Climategate

[denuseri]

That's exactly right. Just because a majority of people don't hold to the AGW hypothesis doesn't mean they are right!

I think the AGW theroists are in the majority here love. lol


Most people are surprised to learn that the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round.

Not in general as a people. Certian individuals suspected it was spherical throughout human history based upon their mathematical deductions and astronomical observations at various times. A people wide consensus was never achived until quite recently historically speaking.


Cosmology deals with the origins of the universe, not with weather patterns on Earth, (oh I would beg to disagree, it covers pretty much everything in existeance...including planatary weather patterns) but the others do indeed have some input into global weather patterns. And I assume you would add Astronomy, since the largest driver of climate is the Sun. But you have to remember that Meteorologists deal primarily with relatively short-term weather patterns (they also keep track of long term repeating weather patterns...including climatic trends) , not long-term climate patterns. Geologists and Archeologists are concerned with ancient climate patterns, (evidence of which is found mainly well within their purview and gives us an excellent historical model for what the earth has been like and will perhaps be like in the future, like we have actually got confirmed geologic data that determines that in the past when the temperature rose signifigantly certian things occured on a global scale, ergo: there will be a rapid global sea rise with glacial reduction once the temperature reaches a certian threshold thanks to these non-climatologists, the climatoligists may now make such a claim with some degree of certitude ) determining what the climate was like thousands and even millions of years ago. The kinds of data they study is much different than the modern data a Climatologist would study. While this kind of data is important for determining climatological trends, it has little bearing on modern data being gathered. Modern climatology has no leg to stand on without the others contributions to back them up.

Actually, I doubt Astronomers care one way or another which hypothesis is correct. (with the deccan taps debate over dinosuar extinction?...oh my, Ive seen them throw things during some debates and lectures over it, they not only clung adamantly to the single asteriod theory to the exclussion of all others as the sole cuase of the dinosuars end, they exerted whatever political pressure they could through the media and academic administrations to attempt to quash all other theories...such rows have been quite common in the scientific comunity in the past and I dont see the climate debate as being any different) The Chicxulub asteroid is of interest to them, and I suppose to some extent its effects, but as to whether this event or the Deccan Traps event were the primary cause of the extinctions is of little concern to them. Biologists, on the other hand, are indeed discussing the two events, trying to determine which was the cause of the extinctions, or if both played a role. Personally, I would speculate (and it is just speculation on my part) that the asteroid impact may have initiated the volcanic activity which created the Deccan Traps. After all, they say that the large earthquake which caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami made the Earth "ring like a bell" and actually changed the rotational speed of the planet. I would think that an impact on the order of the Chicxulub asteroid would have done far worse. (actually they allready came to a moderate amount of consensus on it as one having very little to do with the other, especially since the majority of the volcanic activity took place before the impact...the dinosuars were allready well into decline yet both things killed them in a way..like a one two punch, the rapid climate change from the impact was just the finnishing blow)


I think the problem with this whole debate is that we are getting far to much input from the politicians and the talk show wackos (of all stripes) and far too little from the scientists. What we need is a popular, respected, erudite (group of) scientist (s) who can explain these things in terms the average person can understand. Someone like Carl Sagan, perhaps. The problem is that the impact of global warming is so widespread that the politicians just can't keep out of it. And as we all know, the politicians will fall onto the side of an issue which will insure their continued reelection and a continuous flow of income. Currently, denying global warming is what meets those criteria.

You may have noticed it goes both ways in the media driven political spectrum, denying it appeals to one side, and supporting it at all costs to the other.

Polarization of the issue between the democrats and republicans as portrayed by the talking heads is supposabely being divided strictly down party lines...which is hardely the reality of it.

[Thorne]

You may have noticed it goes both ways in the media driven political spectrum, denying it appeals to one side, and supporting it at all costs to the other.

Now see? That term, "supporting it at all costs" makes supporters sound like raving lunatics who are unable to let go of their pet theory. Yet they are not the ones calling for their opponents to be flogged, or hanged, or imprisoned. For my own case, all I ask is that someone provide tangible, verifiable evidence to support their claims. I've seen plenty of it from the AGW proponents. I've seen damned little of it from the deniers.

Polarization of the issue between the democrats and republicans as portrayed by the talking heads is supposabely being divided strictly down party lines...which is hardely the reality of it.

That's not surprising. The American people as a whole can't be neatly divided down party lines. There are some hard-core right wing nuts and some hard-core left wing nuts. But the majority of people lie somewhere in the middle. Trapped between the wingnuts.

[DuncanONeil]

Did you not see the links from Steelish?

Whish I could find the material that Moncton presented. It was quite interesting!

Now see? That term, "supporting it at all costs" makes supporters sound like raving lunatics who are unable to let go of their pet theory. Yet they are not the ones calling for their opponents to be flogged, or hanged, or imprisoned. For my own case, all I ask is that someone provide tangible, verifiable evidence to support their claims. I've seen plenty of it from the AGW proponents. I've seen damned little of it from the deniers.


That's not surprising. The American people as a whole can't be neatly divided down party lines. There are some hard-core right wing nuts and some hard-core left wing nuts. But the majority of people lie somewhere in the middle. Trapped between the wingnuts.

[DuncanONeil]

You may have noticed it goes both ways in the media driven political spectrum, denying it appeals to one side, and supporting it at all costs to the other.

Polarization of the issue between the democrats and republicans as portrayed by the talking heads is supposabely being divided strictly down party lines...which is hardely the reality of it.

I think it is the "all costs" that marks the real difference between the groups. With "all costs" belong to the majority of AGW proponents. Who may have Steven Colbert as their prime news source!

[DuncanONeil]

"I think the problem with this whole debate is that we are getting far to much input from the politicians and the talk show wackos (of all stripes) and far too little from the scientists. What we need is a popular, respected, erudite scientist who can explain these things in terms the average person can understand. Someone like Carl Sagan, perhaps. The problem is that the impact of global warming is so widespread that the politicians just can't keep out of it. And as we all know, the politicians will fall onto the side of an issue which will insure their continued reelection and a continuous flow of income. Currently, denying global warming is what meets those criteria. "

Hear ! Hear!

[denuseri]

Even with interspaced cooling periods the overall trend in the climatoligists data sugests a series of ever increasing high average temperature spikes of increasing duration and intensity to be occuring in recent history.

Geological findings have told us what extremes in atmospheric composition and temperature the planet has previously experienced as well as various durations of each and can provide workable models for possible effects postulated climate changes can mean for us and our posterity.

Where as meterological data apears to be sugesting something else entirely at present.

That warming is and has been occuring isnt nessesarally in question in my book.

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

[steelish]

Even with interspaced cooling periods the overall trend in the climatoligists data sugests a series of ever increasing high average temperature spikes of increasing duration and intensity to be occuring in recent history.

Geological findings have told us what extremes in atmospheric composition and temperature the planet has previously experienced as well as various durations of each and can provide workable models for possible effects postulated climate changes can mean for us and our posterity.

Where as meterological data apears to be sugesting something else entirely at present.

That warming is and has been occuring isnt nessesarally in question in my book.

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

And that is exactly how I feel as well.

That being said, I find it reprehensible that our government is using this platform as a way to "redistribute" the wealth. Many Americans, who are Socialist by nature, think this is a great idea and believe this is a way to pull third world countries "up". This won't happen. What will happen is America will be brought "down" a level or two towards the third world country level.

[DuncanONeil]

And that is exactly how I feel as well.

That being said, I find it reprehensible that our government is using this platform as a way to "redistribute" the wealth. Many Americans, who are Socialist by nature, think this is a great idea and believe this is a way to pull third world countries "up". This won't happen. What will happen is America will be brought "down" a level or two towards the third world country level.

"(A)s a way to "redistribute" the wealth", like Al Gore!!

[steelish]

"(A)s a way to "redistribute" the wealth", like Al Gore!!

Yes. Al Gore, Barak Obama, John Holdren, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Harry Reid and many, many more

[Thorne]

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

I'll go along with you here. I also don't think there's enough evidence to say we are the sole cause. The problem is far too complex to say that. There are things we still don't know about the climate and what effects certain things have upon it.

But I also feel that the evidence FOR global warming is strong, and the evidence that our CO2 emissions are adding to the problem is just as strong. Doing something about that is in all of our interests. Letting governments take the lead, though, is suicidal.

[DuncanONeil]

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

And even before it became politically popular to jump on this particular band wagon, not to mention gravy train, people were working hard on alternative energy means.
The Government rather than actually investing in these people are simply stamping their collective foot and saying you WILL use less of whatever I tell you because I know what is best!
Never mind that I know nothing of the subject! (i.e. 7,000,000 degrees at the Earth's core)

[denuseri]

Just when we had allmost reached a consensus of sorts in a forum thread....sighs.

[leo9]

Oh, and here's a funny thing. You know when people say "Yes, OK, the deniers are funded by the oil industry, but who funds the environmentalists, eh? Tell us that?"

Here's the answer, and it's not what you expected...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-1978770.html

[denuseri]

I allways said that the politicans were owned by the corperations...looks like the enviromental activists and scientists have been bought off as well.

[Thorne]

I allways said that the politicans were owned by the corperations...looks like the enviromental activists and scientists have been bought off as well.

It's because they are all people. <sigh> Well, sooner or later the insects are going to take over the planet anyway.

[steelish]

Emerald Cities Collaborative
The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) describes itself as a “start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials.” The group’s goal is to make metropolitan areas green. Members sitting on the board of directors include representatives from Green for All (Van Jones co-founded), SEIU, AFL-CIO, Goldman Sachs and Enterprise Community Partners.


Al Gore
Al Gore’s main claim to fame is his role in our nation’s history, as Vice President of United States. Prior to his role in the White House, Gore served eight years in the US House of Representatives, and two terms as a U.S. Senator. In more recent times his environmental activism has made him a proponent of spreading the green way of life. His movie, An Inconvenient Truth, warned people of the serious dangers of global warming, climate change and the future of our Earth. Critics have noted several significant errors in his movie ranging from, the drowning of polar bears to the melting of snow on Kilimanjaro and drying of Lake Chad. As the Chairman of the Board for the Alliance for Climate Protection, his lifestyle is not always representative of a greener good. Under speculation for years, he’s been given the nickname “carbon billionaire” for making money off his preaching of carbon emissions into the environment. Gore is also the co-founder of the private investment firm, Generation Investment Management. He holds an undergraduate degree in government from Harvard University .

Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs is a publicly held global investment banking and securities firm. Unlike a traditional bank, Goldman connects investors and money to the businesses and governments in need of it. In 2006, Goldman Sachs purchased a 10% stake in Climate Exchange, PLC.

The Joyce Foundation
A private U.S. foundation which provides funding and support to initiatives focusing on education, environment, and employment in the Great Lakes region. The Joyce Foundation was established in 1948 by Beatrice Joyce Kean of Chicago. Since its inception the Foundation has made grants of more than $600 million. Some of those grants include $1.1 million to Richard Sandor in 2000-2001 to create the Chicago Climate Exchange; $175,000 in 2008 to the Tides Center for the Apollo Alliance; and $200,000 in 2009 to Enterprise Community Partners to launch the Emerald Cities Collaborative.
Former Board of Directors’ members include President Barack Obama (1994-2002) and Valerie Jarrett (2003-

President Barack Obama
Barack H. Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008, and sworn in on January 20, 2009. Before becoming President, he served four short years in the U.S. Senate. He cut his political teeth as an Illinois State Senator from 1997-2004. Active in the Chicago community, he served on the board of the progressive Joyce Foundation from 1994-2002. The future President was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review and received his undergraduate degree from Columbia University in 1983. The son of black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, he was mainly raised by his grandmother in Hawaii. His father wrote of socialist policies as an economist for the Kenyan government, while his mother identified with Marxism.

Richard Sandor
Richard Sandor is the Chairman and founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the only voluntary trading system of greenhouse gases in North America. He also serves as Chariman of the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE) and Executive Chairman of Climate Exchange, PLC.
Sandor is also a research professor at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University where he teaches environmental finance. He’s the former Chairman of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) Clean Air Committee and vice president and chief economist of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).

Chicago Climate Exchange
A U.S. corporation, the CCX is the only trading system for greenhouse gases in North America. The idea of Chairman & CEO Richard Sandor, CCX was created through $1.1 million in grants from the Joyce Foundation. It’s trading officially launched in 2003. Since then, the CCX has grown to include 300 members worldwide. CCX, along with the European Climate Exchange (ECX) and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFX) were operated by Climate Exchange, PLC until April 2010 when the company was sold to Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) for $606 million.

Climate Exchange, PLC
Climate Exchange (CLE) is a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange. Its three core businesses are the European Climate Exchange (ECX), Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFX). The company is also developing in China, Canada and Australia. CLE was sold to InterContinental Exchange (ICE) in April 2010 for $606 million. ICE previously held a 4.79% stake in CLE.

InterContinental Exchange
InterContinental Echange (ICE) is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. Based in Atlanta, ICE operates trading platforms and clearing houses globally for agricultural, credit, currency, emissions and energy markets. Established in 2000, the company’s goal was to “transform OTC energy markets by providing an open, accessible, around-the-clock electronic energy marketplace to a previously fragmented and opaque market.”

Generation Investment Management (GIM)
Generation is a privately owned investment company with offices in London and New York. The company invests in global, public entities with an emphasis on climate. The firm was co-founded in 2004 by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. GIM had a 2.98% stake in Climate Exchange, PLC, which operated the Chicago Climate Exchange. InterContinental Exchange (ICE) purchased Climate Exchange, PLC in April 2010 for $606 million.

David Blood
Along with Gore, David Blood co-founded Generation Investment Management and acts as the firm’s Senior Partner. Blood is the former co-CEO and CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. After growing up in Brazil, he graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Hamilton College and an M.B.A. from the Harvard Graduate School of Business.

Franklin Raines
The disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO resigned in 2004 amid a SEC investigation into the company’s accounting practices. Raines inflated earnings, costing the company about $9 billion. Despite his actions, he walked away making close to $90 million in pay and stock during his 5 years at the company. A year after his resignation, a U.S. patent was approved for a “System and method for residential emissions trading.” Both Raines and Fannie Mae were named on the patent. Raines currently sits on the board of trustees of Enterprise Community Partners. He formerly served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1996-1998 during the Clinton Administration.

Fannie Mae
Fannie Mae is a government sponsored company that was created by Congress in 1983. It works with mortgage brokers to create “affordable” mortgages for home owners. Since 2008, Fannie Mae has received $137 billion in federal aid. The Treasury Department has agreed to fund Fannie Mae through 2012. Its brother company is Freddie Mac.

Enterprise Community Partners
Enterprise is a private company dedicated to helping individuals and families find affordable homes. Enterprise claims to have the first national green building program specializing in affordable housing. The Enterprise Green Communities’ goal is “to fundamentally transform the way we think about, design and build affordable homes” by providing funding and technical assistance to developers to create low-income housing which is environmentally friendly. It’s also an advocate for federal policy on affordable housing and community development.

Emerald Cities Collaborative
The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) describes itself as a “start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials.” The group’s goal is to make metropolitan areas green.

Joel Rogers
Joel Rogers is the man behind the curtain. Well known throughout the world of political activism, he’s practically a stranger to the public . His main causes revolve around the redistribution of wealth through a green society. The University of Wisconsin professor is the creator of the Apollo Alliance, dedicated to the promotion of clean energy and the creation of green-collared jobs. Championed by John Sweeney, Andy Stern and Van Jones, Rogers also serves on the board of Emerald Cities Collaborative and acts as the director of COWS. Additionally, he’s a senior policy adviser to Green for All, a group under the wing of Van Jones. Rogers co-founded the now defunct New Party, a progressive political party started in the early 1990s which was sympathetic to the advancement of labor unions. The party dissolved in 1997 and was reinvented a year later as the Working Families Party. Rogers’ wife, Sarah Siskind, a partner at the law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, defended Acorn in 2002.

Apollo Alliance
Inspired by the Apollo space program, the alliance is made up of business and community leaders looking to “catalyze a clean energy revolution.” The Alliance created the “New Apollo Program,” an economic plan of its priorities including a “cap and invest” program to reduce carbon emissions. The Program claims it will generate and invest $500 billion into the economy over the span of ten years. The Alliance released its program to coincide with the Obama Administration’s call for a stimulus plan. Because of this, the Alliance is said to have strongly shaped the $787 billion Stimulus Plan in 2009. The Apollo Alliance is a project of George Soros’ non-profit Tides Center. The Apollo Alliance is also the group who authored the Stimulus Package.

Green for All
Green for All is a national organization dedicated to breaking the cycle of poverty through a green economy. It works alongside government, grassroots and labor organizations to increase job opportunities in green industry. Green for All was co-founded by former White House Environmental Adviser Van Jones.

[steelish]

In January of this year, there was yet another scandal with the IPCC, the climate arm of the UN. It seems they were sourcing the imminent melting of glaciers to an off handed comment in a phone conversation, NOT peer reviewed science.

At the time, the head of the IPCC Rajendra K. Pachauri said “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago.” Unfortunately for him, it’s now been revealed he was actually told about it months earlier, reportedly in November.

This was before Copenhagen, and in the midst of the breaking Climategate scandal, and the IPCC couldn’t afford yet another mark on their record at such a crucial time. Is this why they didn’t talk about the problems with their glacier sourcing back then? The IPCC denies this, of course, but were they subtly tipping their hand?

Yet another climategate?

11/26/09: IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

12/04/09: IPCC relies mainly on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

The discrepancy goes back to November 26th, 2009. In their attempt to blow off Climategate, IPCC head Pachauri released this statement, printed on the New York Times website. It’s basically what you’d expect—for example:

It is unfortunate that an illegal act of accessing private email communications between scientists who have been involved as authors in I.P.C.C. assessments in the past has led to several questions and concerns. It is important for me to clarify that the I.P.C.C. as a body follows impartial, open and objective assessment of every aspect of climate change carried out with complete transparency.

But the next line was key:

IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

However, go to the IPCC website today, and you’ll find a link to the exact same 418 word statement, but with one difference.

IPCC relies mainly on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

Strangely enough, the new document with the change from “entirely” to “mainly” was uploaded 8 days after the original. What happened here? Is this some sort of mistake? Did the Times just screw it up? Or was it an intentional change to hide the reports lack of peer review? Those who follow how much the IPCC, its supporters, and people like Al Gore know how often they tout their peer review purity.

To review:

On 11-26-2009 NY Times: "IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature..."
On 12-4-2009 IPCC website: "IPCC relies mainly on peer reviewed literature..."

So, did they change this knowing what was coming with Glaciergate?

Or perhaps they knew about even more. Now we learn the UK Telegraph has found two additional newly discovered sourcing debacles. The IPCC claims about melting ice in the Alps, the Andes, and in Africa come not from peer reviewed scientific literature—but from Climbing Magazine.

It’s sort of like “Runners World” for mountain climbing. Amazingly, that’s the better of the two sources. The other source was –I kid you not---a student dissertation --written by a climate change activist ----while he was studying for a degree…in GEOGRAPHY.

And…now…another: “A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.”

While all of this is going on, the head of the IPCC isn’t resigning---he’s releasing an explicit romance novel. Not kidding.

What is going on here? And why are papers in the UK the only ones reporting on it?

[Thorne]

What is going on here? And why are papers in the UK the only ones reporting on it?

Good questions! And disturbing reports. If these allegations are true it will likely deal a death blow to the IPCC's credibility, and justly so. IF they are true.

The change from "entirely" to "mainly" does not bother me, barring any evidence of deliberate lies. It's quite possible that whoever wrote the report changed it after learning that it was inaccurate. The change coming before anyone else found out about these other reports leans in that direction at least, barring any other evidence.

But the idea of relying on unsubstantiated reports from non-professional witnesses and anecdotal evidence flies in the face of the scientific method, and these allegations must be investigated fully and quickly.

Even if the allegations are true, I still don't think this is a back-breaker for Global Warming, but perhaps it will make governments around the world pull back on stupid and probably ineffective legislation about it.

[Ultraprene]

Actually, there were news stories in the US as well, including the scientific newsletters. It is true that a few of the thousands of scientists participating in the IPCC were sloppy in their methods. Shame on them. Still, their errors do not overthrow the fundamental science. There are dishonest or sloppy people in every profession but it does not mean that everything coming from that profession is false. I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.

[Thorne]

I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.

I've done thermodynamic calculations in the past, and I've measured infrared absorption, as well as UV absorption, of many compounds, including carbon dioxide. Not familiar with the Planck-Boltzmann theory, theory, though. A quick search comes up with the Fokker-Planck-Boltzmann equation, which at first blush does not appear to have any direct bearing on climate research, though it does deal with the relationship between energy and temperature. The math is way over my head.

So, does this mean it's okay for me to comment on Climate change?

[Ultraprene]

There is, of course the Milankovitch Theory of glaciation cycles but this describes long-term effects over thousands of years, not the rapid change we are observing. And the Milankovitch theory would have us in a slow cooling phase now. However, if you can document your "theory" write it up and submit it to a scientific journal. That's what the way legitimate theories are presented, not by just spouting any idea that pops into one's head without any supporting evidence. Put another way, if you want to join a scientific debate, you must do it by the accepted rules of the "game." Tell you what. If you send me your manuscript I will help you get it published. I am a member of several scientific societies with appropriate journals.

[denuseri]

Here is a recent report conserning climate change that some may find interseting:

Arctic ice is melting faster than expected and could raise the average global sea level by as much as five feet this century, an authoritative new report suggests.
The study by the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, or AMAP, is one of the most comprehensive updates on climate change in the Arctic, and builds on a similar assessment in 2005.
The full report will be delivered to foreign ministers of the eight Arctic nations next week, but an executive summary including the key findings was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.
It says that Arctic temperatures in the past six years were the highest since measurements began in 1880, and that feedback mechanisms believed to accelerate warming in the climate system have now started kicking in.
One mechanism involves the ocean absorbing more heat when it's not covered by ice, which reflects the sun's energy. That effect has been anticipated by scientists "but clear evidence for it has only been observed in the Arctic in the past five years," AMAP said.
The report also shatters some of the forecasts made in 2007 by the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change.
The cover of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, for example, is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. panel. The level of summer ice coverage has been at or near record lows every year since 2001, AMAP said, predicting that the Arctic Ocean will be nearly ice free in summer within 30-40 years.
Its assessment also said the U.N. panel was too conservative in estimating how much sea levels will rise — one of the most closely watched aspects of global warming because of the potentially catastrophic impact on coastal cities and island nations.
The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90-160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, though it noted that the estimate was highly uncertain.
That's up from a 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches (19-59 centimeters) by the U.N. panel, which didn't consider the dynamics of ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctica.
"The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns," AMAP said in the executive summary.
The organization's main function is to advise the nations surrounding the Arctic — the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland — on threats to the Arctic environment.
The findings of its report — Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic — will be discussed by some of the scientists who helped compile it at a conference starting Wednesday in the Danish capital, Copenhagen.
In the past few years, scientists have steadily improved ways of measuring the loss of ice into the oceans.
In research reported in March in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, U.S. and European scientists used two independent methods to corroborate their findings: the on-the-ground measurement of ice thickness and movements using GPS stations and other tools, and the measurement of ice mass through gravity readings from satellites.
That team, led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, projected that the accelerating melt of the vast Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would itself raise sea levels by about 6 inches (15 centimeters) by 2050. Adding in other factors — expansion of the oceans from warming and runoff from other glaciers worldwide — would raise sea levels a total of some 13 inches (32 centimeters) by 2050, they said.
They did not project sea levels to 2100 because of long-range uncertainties.

Currents, winds and other forces would make sea-level rise vary globally, but Bangladesh, Florida and other such low-lying areas and coastal cities worldwide would be hard hit.
The AMAP report said melting glaciers and ice sheets worldwide have become the biggest contributor to sea level rise. Greenland's ice sheet alone accounted for more than 40 percent of the 0.12 inches (3.1 millimeters) of sea-level rise observed annually between 2003 and 2008, AMAP said.
It said the yearly mass loss from Greenland's ice sheet, which covers an area the size of Mexico, increased from 50 gigatons in 1995-2000 to more than 200 gigatons in 2004-2008. Scientists are still debating how much of the changes observed in the Arctic are due to natural variances and how much to warming caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. AMAP projected that average fall and winter temperatures in the Arctic will climb by 5.4-10.8 F (3-6 C) by 2080, even if greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in the past decade.

[Thorne]

And all the deniers will see in this report is this comment:

Scientists are still debating how much of the changes observed in the Arctic are due to natural variances and how much to warming caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

And they will say, "See? Even the experts admit they don't know, therefore there is no global warming!"

Nice post, denuseri. Maybe there are still a few ultra-right-wingers out there who will see this and realize that they were wrong all along.

I won't hold my breath.

[denuseri]

Im actually begining to change my former views conserning the reasons for the current global warming cycle that appears to be happening as well.

Though the topic is highly politicalized however I do not see it as a right/left issue.

More and more I am starting to think that assertations of a causuality directly in whole or in part as result of human beings effect on our enviroment may hold more wieght than I was previously willing to commit too.
Im also starting to think that the majority of the claims made against this is generated by those whose primary intrests isnt saving the world for our posterity so much as squeezing every last bit of profit out of the ground despite all information pointing to that being the wrong way to go.

[Thorne]

More and more I am starting to think that assertations of a causuality directly in whole or in part as result of human beings effect on our enviroment may hold more wieght than I was previously willing to commit too.

Welcome to the club. I was the same way. It was obvious to me that warming was taking place, but not so obvious that humans were the cause. I've had to change my mind as well. There's just too much evidence to deny it.

[IAN 2411]

I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.

I know damn all about the Plank-Boltzmann theory or how to do thermodynamic, but that doesn’t mean I’m thick or stupid. I don’t think we have had a person on this site that has blatantly put himself and his encyclopaedia intelligence over everyone that has an opinion. Don’t accuse people of running off at the mouth if you are doing that very thing, you don’t score points in these threads by telling everyone how good and clever you think you are and how stupid everyone else is.

And one other point I would like to mention the Plank-Boltzmann theory and the Milankovitch theory are as you say, just theories. It is probably for that reason that I have never bothered to read it or find out about it. Scientists that are paid thousands of $/£ of tax payers money, and then think it is ok to come out of the woodwork after X amount of years with a theory should be sent to prison as frauds. I listen and look at facts not the ramblings of fools trying to justify their few years sitting on their ass in the Caribbean.

I look out the window on the end of April beginning of May three weeks and I cannot remember in the last 50 years when there has been a spring as hot as this, that is not the IAN 2411 theory, it is a fact. Although I have a theory that this summer is going to be hot in the UK and the winter once again cold, it don’t matter if I am wrong because it is only a theory and not to be taken seriously. In other words you don’t have to be a scientist to come out with a theory, and especially ones that are full of crap. Everyone is intitled to their opinion and theory.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

And one other point I would like to mention the Plank-Boltzmann theory and the Milankovitch theory are as you say, just theories. It is probably for that reason that I have never bothered to read it or find out about it.

Well, the next time you want to trust yourself in a high-rise building or on a bridge, you just might want to read up on engineering theory. Or at least hope that the guy who designed them knew about it.

A scientific theory is about as close to absolute truth as you can get. Like the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution, the theory of climate change has undergone rigorous scientific scrutiny which proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that it describes the facts. The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming might be still up in the air (though it's looking more and more likely), but the fact is that the climate IS changing, and in a way that may not be good for humanity.

Scientists that are paid thousands of $/£ of tax payers money, and then think it is ok to come out of the woodwork after X amount of years with a theory should be sent to prison as frauds. I listen and look at facts not the ramblings of fools trying to justify their few years sitting on their ass in the Caribbean.

Then I suggest you look at the facts, instead of listening to fools on the TV or radio who take in millions of dollars to spout nonsense.

I look out the window on the end of April beginning of May three weeks and I cannot remember in the last 50 years when there has been a spring as hot as this, that is not the IAN 2411 theory, it is a fact. Although I have a theory that this summer is going to be hot in the UK and the winter once again cold, it don’t matter if I am wrong because it is only a theory and not to be taken seriously. In other words you don’t have to be a scientist to come out with a theory, and especially ones that are full of crap. Everyone is intitled to their opinion and theory.

Actually, it is the IAN 2411 hypothesis, not a fact. And you are basing it on personal memories, not on facts. IF you get the relevant data, showing the actual temperatures, and these temperatures agree with your hypothesis, and IF your hypothesis makes predictions about future temperatures which are shown to be accurate, THEN it might gain the status of a theory. Right now all you have is anecdotal evidence which is about as reliable as eyewitness testimony.

Please learn the difference between Hollywood/media understanding of a theory and the actual scientific meaning of a theory.

[MrEmann]

steelish

you are 100 % correct in your view. There are many "peer reviewed" publications that show the politics of "Global climate control" are suspicious at best. There are exists enough in the scientific community that do not agree with the policy of climate change at all.

Temperatures world wide have been decreasing over the last several years. This in fact is what changed "global warming" to "global climate change". The simple fact was "global warming" couldn't stand stand in the face of decreasing temperatures, so the "doom sayers" had to , repeat HAD TO, invent "global climate change" to stay relevant.

you are also correct that in the 70s it was a new ice age that was going to kill us all. We would all be freezing to death. Now were are all going to bake to death.

Also ignored by the "regular" people that follow these trends. The ones that are so willing to believe every untruth that comes out on this subject. Those "leaders" that espouse this crap are ALL heavily invested in the going "green" economy. They will profit mightily of this comes to pass. In fact Al Gore, General Electric, etc will make profits that would make the "evil" oil companies envious. In fact pale in comparison to the record "obscene" profits that everyone seems to accuse the evil fat corporate oil companies for.

As for the destruction of this planet...IF every nuclear weapon in every arsenal were unleashed today, the planet would not be destroyed. Yeah life, as we know it would end. The planet itself would still be here. Humans simply cannot destroy this planet.

Let's not forget that just a few years ago, it was cow farts that were making greenhouse gas. Those evil damn cows just didn't give a damn about humans, or life on this planet. There were actually rudimentary devices being designed that cattle ranchers and dairy farmers were going to have to put on the livestock to recycle and clean the deadly cow farts. That would of course increased meat and dairy prices.

Not bad enough we can't seem to keep jobs in this country. Let's punish and destroy the few we have left. Let's attack with impunity every job we can. Let's tax, regulate, and control via Congress and Senate , every aspect of a free economy. Until there is not longer a free economy. Yeah that will work in our favor.

The American way of life is under attack every day form this kind of bullshit.

There is not one concrete piece of evidence that proves the threat of "global climate change", but hey we better address this now. BEFORE it's too late.

"The sky is falling. The sky is falling." Seems I have read this story before.

[Thorne]

you are 100 % correct in your view. There are many "peer reviewed" publications that show the politics of "Global climate control" are suspicious at best.

The politics of ANYTHING are suspicious at best. That's because politicians are more interested in the next election than in the truth.

There are exists enough in the scientific community that do not agree with the policy of climate change at all.

And how many of these are actually climate scientists? Very few, in point of fact. And most of the controversy is not in whether climate change is occurring as in what is causing it. Would you accept the opinions of a TV weatherman regarding your recent X-rays, or would you prefer to see a real doctor? Why is it, then, that people are more willing to accept the opinions of astrologers on global climate change over those of actual climatologists?

Temperatures world wide have been decreasing over the last several years. This in fact is what changed "global warming" to "global climate change".

You are quite correct. This is exactly what has been happening. That's because climate is a complex system built of complex systems. Temperatures tend to go up and down cyclically. The problem is that the temperatures at the peak of the cycle have been getting slowly higher, while those at the trough of the cycle have not been getting as low as previous troughs. The trend is constantly upward.

you are also correct that in the 70s it was a new ice age that was going to kill us all. We would all be freezing to death. Now were are all going to bake to death.

And this is why climate hypotheses had to undergo revisions before eventually becoming climate theories. And most of that hoopla in the 70's was actually caused by media misunderstanding of actual claims. As has been happening recently, there was a decline in global temperatures during the 70's, and some media hack(s) misrepresented much of the science.

Those "leaders" that espouse this crap are ALL heavily invested in the going "green" economy. They will profit mightily of this comes to pass. In fact Al Gore, General Electric, etc will make profits that would make the "evil" oil companies envious. In fact pale in comparison to the record "obscene" profits that everyone seems to accuse the evil fat corporate oil companies for.

Which is another good reason for NOT paying much attention to political, media and industrial leaders and listening to scientists instead.

As for the destruction of this planet...IF every nuclear weapon in every arsenal were unleashed today, the planet would not be destroyed. Yeah life, as we know it would end. The planet itself would still be here. Humans simply cannot destroy this planet.

It's just as unlikely that humanity could destroy all life on the planet. We might destroy ourselves, though, or at least our civilization. It's possible we could reduce the human population to the point where we would become extinct. More likely, though, we will continue to evolve, becoming a different species altogether eventually.

Not bad enough we can't seem to keep jobs in this country. Let's punish and destroy the few we have left. Let's attack with impunity every job we can. Let's tax, regulate, and control via Congress and Senate , every aspect of a free economy. Until there is not longer a free economy. Yeah that will work in our favor.

While all this might be true, it has absolutely nothing to do with the SCIENCE of climate change. Only with the politics.

There is not one concrete piece of evidence that proves the threat of "global climate change", but hey we better address this now. BEFORE it's too late.

There are literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence which, when taken together, all point to gradually increasing global temperatures. Whether anything we do can actually help is a different story. My personal opinion is that it's too late for anything we do to make a significant difference.

"The sky is falling. The sky is falling." Seems I have read this story before.

Climate change has happened in the past and will undoubtedly happen in the future. It would be silly of us to dismiss the possibility that it could be happening now, especially when there is so much evidence to show that it IS happening now, and at an unprecedented rate. Whether or not humanity has caused it, it is happening. And human activity is certainly not helping to minimize the effects. Maybe there is nothing we can do to stop it. Especially if actually doing something would cause us any inconvenience. That would just be TOO much to ask, wouldn't it?

[MrEmann]

The politics of ANYTHING are suspicious at best. That's because politicians are more interested in the next election than in the truth.

And of course no politician or administration is above coercing an organization into giving the results it wants. I suggest you look into how NASA was on the verge of losing funding, until the jumped on the global climate change issue. Politicians hold the purse strings, and those that want money fall in line with what is expected.

And how many of these are actually climate scientists? Very few, in point of fact. And most of the controversy is not in whether climate change is occurring as in what is causing it. Would you accept the opinions of a TV weatherman regarding your recent X-rays, or would you prefer to see a real doctor? Why is it, then, that people are more willing to accept the opinions of astrologers on global climate change over those of actual climatologists?

I am referring to climatologists. There are just as many that do not believe in global climate change as there are that do. Big difference those that disagree are impartial and receive zero government funding. Those that espouse global climate change either are funded by the government OR funded by corporations that are heavily invested in "going green"

You are quite correct. This is exactly what has been happening. That's because climate is a complex system built of complex systems. Temperatures tend to go up and down cyclically. The problem is that the temperatures at the peak of the cycle have been getting slowly higher, while those at the trough of the cycle have not been getting as low as previous troughs. The trend is constantly upward.

Again, this depends largely on whose study one is reading and quoting.

And this is why climate hypotheses had to undergo revisions before eventually becoming climate theories. And most of that hoopla in the 70's was actually caused by media misunderstanding of actual claims. As has been happening recently, there was a decline in global temperatures during the 70's, and some media hack(s) misrepresented much of the science.

Of course we all know that all current data is beyond reproach. Not one of the global climate crowd has been caught in a lie. Everything in Al Gore's book, and the movie based on the book is all true. Never ever been called into question.

Which is another good reason for NOT paying much attention to political, media and industrial leaders and listening to scientists instead.

Again I say the scientists that agree with global climate change are in the pocket(s) of politicians, media, and industrial leaders. This is easily verifiable.

It's just as unlikely that humanity could destroy all life on the planet. We might destroy ourselves, though, or at least our civilization. It's possible we could reduce the human population to the point where we would become extinct. More likely, though, we will continue to evolve, becoming a different species altogether eventually.

I never said we would destroy humanity. There were survivors in Japan. There would be survivors no doubt. As for evolving...All I can say is perhaps your ancestors came from apes or other life forms. Mine did not. We could argue all day about that I am sure. I believe evolution is a myth at best.

While all this might be true, it has absolutely nothing to do with the SCIENCE of climate change. Only with the politics.

The ENTIRE point of view on global climate control IS political. It's a way to regulate the United States, pick Our pockets more. Make us responsible for the world. How come NO ONE says jack shit about China. A Place that is so polluted, the Christian Bale couldn't even swim in Shang Hai harbor. Let's ALL go green. When China commits, then let's talk about the USA following Before any one wonders what the China think is all about. They have not agreed to any treaty on "global climate change". But dammit let's cripple America more, lose more American jobs, and gain nothing. Except a much poorer country.

There are literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence which, when taken together, all point to gradually increasing global temperatures. Whether anything we do can actually help is a different story. My personal opinion is that it's too late for anything we do to make a significant difference.

Not to beat the proverbial dead horse here. Many many many of these "pieces of evidence" come with their own questions. Many of them have been proven to be false. Or based upon false information. Some have even been completely made up. Of course this all falls on deaf ears.

Climate change has happened in the past and will undoubtedly happen in the future. It would be silly of us to dismiss the possibility that it could be happening now, especially when there is so much evidence to show that it IS happening now, and at an unprecedented rate. Whether or not humanity has caused it, it is happening. And human activity is certainly not helping to minimize the effects. Maybe there is nothing we can do to stop it. Especially if actually doing something would cause us any inconvenience. That would just be TOO much to ask, wouldn't it?

Humanity has not caused this. Given up all the comforts we have will not change it. Electric cars still use fossil fuels. We need to burn coal to power the plants that make electricity. Those little curly q light bulbs are going to become a pain in the ass. They are filled with mercury. As soon as there are no incandescent light bulbs left to be purchased see how long it takes until there is a Federal agency to deal with disposing those little bastards. So apparently it is just peachy keen fine if the Government tells each and every American citizen what kind of light bulbs they can have in their homes. What's next? The Light bulb police?