NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14365061/

Good article, because it contains a balanced level of caveats and rebuttals to said caveats. Also it directs the reader as to where to see the original research.

Recent studies have linked rising sea surface temperatures, or SSTs, in the Atlantic Ocean to climate change caused by human activities. Warmer SST's means the ocean is capable of storing more energy — energy that is converted into wind power during tropical storms.

However, other scientists blame a decades-long natural variation in ocean temperature, called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO, for the rising SST trend.

Both camps agree that rising SSTs are contributing to increasing hurricane strength, but until now, the connection between air temperature and SST was unclear. Do rising atmospheric temperatures cause sea surface temperatures to rise? Or is it the other way around?

Now, James Elsner, director of the Hurricane Center at Florida State University, says he has broken the deadlock using a statistical test that determines causality. His conclusion: that a warming atmosphere is raising sea surface temperatures, causing hurricanes to become stronger.

Elsner's finding is detailed in the current issue of the journal Geophysical Letters.

However, the reliability of such tropical cyclone databases was recently questioned by a group of scientists that included hurricane specialist Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida.

Landsea cited changes in satellite technology in recent decades, differences in operational standards at tracking stations around the world and gaps in official records as reasons to question the use of cyclone databases for evaluating hurricane strengths over long periods of time.

Elsner says these problems do not apply to his study because he looked at year-to-year variations instead of trends over several years.

"The trend analysis is more susceptible to the changes in instrument records than is the type of regression analysis that I did," he said.

ANd just for the heck of it, an explanation as to how small changes in CO2 levels can have large effects and how small temperature variantions can produce dramatic climate change.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/askexpert_question.cfm?chanID=sa012&articleID=000F22D3-EBEF-14C0-AB7083414B7F4945

1. The 2006 Hurricane season has been downgraded to only 7 to 9. If global warming was truly a man-made fault, the hurricanes would get worse EVERY season. http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/hurricane_guide.html


2. The story does not put 2005 in context to the period of strong hurricane seasons in the 1940s and 1950s.
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_051027_hurricane_history.html

3. The most hurricanes to strike in one year were six in 1916 and 1985. There were five in 1933, and four in 1906, 1909, and 1964.
http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/Hurricanes.htm
...was global warming doing more damage/causing more hurricanes in 1916 and 1906 than 2006?!?
For that matter, the number of storms in 2005 is STILL less than the record 1950 season. Was global warming worse then?

4. According to The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1900-2000 only 28 of the listed 65 events occurred since 1950. The Deadliest, Costliest, And Most Intense United States Hurricanes From 1900 To 2000 (And Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts) indicates that fully half the years when no hurricanes struck mainland U.S. are after 1950 (10 of 19).
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table4.htm


...was 2005 a banner year for hurricanes? Sure.
Is Al Gore's movie grounded in reality? Nope.

I think it's worse - for earthquakes, volcanoes blowing up, typhoons, cyclones, and strange weather. Flipping most of cyclones in my area are now Cat 4 or 5, not 2 or 3 as they used to be.

I think it's worse - for earthquakes, volcanoes blowing up, typhoons, cyclones, and strange weather. Flipping most of cyclones in my area are now Cat 4 or 5, not 2 or 3 as they used to be.

The only thing different these days is that we have 24 hour cable/satellite news coverage.

...was 2005 a banner year for hurricanes? Sure.
Is Al Gore's movie grounded in reality? Nope.
What's he got to do with it?

The only thing different these days is that we have 24 hour cable/satellite news coverage.

Last "cyclone" season, a superstrong Cat 5 (I'd say Cat 6) came close to my city. Lucky it died before causing trouble but I don't want more of those around.

My city has been wiped out by a Cat 5 Cyclone in 1973 (might have been stronger but the measuring equipment got trashed).

What's he got to do with it?

Have you seen the movie? It's the Oliver Stone treatment of the Environment, and has been widely panned by the scientific community.

Last "cyclone" season, a superstrong Cat 5 (I'd say Cat 6) came close to my city. Lucky it died before causing trouble but I don't want more of those around.

My city has been wiped out by a Cat 5 Cyclone in 1973 (might have been stronger but the measuring equipment got trashed).

Where do you live? Is it in a high risk area for this sort of thing?

If this issue feels close to you, then you might just understand how I (and many New Yorkers) feel about terrorism.

Have you seen the movie? It's the Oliver Stone treatment of the Environment, and has been widely panned by the scientific community.
Haven't seen it, or formed an opinion on it. I was wondering what he had to do with this thread, did he use these statistics in his movie or something? Was just wondering why you brought him up.:) n/m

Haven't seen it, or formed an opinion on it. I was wondering what he had to do with this thread, did he use these statistics in his movie or something? Was just wondering why you brought him up.:) n/m

I actually saw the thing. Painful to watch, it was.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

1. The 2006 Hurricane season has been downgraded to only 7 to 9. If global warming was truly a man-made fault, the hurricanes would get worse EVERY season. http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/hurricane_guide.html

Reading comprehension is not your friend. It did not talk about the NUMBER of hurricanes, but the STRENGTH of hurricanes. I mean, it was in the FRICKIN' TITLE after all.


2. The story does not put 2005 in context to the period of strong hurricane seasons in the 1940s and 1950s.
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_051027_hurricane_history.html

Read the article again.


3. The most hurricanes to strike in one year were six in 1916 and 1985. There were five in 1933, and four in 1906, 1909, and 1964.
http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/Hurricanes.htm
...was global warming doing more damage/causing more hurricanes in 1916 and 1906 than 2006?!?
For that matter, the number of storms in 2005 is STILL less than the record 1950 season. Was global warming worse then?

Read the article again.

4. According to The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1900-2000 only 28 of the listed 65 events occurred since 1950. The Deadliest, Costliest, And Most Intense United States Hurricanes From 1900 To 2000 (And Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts) indicates that fully half the years when no hurricanes struck mainland U.S. are after 1950 (10 of 19).
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table4.htm

This has nothing to do with cyclical weather events. It does not dispute that there are cyclical weather events. All it is doing is establishing a causal relationship between greater air temp, ocean surface temp and hurricane intensity REGARDLESS of cyclical weather patterns. This is a statistical analysis. Read the article again.


...was 2005 a banner year for hurricanes? Sure.
Is Al Gore's movie grounded in reality? Nope.

Did you kick yourself in the face when you knee-jerked like that?

Final words: Read the article again. Listen to the actual DATA contained therein. If your curiosity is noit satisfied, look inside the science journal mentioned...you clearly won't understand a thing. I barely understand most of it...but at least it will show you how woefully inept you are AT ARGUING WITH THE EXPERTS.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/gl/

I should point out that 20% of the heat that has been building up over the last 50 years, has disappeared between 2003-2005 and no one knows why according to research done by NASA in conjuction with NOAA.

Have you seen the movie? It's the Oliver Stone treatment of the Environment, and has been widely panned by the scientific community.

That's a flat out lie. But fuck Gore. He has nothing to do with this thread.

I should point out that 20% of the heat that has been building up over the last 50 years, has disappeared between 2003-2005 and no one knows why according to research done by NASA in conjuction with NOAA.

Source?

Source?

I heard it on the radio. I am trying to find a source to the journal article.

I should point out that 20% of the heat that has been building up over the last 50 years, has disappeared between 2003-2005 and no one knows why according to research done by NASA in conjuction with NOAA.

I turned on the air conditioner. :)

I heard it on the radio. I am trying to find a source to the journal article.


Here, read this article (and the links,) while you search.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/Fingerprints.html

Have you seen the movie? It's the Oliver Stone treatment of the Environment, and has been widely panned by the scientific community.
Only if by "the scientific community" you mean "people in the pocket of big oil and delusional mouth breathers who couldn't read a scientific study if it were simplified down to a single powerpoint slide." There's as little legitimate disagreement over the existence of global warming as there is over evolution.

Here, read this article (and the links,) while you search.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/Fingerprints.html

I am actually reading the study now.

1. The 2006 Hurricane season has been downgraded to only 7 to 9. If global warming was truly a man-made fault, the hurricanes would get worse EVERY season. http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/hurricane_guide.html

Reading comprehension is not your friend. It did not talk about the NUMBER of hurricanes, but the STRENGTH of hurricanes. I mean, it was in the FRICKIN' TITLE after all.

Addressed in point 4... most of the strong storms of the 20th century were BEFORE 1950!

Read the article again.

Pass, the first time was bad enough. Did you actually read the links I posted in response?

Read the article again.

Pass, the first time was bad enough. Did you actually read the links I posted in response? It seems not, since you can't actually REPLY to them. What's the matter, can't you form a rational counterpoint without being insulting?

This has nothing to do with cyclical weather events. It does not dispute that there are cyclical weather events. All it is doing is establishing a causal relationship between greater air temp, ocean surface temp and hurricane intensity. This is a statistical analysis. Read the article again.

Um, no. I understand very well what the article says. I'm saying that it is a load of crap. Read the title of my reply again.
(See how annoying that is?)

Did you kick yourself in the face when you knee-jerked like that?

Knee jerk? Ahem. Have you seen it? Have you read about the massive inaccuracies in it? It's about as grounded in science as DUNE would be a travel brochure for New Mexico! :rolleyes:

Final words: Read the article again. Listen to the actual DATA contained therein. If your curiosity is noit satisfied, look inside the science journal mentioned...you clearly won't understand a thing. I barely understand most of it...but at least it will show you how woefully inept you are AT ARGUING WITH THE EXPERTS.

My, my. Very condenscending, no replies to my counter arguements. This is why I can't take any of you "environmental alarmists" seriously: you refuse debate, you merely take the "I AM RIGHT, FUCK YOUR DATA/OPINION" mode.

I congratulate you, sir. Your debating style is as fluid and as accurate in detail as George W. Bush's foreign policy. :rolleyes:


http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/gl/

What is the purpose of that URL? It's a list of papers published.
SO WHAT? Can you explain, please what Numerical modeling of Mars dust devils: Albedo track generation or Atmospheric contribution to the dissipation of the gravitational tide of Phobos on Mars have to do what what you're talking about? :rolleyes:

But wait! By your logic Eugenics is a real science because of published papers! :headbang: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:OdNd7IKM7gsJ:www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1492/490205.pdf+published+research+papers+%2Beugenics+%2B1930

Now... can you debate the matter in civil terms, or are you just going to be an Imperious Howard Dean type? (All "we can do better" but not actual plan...).

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

The study.

After reading it, it could explain why we had numerous hurricanes last year and why there are very few so far this year. Think about it. Between 2003-2005, there have been many hurricanes of destruction. This year, we have had only three named storms with zero hurricanes so far. Highly unusual.

Only if by "the scientific community" you mean "people in the pocket of big oil and delusional mouth breathers who couldn't read a scientific study if it were simplified down to a single powerpoint slide." There's as little legitimate disagreement over the existence of global warming as there is over evolution.

Oh, I'm not debating global warming. It exists. But do humans really effect it? Good question. As of yet, I'm not convinced.

As for "pocket of big oil/delusional mouth breathers", that's more of the same fascist crap I'm used to hearing from the alarmists. If you have a different POV, they not only don't want to hear it, but here's your Scarlet A!

However, here is a pretty good synopsis of the opposing viewpoint:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

Have you seen the movie? It's the Oliver Stone treatment of the Environment, and has been widely panned by the scientific community.

That's a flat out lie. But fuck Gore. He has nothing to do with this thread.


Thank you for telling me my opinion! Tell me, were you always God, or did you grow into the role? :rolleyes:

Ok, if I'm lying: what part of the sentance do you disagree with? Are you saying that there is NO percentage of the scientific community which disagrees with any point of the film?

Addressed in point 4... most of the strong storms of the 20th century were BEFORE 1950!

So? The data shows that different causative factors were in play. Just because something happens for one reason doesn't mean it always happens for that same reason.



Pass, the first time was bad enough. Did you actually read the links I posted in response?

I've read them about a dozen times.


Pass, the first time was bad enough. Did you actually read the links I posted in response? It seems not, since you can't actually REPLY to them. What's the matter, can't you form a rational counterpoint without being insulting?

You didn't address the data contained in the article. Why should I adddress the oft debunked ravings of junkscience?


Um, no. I understand very well what the article says. I'm saying that it is a load of crap. Read the title of my reply again.
(See how annoying that is?)

What do you base that on? Problems with the data set? Those problems are addressed in the article? Problems with the conclusion? All you cried was "well, it happened before, so it must be natural!" which is an entirely specious argument.


Knee jerk? Ahem. Have you seen it? Have you read about the massive inaccuracies in it? It's about as grounded in science as DUNE would be a travel brochure for New Mexico! :rolleyes:

Source? From a peer reviewed journal?

My, my. Very condenscending, no replies to my counter arguements. This is why I can't take any of you "environmental alarmists" seriously: you refuse debate, you merely take the "I AM RIGHT, FUCK YOUR DATA/OPINION" mode.

What data? All you do is parrot the same tired arguemnts in the face of ever-mounting evidence.

I congratulate you, sir. Your debating style is as fluid and as accurate in detail as George W. Bush's foreign policy. :rolleyes:

That was almost funny.


What is the purpose of that URL? It's a list of papers published.
SO WHAT? Can you explain, please what Numerical modeling of Mars dust devils: Albedo track generation or Atmospheric contribution to the dissipation of the gravitational tide of Phobos on Mars have to do what what you're talking about? :rolleyes:

It;s climate science. It's all related. It uses all the same physics/mathematics/theories.

But wait! By your logic Eugenics is a real science because of published papers! :headbang: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:OdNd7IKM7gsJ:www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1492/490205.pdf+published+research+papers+%2Beugenics+%2B1930

Can you identify where I said that?

Now... can you debate the matter in civil terms, or are you just going to be an Imperious Howard Dean type? (All "we can do better" but not actual plan...).

Let's see. Al Gore...Howard Dean...are they climatologists? Experts in the field? No. I'm only referencing climatologists here. In my first post, I even made sure to highlight the caveats. Have you done the same?

Thank you for telling me my opinion! Tell me, were you always God, or did you grow into the role? :rolleyes:

Ok, if I'm lying: what part of the sentance do you disagree with? Are you saying that there is NO percentage of the scientific community which disagrees with any point of the film?

You said "widely panned". Prove it.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

The study.

After reading it, it could explain why we had numerous hurricanes last year and why there are very few so far this year. Think about it. Between 2003-2005, there have been many hurricanes of destruction. This year, we have had only three named storms with zero hurricanes so far. Highly unusual.

A clarification to what you said initially, based on the article. The article states a 21% lost of the amount of heat energy GAINED. A case of 5 steps forward and one step back. As global warming acts in CONJUNCTION with weather cycles rather than stopping them alltogether, such fluctuations are to be expected.

The article also mentions deep water warming, though not enough to offset the surface cooling (retaining the fact that the cooling is really only a "backing off" from previous highs. Temps are still higher than usual, ESPECIALLY for a period that should be cooling.)

It also notes that sea levels continue to rise, despite the surface cooling, which means more water than previously estimated is actually entering the oceans (thermal expansion/retraction,) which actually MAY account for some of the noted cooling.

All in all, very interesting. As I've stated repeatedly, climate change does not mean that interannual weather cycles stop, but that they are subtly modified. More investigation into weather cycles IS important, and lack of said research DOES make climate modelling less accurate...and yet the author does not question the fact of anthropogenic forcing.

You said "widely panned". Prove it.

Richard S. Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT (renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves.)
He panned the movie (was in the senate link above), here is his Congressional testimony:
http://www.john-daly.com/TAR2000/lindzen.htm

Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., who is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiologi-cal Protection in Warsaw.
He also panned the movie.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Others:
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass. Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

...surely this is enough to say "widely". Not "wholy", but "widely" (as in MANY but not ALL, as Al's movie claimed!).


Not a pan, but a better review as to why I think the movie is bunk:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing.

A clarification to what you said initially, based on the article. The article states a 21% lost of the amount of heat energy GAINED.

Yep. 20-21% of the heat that has been gained (aka built up) disappeared. What I said is correct.

A case of 5 steps forward and one step back. As global warming acts in CONJUNCTION with weather cycles rather than stopping them alltogether, such fluctuations are to be expected.

Not according to the Global Warming theory. These types of fluctuations should not be occuring at all. Funny that the same fluctuation occured roughly 20 years ago according to the article.

The article also mentions deep water warming, though not enough to offset the surface cooling (retaining the fact that the cooling is really only a "backing off" from previous highs. Temps are still higher than usual, ESPECIALLY for a period that should be cooling.)

You do know what moves under the earth I hope.

It also notes that sea levels continue to rise, despite the surface cooling, which means more water than previously estimated is actually entering the oceans (thermal expansion/retraction,) which actually MAY account for some of the noted cooling.

Was I talking about sea levels rising? No I did not. I was talking about surface ocean heat which should not have evaporated at all if the Global Warming theory is indeed correct.

All in all, very interesting. As I've stated repeatedly, climate change does not mean that interannual weather cycles stop, but that they are subtly modified.

Which could explain the hurricane seasons we had between 2003 and 2005 and why we have seen a lack of activity to date so far.

More investigation into weather cycles IS important, and lack of said research DOES make climate modelling less accurate...and yet the author does not question the fact of anthropogenic forcing.

Does not have to be questioned in this article. I will agree though that more investigating into our weather patterns is needed. Just like we need to continue our investigations of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. We do not know enough about all of it to render any sort of scientific conclusions in regards to adverse weather and man-made global warming.

So? The data shows that different causative factors were in play. Just because something happens for one reason doesn't mean it always happens for that same reason.

THANK YOU!
The original article stated The increase in the intensity and duration of Atlantic hurricanes in recent decades is due to temperature increases in the atmosphere caused by global warming, and not by natural variations in ocean temperature, according to a new study.

...yet you write off that these periods have RECENTLY happened before (40s/50s). My point is that IF these recent hurricanes were indeed due to man-made global warming, why is it not even as bad as before, and why doesn't it happen more commonly. Simply put, I disagree that mankind is the sole (or even main) cause of planetary warming over the last century.

I've read them about a dozen times.

Really. Then why not do something crazy and actually REPLY to them, instead of just throwing around insults? You'll not win any converts that way.

You didn't address the data contained in the article. Why should I adddress the oft debunked ravings of junkscience?

You also failed to debate The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory data. :rolleyes: I guess they're debunked too, eh?

What do you base that on? Problems with the data set? Those problems are addressed in the article? Problems with the conclusion? All you cried was "well, it happened before, so it must be natural!" which is an entirely specious argument.

As opposed to a spurious one?

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/specious
Main Entry: spe·cious
Pronunciation: 'spE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species
1 obsolete : SHOWY
2 : having deceptive attraction or allure
3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC <specious reasoning>

...I'm guessing you're going for the 3rd one. And therefore I'm forced to reiterate: saying my POV is wrong without putting up something of an arguement as to WHY it is wrong does not make it so.

Source? From a peer reviewed journal?

You were point blank talking about MY OPINION to the film. I hardly need a peer review journal to discuss that.

If you mean the inaccuracies, how would I do that? The movie is still pretty new (24 May 2006), and many peer reviewed journals are monthly or quarterly... it might take awhile for the topic to get published!

What data? All you do is parrot the same tired arguemnts in the face of ever-mounting evidence.

Again you've fail to address ANY of my original four points, including the NOAA chart. And I've yet to see any ever-mounting evidence.

hat was almost funny.

Nah, it's just my opinion regarding to your replies thus far. I'm hoping for an improvement.

It;s climate science. It's all related. It uses all the same physics/mathematics/theories.

Ahem. Martian climateology has to do with global warming on Earth? Wow. What's next? You going to pull a James Burke and explain how Shakespeare writing "Henry VI" got ol' Alex G. Bell to invent the telephone?

Can you identify where I said that?

Sure! Right here: http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/gl/

By posting a LIST OF papers without any discription as to why you did so, or if any papers were of particular interest! By that act, you said that any published paper, no matter how inane, was admissable as being hard fact.
The first rule to citation is to put it into a framework which the reader can readily relate to.

Let's see. Al Gore...Howard Dean...are they climatologists? Experts in the field? No. I'm only referencing climatologists here.

And while you reference them, you haven't actually SAID anything with them. My original post remains unanswered, and I consider this thread a waste of time until that's done.

PS- Asking if you're going to be an Imperious Howard Dean type is a reflection of your responses, not if he's a climatologist or not.

In my first post, I even made sure to highlight the caveats. Have you done the same?

Yep. But apparently to little avail.

Richard S. Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT (renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves.)

Lindzen is also a hack who has been documented lying about data on television and is in the pocket of Exxon.

Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., who is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiologi-cal Protection in Warsaw.
He also panned the movie.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Who predicts a coming ice age (see Wiki article.) I thought you skeptics hated the "global cooling" kooks?

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

A convicted felon who is paid by Exxon to act as an expert on Envirotruth.org.


Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Also directly funded by Exxon

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Just do a google search on McKitrick. The guy is not to be listened to.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

AH, Tim Ball, who still claims that CFC's are not a problem.

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Not a climatologist

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Not a climatologist

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Not a climatologist

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

DOesn't diasagree with global warming, just doesn't think government should do anything about it. Specializes in economic impacts of climate change.

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Has also done work proving global warming. See "Greenland and Global Warming". I guess he isn't careful what he signs.

Yada yada yada. The fact is that most of these guys (not all) are paid shills OR disagree with Gore's movie and yet still support the premise that global warming is real and affected by man...which you would know if you checked your sources and did some investigation on your own INSTEAD OF TRUSTING SINGLE SOURCES THAT JUST REPEAT CRAP AD INFINITUM.

Ahem. Martian climateology has to do with global warming on Earth? Wow. What's next? You going to pull a James Burke and explain how Shakespeare writing "Henry VI" got ol' Alex G. Bell to invent the telephone?

This just floored me. Do you actually think physics, chemistry and mathematics are different on different planets? Studying other astronomical bodies gives us a wealth of info about our own planet, much the same way studying lab rats gives us insight into our own bodies.

This just floored me. Do you actually think physics, chemistry and mathematics are different on different planets? Studying other astronomical bodies gives us a wealth of info about our own planet, much the same way studying lab rats gives us insight into our own bodies.

You do have a problem though. Some of the mechanics maybe the same but then you would have vastly different variables due to the different climates on different planets. Consider that Mars has no water so you can not factor that into any results. Also remember that no humans have yet visited mars to take a more accurate readings. All of our readings have been done by probes that never make it back to earth. Once those probes go down, no more measurements till another probe gets their to replace it.

You do have a problem though. Some of the mechanics maybe the same but then you would have vastly different variables due to the different climates on different planets. Consider that Mars has no water so you can not factor that into any results. Also remember that no humans have yet visited mars to take a more accurate readings. All of our readings have been done by probes that never make it back to earth. Once those probes go down, no more measurements till another probe gets their to replace it.

Admittedly. Though many atmospheric readings of Mars are possible from Earth-based telescopes and satellites. Spectroscopic reasing. Infra-red readings.

Still, my point is that the DISCIPLINE is the same. Also, removing variables, such as water, can help refine what we do know when we add that variable back, just like differences in biology can tell us as much as likenesses in biology when we study animals.

In other words, it's all a data base that adds to our knowledge that allows us to refine further what we suspect we know.

Man, debating with you is much more enjoyable than that other fellow. At least we're actually communicating.

Admittedly. Though many atmospheric readings of Mars are possible from Earth-based telescopes and satellites. Spectroscopic reasing. Infra-red readings.

Probably are and why, though may be accurate, can be distorted because of Earth's atmospheric conditions at the time of receiving said data.

Still, my point is that the DISCIPLINE is the same. Also, removing variables, such as water, can help refine what we do know when we add that variable back, just like differences in biology can tell us as much as likenesses in biology when we study animals.

Here I will agree with you. Just like in any field of study, you will have similarities and differences. Meteorologists and Climatologists have their differences but are also similar for weather is a result of climate. They need one another to banter ideas off of one another and to conduct studies together. Of course, there may be differences of opinions but they do communicate.

In other words, it's all a data base that adds to our knowledge that allows us to refine further what we suspect we know.

No argument out of me on this sentence.

Man, debating with you is much more enjoyable than that other fellow. At least we're actually communicating.

At least we are yes. It is amazing what happens when you can have a civilized discussion about merits of studies without the nonsense of insults for believing opposite of what someone else does that is prevelent on these boards.

At least we are yes. It is amazing what happens when you can have a civilized discussion about merits of studies without the nonsense of insults for believing opposite of what someone else does that is prevelent on these boards.

I tend to dish out what I recieve, and I have little patience for the same talking points being dredged up again and again. YOUR arguments actually evolve, as do mine, as the discussion continues, and you seem to actually be curious about the subject. I appreciate it greatly.

I tend to dish out what I recieve, and I have little patience for the same talking points being dredged up again and again. YOUR arguments actually evolve, as do mine, as the discussion continues, and you seem to actually be curious about the subject. I appreciate it greatly.

I will be honest with you. I do not believe in man-made global warming but I do believe global warming is occur. When this story broke, I was caught off guard because I did not expect it. When you think about the amount of heat that was lost, it could explain alot of weather events between 2003-2005. More study should be done on that for that would be a fascinating topic to actually research.

Yes I am very curious about this for I am going to have to be debating this somewhere down the line, either at school or working for the government.

I will be honest with you. I do not believe in man-made global warming but I do believe global warming is occur. When this story broke, I was caught off guard because I did not expect it. When you think about the amount of heat that was lost, it could explain alot of weather events between 2003-2005. More study should be done on that for that would be a fascinating topic to actually research.

Yes I am very curious about this for I am going to have to be debating this somewhere down the line, either at school or working for the government.

The problem most people have with the "man-made" part is that so many couch the argument in "well, man isn't responsible for the prepoderance of climate change/greenhouse/global warming."

Which, as far as it goes, is right. Natural causes accounts for almost ALL of the factors that effect climate. The problem is that we steadily add to those factors, and they don't go away just because we're adding to them.

Think of this (admittedly simplified) analogy. Imagine that in order to maintain your current weight, you need to ingest 1500 calories each day. If you add 100 calories a day, every day, to your diet, you'll gain weight. Only a small fraction of increase, and the other 1500 calories are your primary sustenance, yet the 100 extra calories are still telling.

Well, only a much much much smaller amount of increase in energy is needed, relatively, to effect the climate significantly. Remember, only a 6 degree F change is the only thing that stands between us and an ice age.

And those of us who actually know what we're talking about aren't talking about an ice age or a worldwide desert. We're merely talking about storms where none were before (in human history.) Droughts in previously relativley wet locations. Places on the edge of deserts becoming desterts completely. Measures being taken to protect coastal cities at risk from rising oceans. Defrosting of places which used to have permafrost (possibly causing methane dumping or the breeding of disease.) Winds in places that were previously relativley calm. Calm in places that used to be windy. Fisheries being less productive. Other places, without the infrastructure, becoming good fisheries, requiring massive relocation of resources. We're talking about widespread population migration as places that used to be excellent to live no longer being so. Influxes of population into regions unprepared. Ecosystems changing, causing pest species to proliferate in regions unused to them. Predators losing their prey. Prey losing their numbers-culling predators. Plant life die-offs. Invasive plantlife proliferation (think of kudzu.)

No cataclysm. Just a whole lot of inconveniences and some tragedies.

Lindzen is also a hack who has been documented lying about data on television and is in the pocket of Exxon.

Who predicts a coming ice age (see Wiki article.) I thought you skeptics hated the "global cooling" kooks?


A convicted felon who is paid by Exxon to act as an expert on Envirotruth.org.



Also directly funded by Exxon


Just do a google search on McKitrick. The guy is not to be listened to.



AH, Tim Ball, who still claims that CFC's are not a problem.


Not a climatologist


Not a climatologist


Not a climatologist



DOesn't diasagree with global warming, just doesn't think government should do anything about it. Specializes in economic impacts of climate change.


Has also done work proving global warming. See "Greenland and Global Warming". I guess he isn't careful what he signs.

Yada yada yada. The fact is that most of these guys (not all) are paid shills OR disagree with Gore's movie and yet still support the premise that global warming is real and affected by man...which you would know if you checked your sources and did some investigation on your own INSTEAD OF TRUSTING SINGLE SOURCES THAT JUST REPEAT CRAP AD INFINITUM.


You picked 11 names out of a list of about 60.
There is no claim that they are all climatologists, so your remarks that some aren't are neither here nor there.

You claim criminal charges, but don't source them.

You claim Exxon ties without sourcing them, nor demonstrating how that invalidates their opinion. One of the supposed virtues of science is it's unbiased nature. Simply having ties to Exxon doesn't mean anything unless you demonstrate their bias. Otherwise, we may as well ignore all those with a bias to Global Warming theories too.

You reference a coming ice age theory as some kind of reason to discount opinion, without any support.

And most glaringly, you simply ask for a Google search that will allegedly demonstrate how one signee can't be trusted.
I did a Google search.
I found first 2 pages filled with references to his academic career, credentials and works published, and no indication of why he shouldn't be listened to, unless you have some bias against Canadian degrees.

Makes me wonder if you checked your sources or did any investigation of your own.

You picked 11 names out of a list of about 60.
There is no claim that they are all climatologists, so your remarks that some aren't are neither here nor there.

You claim criminal charges, but don't source them.

You claim Exxon ties without sourcing them, nor demonstrating how that invalidates their opinion. One of the supposed virtues of science is it's unbiased nature. Simply having ties to Exxon doesn't mean anything unless you demonstrate their bias. Otherwise, we may as well ignore all those with a bias to Global Warming theories too.

You reference a coming ice age theory as some kind of reason to discount opinion, without any support.

And most glaringly, you simply ask for a Google search that will allegedly demonstrate how one signee can't be trusted.
I did a Google search.
I found first 2 pages filled with references to his academic career, credentials and works published, and no indication of why he shouldn't be listened to, unless you have some bias against Canadian degrees.

Makes me wonder if you checked your sources or did any investigation of your own.
Ties to Exxon are enough. Much like ties to Phillip Morris during the smoking debate was enough to discount the science.

You picked 11 names out of a list of about 60.
There is no claim that they are all climatologists, so your remarks that some aren't are neither here nor there.

I didn't have all day, and I did say some were legit. Additionally, 60 names on a petition don't carry much weight with me unless they offer a clear argument. And when it comes to technical/scientific matters involving Climate, I tend to listen more closely to climate experts. Would you listen to a Medical Doctor's opinion on Astrophysics?

You claim criminal charges, but don't source them.

Google is your friend.


You claim Exxon ties without sourcing them, nor demonstrating how that invalidates their opinion. One of the supposed virtues of science is it's unbiased nature. Simply having ties to Exxon doesn't mean anything unless you demonstrate their bias. Otherwise, we may as well ignore all those with a bias to Global Warming theories too.

Yes, ignore the thousands with diverse ties to numerous universties, governments and other institutions in favor of these 60 who, after looking at a little over a dozen and getting bored, saw that most I had checked on had ties to Exxon. That's called a SAMPLE and is a valid way of forming an impression.


You reference a coming ice age theory as some kind of reason to discount opinion, without any support.

Well, isn't that the exact argument many Global Warming skeptics use? Hmmmm?

And most glaringly, you simply ask for a Google search that will allegedly demonstrate how one signee can't be trusted.
I did a Google search.
I found first 2 pages filled with references to his academic career, credentials and works published, and no indication of why he shouldn't be listened to, unless you have some bias against Canadian degrees.

Oooo, 2 pages. Man, you sure read a lot.

Makes me wonder if you checked your sources or did any investigation of your own.

What you saw was about 5 minutes worth of google searching using the names with quotation marks around them. I'm not your mommy nor am I your professor. My response was intentionally snarky to a particularly snarky poster. If you'd like the same treatment, please continue in your current argumentitive mode. Alternately, you could join the civilized discussion Alleghany County and I are having.

Ties to Exxon are enough. Much like ties to Phillip Morris during the smoking debate was enough to discount the science.

And that still does not mean that it is bias whatsoever. Snow Eaters is right as is the following quote: "even 'bias' sources have facts."

And that still does not mean that it is bias whatsoever. Snow Eaters is right as is the following quote: "even 'bias' sources have facts."
I'll take a college over a company any day.

I'll take a college over a company any day.

Then you sir, do not realize how much you are missing.

And that still does not mean that it is bias whatsoever. Snow Eaters is right as is the following quote: "even 'bias' sources have facts."

True, but the EXXON scientists very very often do not respond directly to the critiques of their opinions with data. They merely repeat what they have already said. THAT's (plus the suspicion of self-interest,) what makes them suspect.

I'll take a college over a company any day.

I wouldn't go that far.

True, but the EXXON scientists very very often do not respond directly to the critiques of their opinions with data. They merely repeat what they have already said. THAT's (plus the suspicion of self-interest,) what makes them suspect.

Possibly but to discount it even if it is suspicious means that some truth will be missed.

Possibly but to discount it even if it is suspicious means that some truth will be missed.

Some truth is always missed.

Law of diminishing returns. They have disappointed me so much that I see looking to them as a waste of time better spent elsewhere.

Some truth is always missed.

Law of diminishing returns. They have disappointed me so much that I see looking to them as a waste of time better spent elsewhere.

*chuckles*

Ok. I will drink to that

*holds up a beer*

*chuckles*

Ok. I will drink to that

*holds up a beer*

Which brings up another danger of global warming...beer country could be transformed into wine country!:D

Cheers!

Which brings up another danger of global warming...beer country could be transformed into wine country!:D

Cheers!

There is actually a growing english wine industy. Go figure.

Ties to Exxon are enough. Much like ties to Phillip Morris during the smoking debate was enough to discount the science.

Not a fair analogy.
Whistle blowers have proven that big tobacco compromised it's data.

Common sense tells me to give anything with an Exxon tie on this issue a stronger look see, but that shouldn't mean it is discounted out of hand.

Not a fair analogy.
Whistle blowers have proven that big tobacco compromised it's data.

Common sense tells me to give anything with an Exxon tie on this issue a stronger look see, but that shouldn't mean it is discounted out of hand.
Whistle blowers have also proven that Exxon, in particular, compromises its data. A study funded by BP, while also an oil company, would compel me to give it a stronger look see.

I wouldn't go that far.
A company that stands to profit from fudging the data, I should have added...

McKitrick, honesty personified:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111

GW:

The argument that Hurricanes are presently being significantly strengthened by global warming is strengthened by this research, but I'll still hold out for stronger confirmation.

Global warming, on the other hand is happening. The number of climatologists that debate this occurrence are statistically insignificant. Additionally, we can be fairly certain that people are causing it, since studies show that the sun could only account for a maximum 30% of climate change and no other variables can account for the trends that the last hundred years have delivered.

I didn't have all day, and I did say some were legit. Additionally, 60 names on a petition don't carry much weight with me unless they offer a clear argument. And when it comes to technical/scientific matters involving Climate, I tend to listen more closely to climate experts. Would you listen to a Medical Doctor's opinion on Astrophysics?


a) Most/many on the list work in fields where their speciality touches on climate change from a different perspective.
b) Climatology is still a young field and some of the scientists listed have used their field to demonstrate how valid/invalid the field may be, it's to be expecterd that non-climatologists will have significant opinions on a new field. You discounted at least one that specialises in Geography, which has some pretty close ties to Climatology.
c) Regardless of the above, the claim of the movie in question being widely panned was supported.
Perhaps not as widely as you believe, nor by those that share your views and have your respect, but if you can supply a better list of support for it, you'd be further ahead than the tactic you took.


Google is your friend.


I did Google it.
I found 1 page that called him a criminal, but it was so obviously a heavily biased page that it left me wondering how this man could possibly holdf a position at a University, so I looked for the source of that pages accusations.
Maybe there's something to it, but I didn't find it with Google.


Yes, ignore the thousands with diverse ties to numerous universties, governments and other institutions in favor of these 60 who, after looking at a little over a dozen and getting bored, saw that most I had checked on had ties to Exxon. That's called a SAMPLE and is a valid way of forming an impression.


? The ones YOU picked out of the list HAVE ties to numerous Universities and Institutions and Governments.
I know, because I know the Unversities. Which is probably what twigged me to even follow up and look into your claims.
I'm not sure why it came out that way, but you were picking on profs at Canadian Universities. Places I know. And some of them also worked for the Canadian Government.
You keep painting it as if these guys are all sitting around an Exxon board room table ploting devious plans instead of being the profs/researchers in places like Ottawa, Toronto, Guelph, Calgary, Vancouver, etc...


Well, isn't that the exact argument many Global Warming skeptics use? Hmmmm?


Perhaps.
Doesn't really make anyone in this thread argument stronger or weaker though.


Oooo, 2 pages. Man, you sure read a lot.


When you said "Just do a Google search" I didn't realise you meant sweep the Internet.
How many pages of links should I follow and read before I get to this obvious info just sitting out there?


What you saw was about 5 minutes worth of google searching using the names with quotation marks around them. I'm not your mommy nor am I your professor. My response was intentionally snarky to a particularly snarky poster. If you'd like the same treatment, please continue in your current argumentitive mode. Alternately, you could join the civilized discussion Alleghany County and I are having.

I don't really care if you choose to be snarky or civilised.
I wasn't snarky with you, I simply followed up on your claims and challenged them.

Oh, and because it just HAS to be said:
"Oooo, 5 minutes. Man, you sure read a lot"

I'll take a college over a company any day.

Those accused of the Exxon ties were all from Universities from what I saw.

Whistle blowers have also proven that Exxon, in particular, compromises its data. A study funded by BP, while also an oil company, would compel me to give it a stronger look see.


Really?
I hadn't heard that.

Any linkage? I'm curious to see what they did.
Exxon are the bad boys of oil in my opinion, so while I'll be dissapointed, I won't be shocked if they did.

Really?
I hadn't heard that.

Any linkage? I'm curious to see what they did.
Exxon are the bad boys of oil in my opinion, so while I'll be dissapointed, I won't be shocked if they did.

Haven't found anything like that yet, but I did find a juicy site showing Exxon paying known skeptics.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

EDIT: This is interesting and related.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_A._Cooney

Really?
I hadn't heard that.

Any linkage? I'm curious to see what they did.
Exxon are the bad boys of oil in my opinion, so while I'll be dissapointed, I won't be shocked if they did.
Well there is this classic for starters:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_A._Cooney

There is also this which shows how far Exxon will go to keep those inside the company quiet:

Charles Hamel and the Trans Alaska Pipeline Whistleblowers(7)(8)(9)

The Alyeska Pipeline Service is the company that operates the Trans Alaska Pipeline. It is owned by a consortium of oil companies including Exxon, British Petroleum and Atlantic Richfield. In the early 1980's, Charles Hamel, an oil broker, got involved in a business dispute with Alyeska. Hamel felt he had been cheated and as a result began leaking information about Alyeska's environmental wrongdoing.
Sympathetic workers at Alyeska, who were disturbed by their employer's harmful environmental practices but were fearful of their jobs, began passing incriminating internal Alyeska documents to Hamel who, in turn, passed them on to regulators and Congress. Eventually Hamel accumulated a sizable network of fifteen whistleblowers within Alyeska and its member companies who had access to information which was not available to government inspectors and environmental enforcement officials.
This network provided Hamel with information about violations of the Clean Water Act by Exxon and British Petroleum that resulted in citations by EPA. They revealed air pollution violations at the Valdez terminal. They supplied Hamel with documents which showed that the system for detecting leaks in the Trans Alaska Pipeline was faulty, that the pipeline was severely corroded, and that neither federal nor state regulators were adequately monitoring its operations. This material was used in a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office. Hamel also exposed oil discoveries which industry was trying to keep secret in order to convince Congress of the need to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
The network's revelations cost the oil companies millions of dollars in fines and more millions to correct the environmental problems. Hamel appeared frequently on television and in Congressional hearings and his charges were reported in the press all over the world.
In 1990, in an effort to stop the leaks, Alyeska hired the Wackenhut security agency to spy on Hamel. Wackenhut set up a bogus environmental organization called Ecolit which offered to help Hamel pursue litigation against the oil industry, but the real purpose was to find out who was leaking the documents. Wackenhut agents watched Hamel's home, picked through his trash, used sophisticated electronic eavesdropping devices, and obtained his credit, banking and telephone records, as well as personal information about his family. They even hired women to entice Hamel into revealing his sources.
However, with information supplied by disgusted Wackenhut agents at great personal risk, Hamel sued Alyeska, Wackenhut and Exxon for invasion-of-privacy and in December of 1993, they settled with Charles Hamel for an undisclosed amount, which is reported to be in the millions. While Charles Hamel may not have been primarily motivated by a moral desire to prevent Alyeska's defilement of the Alaskan environment, his anonymous sources clearly were so motivated and Hamel earned their and our gratitude by protecting those sources from Alyeska's wrath at great risk to himself.
http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour/Endangered.htm
http://www.eyeonwackenhut.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B85401CAA-3D69-4F5A-B828-E7E9E78664F5%7D
http://www.courttv.com/press/whistleblower_102904.html

And this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1656017,00.html

A WHITE HOUSE aide who softened scientific warnings about global warming in government documents has been hired by Exxon Mobil, the oil company.

Philip Cooney, the former chief of staff to President Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality, quit two days after leaked documents disclosed the extent to which he had neutered the conclusions of government scientists.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

During the question-and-answer period following his speech, Crichton drew an analogy between believers in global warming and Nazi eugenicists.

Hmmm, seems like someone (Markreich) on this thread plagiarized an argument. Like I said, talking point infuriate me.

Here's more form the article:

Consider attacks by friends of ExxonMobil on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). A landmark international study that combined the work of some 300 scientists, the ACIA, released last November, had been four years in the making. Commissioned by the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum that includes the United States, the study warned that the Arctic is warming “at almost twice the rate as that of the rest of the world,” and that early impacts of climate change, such as melting sea ice and glaciers, are already apparent and “will drastically shrink marine habitat for polar bears, ice-inhabiting seals, and some seabirds, pushing some species toward extinction.” Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) was so troubled by the report that he called for a Senate hearing.

Industry defenders shelled the study, and, with a dearth of science to marshal to their side, used opinion pieces and press releases instead. “Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice,” blared FoxNews.com columnist Steven Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute ($75,000 from ExxonMobil) who also publishes the website JunkScience.com. Two days later the conservative Washington Times published the same column. Neither outlet disclosed that Milloy, who debunks global warming concerns regularly, runs two organizations that receive money from ExxonMobil. Between 2000 and 2003, the company gave $40,000 to the Advancement of Sound Science Center, which is registered to Milloy’s home address in Potomac, Maryland, according to IRS documents. ExxonMobil gave another $50,000 to the Free Enterprise Action Institute—also registered to Milloy’s residence. Under the auspices of the intriguingly like-named Free Enterprise Education Institute, Milloy publishes CSRWatch.com, a site that attacks the corporate social responsibility movement. Milloy did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article; a Fox News spokesman stated that Milloy is “affiliated with several not-for-profit groups that possibly may receive funding from Exxon, but he certainly does not receive funding directly from Exxon.”

Setting aside any questions about Milloy’s journalistic ethics, on a purely scientific level, his attack on the ACIA was comically inept. Citing a single graph from a 146-page overview of a 1,200-plus- page, fully referenced report, Milloy claimed that the document “pretty much debunks itself” because high Arctic temperatures “around 1940” suggest that the current temperature spike could be chalked up to natural variability. “In order to take that position,” counters Harvard biological oceanographer James McCarthy, a lead author of the report, “you have to refute what are hundreds of scientific papers that reconstruct various pieces of this climate puzzle.”

Those accused of the Exxon ties were all from Universities from what I saw.
I don't know which people you're talking about, but just because a person is associated with a university doesn't mean that they don't have corporate ties--corporations form cooperative ventures with individual scientists and universities all the time.

I don't know which people you're talking about, but just because a person is associated with a university doesn't mean that they don't have corporate ties--corporations form cooperative ventures with individual scientists and universities all the time.

The crazy thing is that the other oil companies acknowledge man-made global warming. . .a stance seemingly against (short term,) self-interest, and yet the EXXON-funded thinktanks still drive the agenda ESPECIALLY with our current administration.

Nothing we can do about it.

Nothing we can do about it.

And you base that on. . .?

The crazy thing is that the other oil companies acknowledge man-made global warming. . .a stance seemingly against (short term,) self-interest, and yet the EXXON-funded thinktanks still drive the agenda ESPECIALLY with our current administration.

That's probably because Exxon has a lot more to lose than the other major US integrated oil companies in the short term; it's a lot bigger than its closest US competitiors, but other competitors from Europe like BP or Shell are encroaching on its dominance in the industry. Also, I think Exxon is simply less leveraged towards the post-oil era; chances are, carbon emissions reduction is going to have a major role in reducing consumption of petroleum, and Exxon's a lot more vulnerable to that then their competitors.

Of course, that does raise the question of how companies like BP or Shell can compete with the far less-regulated Exxon, but Exxon can't compete in a similar regulatory environment with BP and Shell.

First of all, there's nothing conclusive in the effect that global warming has on hurricanes. It may have little effect, a big effect, no effect at all, or an opposite than expected effect. I know that there's been some studies trying to determine this, but they are mostly based in theoretical models. The real effect will only be measured and concluded several years from now after lots of measurement.

Nevertheless, the results are not part of the discussion of wether global warming is man made or not. That is pretty clear to most in the scientific community now. It's much more related to how global warming will change the climate on earth and what impact it will have on us, which is not clear at all.

And you base that on. . .?
The people in charge will decide and are deciding whether global climate change will negative effect them personally or their power in any real sense more than actually doing anything about it, individually of course, and there will be disagreement. If enough of the right ones do, then something will be done, if not the oh well, breezy summers were nice.
I sincerely doubt that anyone on this forum is in a position of considerable power, and thus there is "nothing we can do about it." All we can do is go with the flow and hope for the best.

First of all, there's nothing conclusive in the effect that global warming has on hurricanes.

What are you basing that on?


It may have little effect, a big effect, no effect at all, or an opposite than expected effect. I know that there's been some studies trying to determine this, but they are mostly based in theoretical models. The real effect will only be measured and concluded several years from now after lots of measurement.

Uh, you mean, kinda like this study (referenced in the first post)?

Nevertheless, the results are not part of the discussion of wether global warming is man made or not. That is pretty clear to most in the scientific community now. It's much more related to how global warming will change the climate on earth and what impact it will have on us, which is not clear at all.

Agreed.

The people in charge will decide and are deciding whether global climate change will negative effect them personally or their power in any real sense more than actually doing anything about it, individually of course, and there will be disagreement. If enough of the right ones do, then something will be done, if not the oh well, breezy summers were nice.
I sincerely doubt that anyone on this forum is in a position of considerable power, and thus there is "nothing we can do about it." All we can do is go with the flow and hope for the best.

If we're a citizen of a democracy, we're in a position of power. YOUR attitude means you are satisfied to live in a de facto tyranny.

What are you basing that on?
In that we don't have enough data yet to say that stronger hurricanes will be a trend. We only have 2005, a very strong hurricane season, but it could have been a one off. The only way to really be certain will be a few years from now and see what model better corresponds to reality.

Uh, you mean, kinda like this study (referenced in the first post)?
The study tries to build a predictability model based on the data at hand, but more data is necessary to really say whether that model is accurate. Again, 2005 could have altered the statistical analysis, and if it is an anomaly it will take a few years for its effect to be reduced.

If we're a citizen of a democracy, we're in a position of power. YOUR attitude means you are satisfied to live in a de facto tyranny.
A Democracy is little more than a tyranny by propaganda with some rights tacked on to placate the people. It is run by those with the iron-will and determination to reach the top. Unfortunately, this same drive is ultimately a selfish one. Once they reach a position of significant power, everything becomes about maintaining that power, which they, of course, will inevitably lose.
Those in power are incapable of caring about the people, and the people are too stupid too notice.

A Democracy is little more than a tyranny by propaganda with some rights tacked on to placate the people. It is run by those with the iron-will and determination to reach the top. Unfortunately, this same drive is ultimately a selfish one. Once they reach a position of significant power, everything becomes about maintaining that power, which they, of course, will inevitably lose.
Those in power are incapable of caring about the people, and the people are too stupid too notice.
Are you OK? Do you need a hug?

In that we don't have enough data yet to say that stronger hurricanes will be a trend.

The data does pretty conclusively state that warmer air temps lead to warmer ocean surface temps which lead to stronger hurricanes. As long as higher air temps persist, stronger hurricanes will tend to ensue.

We only have 2005, a very strong hurricane season, but it could have been a one off. The only way to really be certain will be a few years from now and see what model better corresponds to reality.

Why do we have only 2005?


The study tries to build a predictability model based on the data at hand, but more data is necessary to really say whether that model is accurate. Again, 2005 could have altered the statistical analysis, and if it is an anomaly it will take a few years for its effect to be reduced.

It didn't just measure 2005.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/5305/gwkidpa9.jpg

- TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE -

This girl's left leg is four times larger than her right leg ... do you know why?
GLOBAL WARMING!


Global Warming Fun Facts for Children:
Global Warming will affect us all. Directly and indirectly. Heat stress, changes in food and water supplies, coastal flooding, and sickness may affect children the worst. Glacier melting means LOOKOUT if you live near the ocean. Droughts mean that plants and animals will die as well which equals a diminishing food supply.

WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
When your parents drive their cars, insist that there are at least 6 people in the car. This is called carpooling and it will save the planet. Walk or ride bikes whenever possible. The future of the earth depends on it.
Keep the lights, heat, television and computer off. Although this may be somewhat inconvenient, it could save our planet.
Read books on global warming and talk about it constantly. Recycle . . . which saves natural resources that will save our planet.
Talk with your friends and family about it.
______________________________________________

TAKE THIS FUN TEST:
Which of these is an example of climate?
____ A) A dog locked in a kennel with no water or shade on a very hot day.
____ B) A family with no sunscreen on a very hot day.
____ C) A warm winter.
____ D) Birds dying from eating rice thrown at a wedding.

(You should have answered C.)

Let's work together to ENSURE a BRIGHT future for OUR PLANET!

I don't know which people you're talking about, but just because a person is associated with a university doesn't mean that they don't have corporate ties--corporations form cooperative ventures with individual scientists and universities all the time.


True, but DM stated that he would take college over corporate.
The individuals referenced are clearly academics at Universities, so it's not a case of one vs. the other.

True, but DM stated that he would take college over corporate.
The individuals referenced are clearly academics at Universities, so it's not a case of one vs. the other.

True.

There is actually a growing english wine industy. Go figure.

Yeah, but that also happened before, and in Scandinavia back in the 10th-14th centuries, when the world was warmer. (Not to mention "Vinland" -- aka Newfoundland.)
This was the "Medieval Warm Period", when there was a peak in solar activity.
Water temperatures in the northern hemisphere during this time were up to 1°C warmer, allowing the planting of vineyards as far north as the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea (ca. 56°N) and southern England (ca. 51°N).

You picked 11 names out of a list of about 60.
There is no claim that they are all climatologists, so your remarks that some aren't are neither here nor there.

You claim criminal charges, but don't source them.

You claim Exxon ties without sourcing them, nor demonstrating how that invalidates their opinion. One of the supposed virtues of science is it's unbiased nature. Simply having ties to Exxon doesn't mean anything unless you demonstrate their bias. Otherwise, we may as well ignore all those with a bias to Global Warming theories too.

You reference a coming ice age theory as some kind of reason to discount opinion, without any support.

And most glaringly, you simply ask for a Google search that will allegedly demonstrate how one signee can't be trusted.
I did a Google search.
I found first 2 pages filled with references to his academic career, credentials and works published, and no indication of why he shouldn't be listened to, unless you have some bias against Canadian degrees.

Makes me wonder if you checked your sources or did any investigation of your own.

Thanks. I'm done with this discussion, as I've discovered that when dealing with GP his method of debate is to pick one or two points, post his opinion with no documentation and ignore the rest. He is also a shrill not interested in actual discussion.

[/leaves thread]

Thanks. I'm done with this discussion, as I've discovered that when dealing with GP his method of debate is to pick one or two points, post his opinion with no documentation and ignore the rest. He is also a shrill not interested in actual discussion.

[/leaves thread]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900354_pf.html

Gymoor acts like everyone is in agreement about the connection between global warming and hurricanes.

They don't agree.

A year after Hurricane Katrina and other major storms battered the U.S. coast, the question of whether hurricanes are becoming more destructive because of global warming has become perhaps the most hotly contested question in the scientific debate over climate change.

Academics have published a flurry of papers either supporting or debunking the idea that warmer temperatures linked to human activity are fueling more intense storms. The issue remains unresolved, but it has acquired a political potency that has made both sides heavily invested in the outcome.

Paradoxically, the calm hurricane season in the Atlantic so far this year has only intensified the argument.

Both sides are using identical data but coming up with conflicting conclusions. There are several reasons.

Thanks. I'm done with this discussion, as I've discovered that when dealing with GP his method of debate is to pick one or two points, post his opinion with no documentation and ignore the rest. He is also a shrill not interested in actual discussion.

[/leaves thread]

Yes, I'm the one who is shrill. Umm-hmmm. Yes, I don't document. Umm-hmmm.

1) I was not the one who used a plagiarized Godwin.

2) No one has documented their opinion on this thread more. True, I have not cited every goddam thing I've said...but that kind makes for tedious writing and tedious reading.

3) You are a sloth-witted boob.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900354_pf.html

Gymoor acts like everyone is in agreement about the connection between global warming and hurricanes.

They don't agree.

DK, that's not fair. I do not act as if everyone is in agreement on this topic. I'm just saying that the NEWEST science has made the connection pretty clear.

True, but DM stated that he would take college over corporate.
The individuals referenced are clearly academics at Universities, so it's not a case of one vs. the other.
Yeah... it was a stupid thing to say...

Let's just keep it at, I wouldn't trust anybody who receives funds from Exxon given their past and current practices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900354_pf.html

Gymoor acts like everyone is in agreement about the connection between global warming and hurricanes.

They don't agree.
Global Warming will intensify hurricanes (which isn't the same thing as saying that Global Warming will cause hurricanes). I don't think that is disputed. I think what is being disputed is how much of an impact Global Warming is having on hurricanes at the present time.