteria surrounding it.

  National Geographic comments on Nobel show it is far from being the last word in matters of who is wrong and right in science.

  In 11 different years, Einstein was nominated only to be rejected. One Nobel committee member wroteEinstein must never receive a Nobel Prize even if the entire world demands it. The entire world did demand it, and Einstein got the 1921 Nobel — for his contributions to physics and for his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect. He showed that light behaves not only as a wave but also as a stream of particles, or quanta. The committe directed Einstein not to mention relativity in his acceptance lecture [emphasis added] . He did so anyway. — Heidi Schultz

  Even your virtuous Wikipedia lists the Nobel controversies of the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies and heaven knows that human consensus in general does not lay any claim to being right even a small fraction of the time.

  Kyoto? Unfortunately the only way the USA could keep up with Kyoto initiatives that require a cut in emissions of 25% by 2012 is to build more nuclear plants for starters.

  And this is a bad thing why?

  Who is playing fast and loose with quotations?

  Nowhere did I say or even imply nuclear power was "a bad thing" and nor do I believe that. Ontario has nuclear generated power (35% of the grid) and I draw from two plants in my local grid, as well as a Wind power installation within minutes of my home. My wife and enjoy driving among them as they are quite elegant and beautiful in many respects. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however.

  What I said later and you know it was this:

  Likewise the USA will need to take the biggest lead as we North Americans must reduce CO2 (according to Kyoto) by 25% by 2012. That means the US would need to find a replacement to fossil fuels energy for a 1/4 of a nations consumption while the nation is growing in population simultaneously. You Americans will need to build hydro, solar, wind, tidal and/or nuclear capacity to take 30-5% of the domestic power utility while taking coal, oil and other CO2 positive utilities off line....and you have 5 years to do it!

  Do you know how many years it took to build the Hoover Dam? American side of the Niagara Falls power project? etc? Are you aware that the US hasn't built a nuclear power plant in over 20 years because no one wants one near their town? No one wants windmills in their backyards either (although I don't mind myself) Are you aware of the current federal deficit of the USA?

  What I pointed out was merely the fact that in order to meet the 5 year deadline, you guys as well as us Canadians to some degree, would need to replace CO2 positive utility with "hydro, solar, wind, tidal and/or nuclear capacity to take 30-35% " of the void left or risk being international outlaws according to David Suzuki : http://www.canadianvalues.ca/audio/Oakley_Suzuki_clip_1.wav

  Greenpeace UK under the caption "Friday the 13th" lists all the reasons Nuclear Power is not an alternative they will support to help Global Warming. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/fridaythe13th/facts.htm

  But building more nuclear power stations will dramatically increase the risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack, which could claim millions of lives.

  UK nuclear sites are not built to withstand a deliberate crash by a jumbo jet full of highly explosive aviation fuel, and an attack on Sellafield could dwarf the consequences of the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

  The point I was making was that whatever sites are chosen for these Nuclear Reactors, it will take 20 years just to remove the protesters who chain themselves to the bulldozers! It is an easy thing to say, but another thing to do. Like when the elders pass around the pieces of paper to see if they have enough money to build a DomKing Hall. They tally it up and announce, "we have enough to build a hall!" Then when it comes time to collect.....well that is another story.

  The Hoover dam took 5 years to complete between 1930-35 and 112 lives. However survey of the site was started in 1922. Produces 2000 mega watts. I do not know if my facts are peer reviewed but they can be checked here http://www.sunsetcities.com/hoover-dam/faqs-00.html

  Lake Mead takes up over 640 sq km's (247 sq mi)

  Hoover and dams in general have their environmental price tags as well. Again not peer reviewed : http://projects.olin.edu/ahs/HOT2004/CarRamrod/hoover_env.htm

  Sierra club : http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/media/item.shtml?x=905

  Perhaps Sierra club is against Hydro Electric power because of a bias towards Encana who is also a sponsor and major stake holder in Alberta Tar sands and NATURAL GAS. (Look up their annual report list of donors) I digress!

  My comments on this topic in particular was dealing with the reality of finding suitable locations for this carbon neutral power generation, getting local government and environmental approvals, buying and surveying land, engineering designs, financing, construction and completion all takes time that frankly is not there. People will be debating having any of these facilities in their backyards until the cows come home. Putting Wind and Solar projects in uninhabited areas will still bring protests from environmentalists groups as well as aboriginal peoples.

  The Nanticoke Coal burning power plant in Ontario is roughly 4000 mega watts. The footprint is very small compared to fields of Solar panels and thousands of acres of Wind Power Generators. Again I do not object to these green energy sources, but merely point out that they pose problems as well, mostly of acceptance by the community. If CO2 is not contributing in a major way or not at all, then the existing power plants do not need to be scrapped, rather they need updating to conform with standards that benefit all parties.

  Now that I have explained what I really meant/said about alternative energy sources, it raises why I point out the Encana relationship with both Sierra Club and David Suzuki. Although brothers in arms such as Abaddon scoff at the idea of them being in bed with big oil, possibly believing that the financial donations are a deliberate plant to discredit the advocates of Global Warming by CO2 "Climate change" an obvious connection can be overlooked. My point is that all of these conspiracy theories of collusion and secret agendas cut both way. Political adds showing one candidates childhood indiscretions is countered with adds attacking the other candidates pot use in high school. What does any of that have to do with the issues?

  One alternative scenario to Coal Power is to convert those utilities to Natural Gas. It is argued quietly that this is a good intermediate alternative by cutting CO2 emissions by 45% (1/2). (Hey this is even mentioned at Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Gas) Ontarios power grid consists of a small percentage of Coal Power generations (7546 MW at time of my data source or 24%), I think it is either 17% or 20% now. Changing that percentage over to Natural gas which is lumped into our grid breakdown with Oil, will only give a marginal reduction. I am not aware of all of the arguments for this trade off, but I am aware that domesticly available Natural Gas is becoming scarse so the overall benefits debate continues.

  Frank75 also said in conjuction with the above on Nuclear and other alternate power generation the following

  Lets replace the cars then to Carbon neutral technology as well. 204,000,000 cars on the road in the USA alone (2003). Getting those gas guzzling vehicles off the road would go along way to helping the US reach its 25% target by 2012. Who is going to pay for all of those Prias'? What will we do with the old vehicles?

  It seems that while everyone is in a hurry to point the finger at those who A) believe Global Warming is likely natural B) due to not trusting the hype are undecided C) Deny Global Warming or CLimate change D) Can support a contrarian view with science; that they all must be in bed with the oil companies.

  What about the car companies? A demanding public along with Government intervention (the same governments who are rethinking AGW, Kyoto and IPCC myths) has just succeeded in forcing the auto makers to construct safer, better built and longer lasting vehicles (despite our digression into gas guzzlers). However removing fossil fuels from the basket is not going to hurt Auto makers one bit. In fact, forcing governments to mothball the 400,000,000 cars on the road world wide before their life is up will be a bonanza to the worlds auto makers. Lets face it, they don't give a flying cats petuti what engine they put in to a car, as long as someone buys it. Sure they would need to retool, redesign and develop some new technologies to come online quickly but that is not a problem as most technology is waiting in the wings. An arguemnt could have been made in the 50's, 60's and possibly 70's for Auto maker reluctance in such an initiative, however now is a different matter.

  That is a pretty strong lobby.

  I am working on your 10 myths challenge

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  I forgot to mention a recent study about Cosmic Rays as a Forcing, even a significant one and their formerly theorised connection to Earths Climate.

  Here we can see that so far Wikipedia has not moved to discredit the prestigious "Proceedings of the Royal Society A" which published the research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_Royal_Society

  Yet!

  Here is an article on Fox News (not my favorite source) who acknowledge that even though this research is not a smoking gun, it deserves some attention, but has received little media attention.

  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html

  Svensmark has put together a book to further explain his research which will be released later this year. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1840468157/junksciencecom

  Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions

  Henrik Svensmark AFF1 , Jens Olaf P. Pedersen AFF1 , Nigel D. Marsh AFF1 , Martin B. Enghoff AFF1 , Ulrik I. Uggerhøj AFF1 AFF2

  AFF1 Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Centre, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
  AFF2 Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark

  Abstract:

  Experimental studies of aerosol nucleation in air, containing trace amounts of ozone, sulphur dioxide and water vapour at concentrations relevant for the Earth's atmosphere, are reported. The production of new aerosol particles is found to be proportional to the negative ion density and yields nucleation rates of the order of 0.1–1cm -3 s -1 . This suggests that the ions are active in generating an atmospheric reservoir of small thermodynamically stable clusters, which are important for nucleation processes in the atmosphere and ultimately for cloud formation.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  This has been a very illuminating thread. I am coming to the conclusion that there is enough conflicting information to keep a thinking person from taking a staunch position on either side. While there are good reasons to conserve energy by lowering your "carbon footprint." There is also enough findings to discount the doom and gloom prophecies. Once again my axiom of "the truth can be found in the middle" is confirmed.

  Amen!

  We don't have to pretend that buying a Toyota Prias is going to deflect the next ELE meteorite away from the earth. People and businesses should be motivated to do what is right by means other than guilt, intimidation, threats or scare tactics!

  Actually, when I posted I was more or less responding to the title of this thread in reference to the "hysteria". I have no more real desire to push my personal ideas on others, after a lifetime of doing so in the JW cult. An opinion was requested, given, then the personal attacks started. Why? You have made up your mind? Good for you! I applaud your right to believe what you wish.

  How though can someone come out of a high control environment like the Dubs and not be sick to their stomach or loath to use the same tactics used on them to BULLY, humiliate, scorn and load up others with guilt? It is immoral! But yet here we are!

  Rather than hurl insults at Abaddon or anyone else in an attempt to "win a debate" I would rather point the finger at the real culprits in this controversy.

  For example: Wikipedia

  Read the Wikipedia bio on David Suzuki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki

  Even if as non Canadians you have no idea who he is (had a show on PBS), I am sure that you each have someone in your country that he can compare to. This is why I am trusting less and less what Wikipedia says as needing multiple grains of salt!

  Now compare the calibre of man described in that bio with what has been happening all too often of late:

  With the zeal of an a Anti Abortionist or otherwise Religious zealot David Suzuki has out-shouted anyone with a difference of opinion. He is on a mission and due to his lengthy career and accomplishments he has quite a list of honors from all quarters to push his crusade along. He is one of Canada's leading naturalists and is quite outspoken on Global Warming although he is really quite unqualified to comment on the disciplines related to the AGW debate / studies. However when I see/hear him interviewed now his manners and decorum are appalling. Yet Wikipedia mentions none of this! (compared to my defense of Baliunas and others who have been edited to look bad on the same site)

  If anyone dares to bring up contrarian opinion or even point out admitted errors in the 607 Chronology peer reviewed AGW papers he has accepted (such as Kyoto and the IPCC report), he attacks them and smears them with being bitter apostates big business and oil companies. However he denies his foundation has any ties to the U.N. oil or even industry in general!

  "I’m not getting any money from my (Suzuki) foundation. I’m getting my money, the foundation gets its money, from ordinary people. We don’t take government money, corporations have not been interested in funding us. We get it from ordinary Canadians across the country. 40,000 thousand of them and we get some foundations in both Canada and the United States. So that’s my agenda. We speak on behalf of the people that fund us. (AM640 Radio Interview with John Oakley)

  "We speak on behalf of the people that fund us"! Who might that be? Check the annual report of the Suzuki Foundation (in his defense these corporate donations do not seem all that substantial)

  http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/DSF-AR0506-final-web.pdf

  Fact: The David Suzuki Foundation’s annual report for 2005/2006 lists at least 52 corporate donors including: Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, Warner Brothers, RBC, Canon and Bank of Montreal.

  The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees’ and Pensioners’ Charity Trust.

  OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants… which begs the question – is Suzuki now pro-nuclear power, pro-oil burning, pro-dirty-coal burning? The largest polluter in Canada is Ontario’s OPG which contributes to Suzuki’s foundation.

  What he said publicly "We speak on behalf of the people that fund us" ......and those listed are the people!

  For this he has been labeled an eco terrorist by some. After losing credibility with me and my respect I see him as more or less an Eco Hypocrite!

  Does Wikipedia point that out with the fanfare that it paints people who dispute Global Warming models/projections/conclusions (not global warming itself)? Does Wikipedia mention how many times Suzuki has given us "10 years" or his predictions that have yet to materialize?

  National Post (Canada) reported on an interview Suzuki had on a recent Toronto talk radio show (AM640). John Oakley is not unknown as an outspoken and brash talk show host who pushes the envelope but by the use of his constant "touche" allows those with a difference of opinion to contradict him as opposed to other well known talk show hosts who hang up on callers and cut people off. John's role is to stir the pot, and anyone going on the show would not only know that but would prepare for it, expect it!

  Here's the deal: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=55f4dc45-f308-4b34-80af-011a0cf38fed

  Last Thursday, environmentalist guru David Suzuki stormed out of a Toronto AM640 radio interview with host John Oakley because Oakley dared to suggest that global warming might not be the "totally settled issue" Suzuki insisted it was.

  Oakley only reported a fact: Many accredited scientists -- some full professors from top universities, including Nobel prize winners and a former president of the National Academy of Sciences -- would argue that "global warning is at best unproven and at worst pure fantasy,"

  The article rightly concludes:

  The remorseless pressure on Canadians to sign up for environmental orthodoxies that they are not cognitively equipped to judge is demoralizing and divisive. Tantrums by self anointed prophets do not help the situation. Whatever the eventual outcome on the global warming front, we could all use a little non-partisanship, maturity and attitudinal cooling on the behavioural front.

  Sounds like one of us talking about the Watchtower Society.....does it not?

  And yet Abaddon (and others) has the nerve to say those of us who say "the jury is still out", or due to the shenanigans we are as yet unconvinced and skeptical, are acting like JW's!

  What is next? A speech telling us that if "some of you like to do personal study into the bible the actual scientific papers on the subject that you should leave the deep study up to the FDS likes of myself because I have a keen understanding of these issues (go on....ask Shutterbug!). And if you just cannot help but be absorbed in these studies then you should think about getting a hobby! (sound familiar?)

  The so called skeptical scientists should not be shunned for expressing doubts, especially if they have qualifications in the fields they are writing/critiquing.

  We of all people should know this to be true! When I left the Witnesses and people asked me what was going on, I would point out the flawed scriptural reasoning and/or doctrines, lack of love, fear of men, tyranny etc and people would say.."oh, you're bitter ...I see" or "you just don't want to go in service/meetings anymore" or "you were stumbled" or whatever.

  What makes the JW religion a bad religion is that they do not allow dissent or debate, even doubt is not tolerated. If you were to get one of the GB to go on TV to publicly debate with say Alan Feurbacher (that would never happen but if it did) they would storm off the set instead of answering embarassing questions just like David Suzuki did.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology that concluded that the climate has not changed in the last 2000 years.
  A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[9] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result [10].
  Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[11][12] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[13]
  So, their argument is really NOT a decent one.

  Scientists, just like plumbers, have differing degrees of competence and honesty. How wet would Baliunas and Soon make your carpet? And would they overcharge?

  Competency is not the domain of only those who have Sierra Club membership. At least I hope that is not what you are implying.....and being in the carpet cleaning business I can assure that carpet wetness has to do with relative humidity as well as how much I am being paid to do the work! LOL

  Yes Wikipedia presents the reference to the 13 authors. One of those authors was of course Mann himself. His refutation consisted of his claim that using inferred temperature readings from the past (i.e. tree rings samplings) coupled with modern instrument readings is accepted practice in his field. That may very well be in the discipline of paleoclimatolgy (I doubt it) but the need for being precise is more important given what is at stake in this. The past is being used to put the present in perspective. That requires a higher standard be met.

  Further the guff about moisture is a another red herring to imply that Baliunas was out in left field, when all that Soon and Baliunas noted was that Mann failed to take into account moisture levels as a reasonable mechanism for filtering the data.

  Likewise in DeFreitas own paper critical of Mann, the issue of moisture comes up again. Although accepted to a degree, tree ring sampling used for this type of historic temperature inference could not account for moisture content in a given year or period of years. Part of the inference to determine temperature is based on growth, however growth in trees is a combination of temperature and moisture. A warm year with insufficient moisture would yield false temperature readings. That is arguably while Mann's error controls eliminated two historical events, the midievil warming and the mini iceage.

  Lastly, 3 people from Climate Research (Hans von Storch, Clare Goodess, and Mitsuru Ando) are said to have taken exception to the peer reviewed article by Soon & Baliunas only after a much more prestigious paper EOS came down hard on the criticism. Even though that constitutes the timing of their departures it is rhetorical to conclude that the departures are solely based on what Soon and Baliunas wrote and thereby completely devoid of other factors. In fact to conclude that other factors were at play would give voice to the science of human behavior, personal motivations, logic and reason as it is known to exist in the real world!.

  Additionally, since the editorial staff today is made up of 12 people and a further 24 Review Editors (I don't know exactly how many were in place in 2003) I doubt that these 3 people constituted "half" of the editorial staff. If the departure did in fact constitute 1/2 of the editors, the ones who stayed should carry just as much weight as those who left. In other words had all or most of the editors resigned in protest the statement above could be considered more than hype and propaganda.

  As for Otto Kinne's statement in the broader context : http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf

  "While the instrument of quality control, the peer review process, has stood the test of time, it should be further developed."

  "Even a very thorough review process cannot include all essential perspectives and it cannot exclude mistakes "or misjudgements."

  "Quality control at CR was practised along generally established lines. There were no problems over the 13 years of CR existence. But there was insufficient attention to the methodological basis of statements that touch on hotly debated controversies and involve pronounced political and economic interests. CR should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication."

  Translation? This is unfortunately how the peer review process works and has for sometime including articles written to support AGW. The only time it becomes an issue is when the subject matter is as hotly debated, and has been politically agendized at the highest levels of Government and Economic Interests.

  In the same document Kinne outlines the true reason for Hans Von Storch's departure. He wanted full veto power over other editors, which naturally they would not and could not give him. He left in a huff when he didn't get his way.

  I wanted the editorial by Hans von Storch to be published, but with a green light from the Editorial Board. Hence I asked Hans not to rush the editorial, to consult with the Editorial Board and to publish a revised version. Hans did not like this and decided to resign only a few days after I had appointed him. No Editor-in-Chief can organize a better and broader basis for quality control than that practised by IR. No single scientist can judge the quality of all mss submitted to a journal with a wide scientific scope such as CR.

  As to Soon and Baliunas, the close of the document points out Kinne's appraisal of the controversy over what boils down to two statements. Note what they are and his conclusion:

  Major conclusions of Soon & Baliunas are: ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millenium.’ (p. 89) and ‘Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millenium in most of the proxy records which have been sampled world-wide’ (p. 104).

  While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in he paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.

  Do I think Soon and Baliunas could have been more exacting? Of course I do. Hind sight is such a good judge you know, and it seems that we all have it although we may not use it as much as we should.

  Was the peer review process any different than other peer reviews? According to Defreitas who gave it to five others for peer-review : "None were from what some might [term] 'the other side' or are individuals who might be known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate." The paper was peer-edited, returned to authors for corrections, and approved for publication.

  I would say yes in that at least some effort to avoid the appearance of scientific bias was made. This cannot be said for other peer reviewed papers.

  What about the IPCC report itself? Is it devoid of contradictory statements, inflated numbers, misapplied statistics, revisions after the review process, leaps of faith and logic? If you have read the criticism then you know it is just as guilty if not more so given the number of hands that document passed through before going to press. Those critiques come from detractor and proponent alike! And you know it!

  If you insist, I can list those valid critiques one by one, and you know there are more than 2 of them.

  Although the above paper is not dogmatic so as to say Solar activity is the only scenario, it certainly is more reliable than your whimsical comment quoted below.
  My comment was;

  Yes, and the reason that the majority of scientists are concerned is the current increase in temperature cannot be explained by the sun THIS TIME, even though it's role is pivotal and it has caused climate change before.

  I've shown their doubts are unreliable; please find something to refute my statement.

  I do not believe that you have shown any such thing.

  The controversy over Soon and Baliunas is a tempest in a teapot. And your aspersions toward special interest groups, foundations and think tanks goes both ways, only a plebe would suggest otherwise!

  Why are you allowed to make statements, even blanket statements without providing proof or references? (And that goes for Wikipedia references as well)

  Certainly I can accept and acknowledge that the sun is not likely the only forcing and possibly not even a contender. Those such as Soon and Baliunas have not been dogmatic with their hypothesis either or at least no more dogmatic than those who disagree have been. However I will provide others who hypothesize about the Sun's forcing (or other cosmic) such as radiant heat, magnetic intensity, and even solar wind.

  Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters,
  We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.

  The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest, and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades. The impact of solar variation on climate seems significantly stronger than predicted by some energy balance models…The significant discrepancy between empirical and theoretical model estimates might arise because the secular TSI [total solar irradiance] proxy reconstructions are disputed and/or because the empirical evidence deriving from the deconstruction of the surface temperature is deceptive for reasons unknown to us. Alternatively, the models might be inadequate because of the difficulty of modeling climate in general and a lack of knowledge of climate sensitivity to solar variations in particular. In fact, theoretical models usually acknowledge as solar forcing only the direct TSI forcing while empirical estimates would include all direct and indirect climate effects induced by solar variation. These solar effects might be embedded in several climate forcings because, for example, a TSI increase might indirectly induce a change in the chemistry of the atmosphere by increasing and modulating its greenhouse gas (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration because of the warmer ocean, reduce the earth albedo by melting the glaciers and change the cloud cover patterns. In particular, the models might be inadequate: (a) in their parameterizations of climate feedbacks and atmosphere-ocean coupling; (b) in their neglect of indirect response by the stratosphere and of possible additional climate effects linked to solar magnetic field, UV radiation, solar flares and cosmic ray intensity modulations; (c) there might be other possible natural amplification mechanisms deriving from internal modes of climate variability which are not included in the models. All the above mechanisms would be automatically considered and indirectly included in the phenomenological approach presented herein.

  The above document appears of all places on the AGU website. The very authors of the so-called EOS article outrage against Soon and Baliunas in the CR paper!

  a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science

  Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11

  Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little

  Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the

  solar/climate link.

  b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review

  Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007

  Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how

  this in turn would impact the mean temperature.

  c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio,

  Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350

  Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2°C than the previous ones

  during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was

  100 ppmv less than at present.

  d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677

  Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little

  Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the

  solar/climate link.

  e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera

  Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584

  North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as

  identified through sunspot cycles.

  f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?”

  Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208

  Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and make a case for

  solar impact on the earth’s climate.

  g. “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13

  (2003) p.4-10

  Documents, using a “sea-shell thermometer”, how the earth’s temperature over last 500

  million years is decoupled with atmospheric CO2 levels, while showing strong correlation

  with variations in the cosmic ray flux.

  h. “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface

  air temperature record for the past 130 years” Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol.

  32 (2005) L16712

  Demonstrates a strong link between total solar irradiance and Arctic-wide surface

  temperature over a long period from 1875-2000.

  i. “Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere” P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p.

  147-154

  Analyzes high-resolution calibrated proxies for atmospheric circulation from several

  Antarctic ice cores, which reveal decadal-scale association with solar variability over the

  last 600 years.

  j. “The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannual-centennial climate variability” Hengyi

  Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805

  Re-confirms the solar variability impact on earth’s climate by analyzing monthly sunspot

  numbers in conjunction with global and regional sea surface temperatures.

  k. “Living with a variable sun” Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst.

  Of Physics USA

  Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and makes a case for

  solar impact on the earth’s climate.

  l. “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming” N Scafetta & B J

  West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708

  Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its

  linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.

  m. “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature

  record” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718

  Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its

  linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.

  n. “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds” R G Harrison & D B

  Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006)

  Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how

  this in turn would impact the mean temperature.

  Forgive me if I have included duplicates in the above list as well as studies that do not deal with the last 100 or even 20 years. And no we don't care if the "unbiased" Wikipedia profile mentions that the above are AGW deniers!

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Hello:

  I just can't deal with the constant error i get when posting.

  Can anyone make a suggestion other than getting a Mac?

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  Abaddon:

  I am not going to be able to respond to everything you wrote in your first response to one of my earliest posts. Much water has passed under the bridge since then as well I find it hard to believe that you cannot find any of the material I presented to have any validity. Perhaps that is just your debating style. So be it, I guess if it suits the pursuit of truth we can spend the next 100 pages of this thread in an endless, "that's a straw man", "red herring", "lies" and whatever other dismissive catch phrases we can dream up.

  Additionally because I use WORD as my editor and how this website and it don't seem to get along I am forced to respond in chunks.....if at all...to what you wrote.

  Frank

  I enjoyed reading your post that made the above point. As I am not a climatologist and I suspect neither are you,

  Nope, I'm not. Shutterbug has raised a good point though; I've fairly decent qualifications in science with a broad base. It means I can understand scientific arguments and also I understand the importance of the scientific method.

  Not everyone has that. I know it is quite possible for someone with a non-scientiic background to arge intelligently and accurately on this topic. If they are open-minded and have the analytical skill by other means, and make the effort. One thing I am surprised at (and I'm not talking about you at this point) is how the hell do so many people get out of a cult when, from what they say now, they have the critical thinking capacity and analytical skills of a sandwich. We should ALL have that qualification, so lord knows how some got out...

  You'll forgive me if I do not take Shutterbugs word for your credentials. In fact let's leave the ego at the door. At best you and I are laymen trying to make sense of the science and we should accord each other of the respect deserved by being laymen and dispense with trying to make ourselves look like big fish in a small pond.

  I will get to your understanding of the scientific method in a moment.

  If you are what you believe to be, then you are comparable to a bully. If you have qualifications that put you in a different league, then you should think about publishing papers yourself or at least not entering into debate with the 98% of the people here who are not academics and do not pretend to be. Why don't you try going head to head with the likes of Defreitas, Baliunas, Edward Wegman or even Claude Allegre?

  On the other hand if you believe what you say about our special circumstance as former JW's then there is no need to act like the people who are still JW's that we talk to from time to time who respond with similar dismissive language that you have used in your lengthy rebuttal. Let us stick to science as you say, and if

  Read this scientific article on the relationship of the Sun with earth Climate change in the past 240 years : http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/The%20Varying%20Sun%20and%20Climate%20Change-Baliunas.pdf

  MMmmmmm... did you know one of the authors also thinks CFC's don't deplete the ozone layer (a rather remarkable opinion considering the actual chemistry involved was the subject of a Noble Prize)? Even funnier, without ever retracting her opposition to the idea that CFC's don't deplete the Ozone layer "an article by Baliunas and Soon written for the Heartland Institute in 2000 promoted the idea that ozone depletion, rather than CO2 emissions could explain atmospheric warming.

  The Heartland Institute are an ideological lead lobby group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

  That's just a bitof background to establish what in other cases might be called credibility. All I did was check up on the authors on Wiki, I am also going to deal with their argument, but the background is as illuminating as the validity of the argument they advance.

  Your link is hosted by the Fraser Institute which is ANOTHER ideologically biased lobby group whose world view would make them favour a skeptical view of human-caused climate change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_institute.

  Again, I am going to respond to the article itself, but it is interesting that thus far this skeptical view is conforming to previous descriptors of those typically holding or supporting skeptical views

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas highlights mine

  I knew this would end up in just being silly. What difference does Baliunas' opinion on CFC's have to do with the qualified, arguably expert scientific opinion that she and Soon put forward in the article.

  She is not alone in her opinion although you can sling mud at these names as well I admit.

  Dr. S. Fred Singer, Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and a looong list of others : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

  Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,

  Dr. Thomas Gold Astrophysicist and Astronomy Professor of Cornell University, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold

  Dr. Marcel Nicolet, world famous atmospheric scientist,

  Dr. Haroun Tazieff, whose Tazieff Resolution calls for a retraction of the Montreal Protocol,

  Dr. William Happer of Princeton,

  Dr. Frederick Seitz, past head of the National Academy of Science.

  What I find curious is that you draw immediately to Wikipedia references about skeptical bias of Global warming inside of the Fraser institute, but you make no reference to the Hillsdale college's impecable almost squeeky clean image where Baliunas' same views and research are likewise hosted and her credentials as a well published astrophysicist are clearly shown.

  What is so unpalletable for you with the Fraser intitute anyway? Even Wikipedia does not call into question their work or even their board of governors. The foundation for those not knowledgeable about Canada, was founded by the Weston family who are bakers and grocers first and foremost. They are not big oil or some other industry that could profit from attacking the AGW crowd, in fact they would suffer the most financially if the AGW lobby is right. Your comment is therefore unfair and Ad Hominem!

  I would think that a libertarian and conservative charitable organization would be skeptical about global warming hysteria as a given, and naturally they have hosted a peer reviewed paper for the same reasons as the Suzuki foundation would not host the same work, but instead have gathered up their own peer reviewed papers that support their bias.

  Even if all of these scientists mentioned, actually received payments directly from oil companies, how would that make their views any more suspect than those scientists who either support through membership or receive financial support from Greenpeace or the Sierra club? Why is the Fraser Institutes Agenda suspect when it hosts a peer reviewed paper but the tree huggers agenda is above suspicion?

  Frank75