NationStates Jolt Archive

The pro-business think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, with the help of funds from Exxon-Mobil offered scientists $10,000 to write speeches or articles refuting the just-released UN Global Warming Report. It was originally reported by the UK's Guardian, but is summed up nicely by American Public Media's morning show, the Marketplace Morning Report (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/02/AM200702021.html).

I'm ambivalent about global warming and climate change, but it seems to be that this is basically bribery. Read the transcription of the radio interview via the above link and tell the forum what you think.

The pro-business think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, with the help of funds from Exxon-Mobil offered scientists $10,000 to write speeches or articles refuting the just-released UN Global Warming Report. It was originally reported by the UK's Guardian, but is summed up nicely by American Public Media's morning show, the Marketplace Morning Report (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/02/AM200702021.html).

I'm ambivalent about global warming and climate change, but it seems to be that this is basically bribery. Read the transcription of the radio interview via the above link and tell the forum what you think.

The "pro-business" (read anti-environment) people are getting desperate.

The pro-business think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, with the help of funds from Exxon-Mobil offered scientists $10,000 to write speeches or articles refuting the just-released UN Global Warming Report. It was originally reported by the UK's Guardian, but is summed up nicely by American Public Media's morning show, the Marketplace Morning Report (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/02/AM200702021.html).

I'm ambivalent about global warming and climate change, but it seems to be that this is basically bribery. Read the transcription of the radio interview via the above link and tell the forum what you think.

I doubt that NPR will provide any coverage on the contradictory reports, though.

The "pro-business" (read anti-environment) people are getting desperate.

Their "pro-business" stance is bullshit. Most businesses either have no problem with or actively support attempts to curtail global warming; any idiot with half a brain would realize that there's a ton of money to be made if you're wise enough to invest in markets catering to alternative energy, emissions trading, and energy efficiency.

The pro-business think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, with the help of funds from Exxon-Mobil offered scientists $10,000 to write speeches or articles refuting the just-released UN Global Warming Report. It was originally reported by the UK's Guardian, but is summed up nicely by American Public Media's morning show, the Marketplace Morning Report (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/02/AM200702021.html).

I'm ambivalent about global warming and climate change, but it seems to be that this is basically bribery. Read the transcription of the radio interview via the above link and tell the forum what you think.

Shit, I'd take that money! How come they never offer to bribe me?!

The pro-business think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, with the help of funds from Exxon-Mobil offered scientists $10,000 to write speeches or articles refuting the just-released UN Global Warming Report. It was originally reported by the UK's Guardian, but is summed up nicely by American Public Media's morning show, the Marketplace Morning Report (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/02/AM200702021.html).

I'm ambivalent about global warming and climate change, but it seems to be that this is basically bribery. Read the transcription of the radio interview via the above link and tell the forum what you think.

Of course it is bribery. These companies also have to tell themselves they aren't destroying the planet because A. They want more and more wealth B. It would make it hard for them to justify what they are doing and not hate themselves more than the rest of the world already does.

The "pro-business" (read anti-environment) people are getting desperate.

And they should be desperate. The irrationality of the man-made global warming proponents is starting to take hold. When the big lie gets repeated often enough, it becomes truth.

I doubt that NPR will provide any coverage on the contradictory reports, though.

Even if they do, who the fuck listens to NPR? Old people, people who really like news, and right wingers trying to find some reason to blame NPR for being a leftists conspiracy.

Even if they do, who the fuck listens to NPR? Old people, people who really like news, and right wingers trying to find some reason to blame NPR for being a leftists conspiracy.
I like the mandolin bump music on 'Boring Edition'. They run NPR on Mac's you know...

Their "pro-business" stance is bullshit. Most businesses either have no problem with or actively support attempts to curtail global warming; any idiot with half a brain would realize that there's a ton of money to be made if you're wise enough to invest in markets catering to alternative energy, emissions trading, and energy efficiency.

I agree. The quotation marks are there for a reason.

I agree. The quotation marks are there for a reason.

I know, it's just that these groups that call themselves "pro-business" are really nothing more than shills for a handful of outdated, bloated corporations that can't survive if the status quo changes.

And they should be desperate. The irrationality of the man-made global warming proponents is starting to take hold. When the big lie gets repeated often enough, it becomes truth.

Oh, right, which is why they feel the need to bribe people to try and tout their point of view.

If they had any actual point, they'd have used their media connections - fox for instance - to make it rather than "please agree with me and I'll give you 10k" bullshit.

I know, it's just that these groups that call themselves "pro-business" are really nothing more than shills for a handful of outdated, bloated corporations that can't survive if the status quo changes.

They argue that it "hurts business". Funny, their competition in Japan and other countries respect the environment and are doing just fine.

They argue that it "hurts business". Funny, their competition in Japan and other countries respect the environment and are doing just fine.

Most companies worldwide do so and they're doing very well. The only real company that might have a problem is Exxon, and that's mainly because they're afraid of losing the billions of taxpayer dollars spent on subsidizing their oil production.

Oh, right, which is why they feel the need to bribe people to try and tout their point of view.

If they had any actual point, they'd have used their media connections - fox for instance - to make it rather than "please agree with me and I'll give you 10k" bullshit.
As far as I'm concerned, it's just another source of grant money. That's how the man-made global warming proponents are funded. They've created a catastrophic condition and need money to study it.

It was safe enough to ignore them, in the face of facts like:
-- The sun is actually warmer than it has been.
-- Most of the century's temperature increases have come before 1940.
-- The glaciers at the Antarctic are growing.
-- The scary 'hockey stick' is a fraud.

But now something proactive must be done. Why not pay the same sorts of speaking fees and grants that the proponents get? Nothing wrong with that.

The irrationality of the man-made global warming proponents is starting to take hold.

Hmmm... something tells me you haven't been keeping up with current affairs. Or maybe you think the UN is a hotbed of anti-establishment thinking?

Hmmm... something tells me you haven't been keeping up with current affairs. Or maybe you think the UN is a hotbed of anti-establishment thinking?

He will think anything, as long as it's something he already thinks.

The pro-business think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, with the help of funds from Exxon-Mobil offered scientists $10,000 to write speeches or articles refuting the just-released UN Global Warming Report. It was originally reported by the UK's Guardian, but is summed up nicely by American Public Media's morning show, the Marketplace Morning Report (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/02/AM200702021.html).

I'm ambivalent about global warming and climate change, but it seems to be that this is basically bribery. Read the transcription of the radio interview via the above link and tell the forum what you think.
What I don't understand is how Exxon fails to realise that even its competitors like BP have acknowledged the reality of climate change. As I said in the other thread, these people have their heads so far in the sand they're practically touching mantle. Bring us back some peridotite, guys!

Could someone please explain to me why it is people dismiss global warming so fiercely? I mean, they themselves have no real understanding (neither do I, I admit it) of the science involved, they aren't meteorologists. Yet they so angrily declaim it as a bunch of crap? Look what the people who actually have a clue what they're talking about have to say (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)

As far as I'm concerned, it's just another source of grant money. That's how the man-made global warming proponents are funded. They've created a catastrophic condition and need money to study it.

It was safe enough to ignore them, in the face of facts like:
-- The sun is actually warmer than it has been.
-- Most of the century's temperature increases have come before 1940.
-- The glaciers at the Antarctic are growing.
-- The scary 'hockey stick' is a fraud.

But now something proactive must be done. Why not pay the same sorts of speaking fees and grants that the proponents get? Nothing wrong with that.

Yet there is more money in denying Climate Change than there is in actually studying it.

Yet there is more money in denying Climate Change than there is in actually studying it.

And, yet, denying fails. Because no matter how much money you pour into 2+2 equalling 5, 2+2 will still be 4.

And, yet, denying fails. Because no matter how much money you pour into 2+2 equalling 5, 2+2 will still be 4.

The facts are boring! We want, nay!, we DEMAND controversy!

I doubt that NPR will provide any coverage on the contradictory reports, though.

Awww poor Myrmi wrong again.

They already have.

And, yet, denying fails. Because no matter how much money you pour into 2+2 equalling 5, 2+2 will still be 4.
Denying only fails because you people refuse to listen.

The IPCC report today said a bunch of things. Most of them irrefutably true:

The world is warming.
We, at the very least, helped.
It's screwing with weather and raising sea levels.

Sure, all these things are true. But the IPCC goes completely wrong when they predict global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 18 and 58 centimeters by the end of the century.

Because their models aren't good enough for that. Not only do they ignore (and they admit they do this) mitigating feedbacks like cloud albedo, but they also ignore the likelihood of emissions reductions caused by dwindling oil supply.

Denying only fails because you people refuse to listen.

The IPCC report today said a bunch of things. Most of them irrefutably true:

The world is warming.
We, at the very least, helped.
It's screwing with weather and raising sea levels.

Sure, all these things are true. But the IPCC goes completely wrong when they predict global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 18 and 58 centimeters by the end of the century.

Because their models aren't good enough for that. Not only do they ignore (and they admit they do this) mitigating feedbacks like cloud albedo, but they also ignore the likelihood of emissions reductions caused by dwindling oil supply.

So you are saying the report is false?

Sure, all these things are true. But the IPCC goes completely wrong when they predict global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 18 and 58 centimeters by the end of the century.

Because their models aren't good enough for that. Not only do they ignore (and they admit they do this) mitigating feedbacks like cloud albedo, but they also ignore the likelihood of emissions reductions caused by dwindling oil supply.

I'm sorry, do you have any understanding of what you mean when you say that? Or are you just repeating someone else's argument verbatim? Because I don't mean to be rude but I doubt you are knowledgeable enough about the science to make declarations like that or to determine what claims are true and what aren't (I'm not either). So what was it that drew you to that particular line of reasoning, and not this one? (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) (yeah, I'll keep linking that until someone pays attention :mad:)

The pro-business think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, with the help of funds from Exxon-Mobil offered scientists $10,000 to write speeches or articles refuting the just-released UN Global Warming Report. It was originally reported by the UK's Guardian, but is summed up nicely by American Public Media's morning show, the Marketplace Morning Report (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/02/AM200702021.html).

I'm ambivalent about global warming and climate change, but it seems to be that this is basically bribery. Read the transcription of the radio interview via the above link and tell the forum what you think.

Have to at least give a little credit where credit is due.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

Exxon has stopped funding for them.

I'm sorry, do you have any understanding of what you mean when you say that? Or are you just repeating someone else's argument verbatim? Because I don't mean to be rude but I doubt you are knowledgeable enough about the science to make declarations like that or to determine what claims are true and what aren't (I'm not either). So what was it that drew you to that particular line of reasoning, and not this one? (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) (yeah, I'll keep linking that until someone pays attention :mad:)
I have made a good faith attempt to understand this dreck the IPCC is pitching, but there is a gap between the data they've collected and the projections they're making. And they know it's there. You can find admissions of the climate models' ignorance of cloud albedo feedbacks or fossil fuel demand destruction at pro-warming sites like RealClimate.org.

There simply isn't enough data for the IPCC to be as sure about their conclusions as they claim to be.

I have made a good faith attempt to understand this dreck the IPCC is pitching, but there is a gap between the data they've collected and the projections they're making. And they know it's there. You can find admissions of the climate models' ignorance of cloud albedo feedbacks or fossil fuel demand destruction at pro-warming sites like RealClimate.org.

There simply isn't enough data for the IPCC to be as sure about their conclusions as they claim to be.

Dude, I posted to you at least twice where climate scientists take into account cloud albedo. What's amazing to me is that you think for a second that you know more than they do. Of course they will take anything you have ever heard of into account in their models and a whole hell of a lot of thinsg you've never heard of. You gotta get off this cloud albedo kick.

Here's a whole study on it.

http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html

Taken at face value, our results imply that, possibly excluding the last decade or so when an accentuated rise in global temperatures is widely accepted to have occurred as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect, most of the global warming of the twentieth century can be quantitatively explained by the combined direct (irradiance) and indirect (cosmic ray induced low cloud) effects of solar activity. Similarly, we find the lower level of solar activity in the Maunder Minimum predicts an increase in the low cloud factor that gives rise to an increased albedo for the Earth and lower global temperatures.

Awww poor Myrmi wrong again.

They already have.

It's hard work being a Bushevik when Reality is liberally biased.

:D

And despite the big lies that Myrmi's favorite eco-terrorists are spreading about Global Warming, Australia's legendary Great Barrier Reef is apparently facing Functional Extinction:

Global warming threatens Australia's Barrier reef (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-02-02T160204Z_01_SYD171280_RTRUKOC_0_US-GLOBALWARMING-CORAL.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-scienceNews-3)

I have made a good faith attempt to understand this dreck the IPCC is pitching, but there is a gap between the data they've collected and the projections they're making. And they know it's there. You can find admissions of the climate models' ignorance of cloud albedo feedbacks or fossil fuel demand destruction at pro-warming sites like RealClimate.org.

There simply isn't enough data for the IPCC to be as sure about their conclusions as they claim to be.

Here's a widely used climate model:

Exercise Outline

Lesson 1: Modern_SpecifiedSST Analysis

- Explain simulation Modern_SpecifiedSST

- Visualize the data

- Examine climate basics (surface air temperature, zonal average (pole to equator gradient), seasonal temperature maps, global annual precipitation patterns, temperatures and zonal winds in vertical profile


Lesson 2: Modern_PredictedSST Analysis

- Explain simulation Modern_PredictedSST

- Visualize the data

- Compare with Modern_SpecifiedSST


Lesson 3: Doubled_CO2 Analysis

- Explain simulation Doubled_CO2

- Visualize the data

- Compare with Modern_PredictedSST (Equilibrium Climate)


Lesson 4: Global Warming Analysis

- Explain simulation Global_Warming

- Visualize the data

- Compare with Modern_PredictedSST

- Explain global warming impacts and feedback mechanisms

o Surface air temperature

o Ice-albedo feedback (snow and ice cover)

o Cloud albedo feedback (low cloud cover)

o Water vapor

o Precipitation and Evaporation (Moisture balance)


Lesson 5: Comparison to current global warming

- Compare results to 2005 global temperatures (warmest year on record).

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/outreach/exercises/global_warming.html

http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html
That study only covers cloud production as influenced by cosmic radiation, not temperature or humidity.

Here's a widely used climate model:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/outreach/exercises/global_warming.html
And that model only models cloud cover reductions caused by increased temperatures, without accounting for the cloud production effects of higher humidity caused by higher temperatures.

Just because it's popular doesn't make it good.

Again, the climate scientists KNOW they're not modelling cloud albedo feedbacks accurately. I've even shown you links from RealClimate to that effect.

I doubt that NPR will provide any coverage on the contradictory reports, though.

I asked for your thoughts on the report cited, not your Limbaughnic rants about bias. What's your take on what looks like bribery?

-- The sun is actually warmer than it has been.
-- Most of the century's temperature increases have come before 1940.
-- The glaciers at the Antarctic are growing.
-- The scary 'hockey stick' is a fraud.

no it isn't, no they didn't, not even close, and what are you retarded?

batting a .000, that's impressive

Shit, I'd take that money! How come they never offer to bribe me?!

Sweetness, if they knew you, they would.

:)

And they should be desperate. The irrationality of the man-made global warming proponents is starting to take hold. When the big lie gets repeated often enough, it becomes truth.

The silliness of people sticking their heads in the sand like Myrmidonisia is doing is comforting in a sort of way. Such looniness is necessary to contrast the sheer cold facts and rock solid science behind the report.

And that model only models cloud cover reductions caused by increased temperatures, without accounting for the cloud production effects of higher humidity caused by higher temperatures.

Just because it's popular doesn't make it good.

Again, the climate scientists KNOW they're not modelling cloud albedo feedbacks accurately. I've even shown you links from RealClimate to that effect.

No you haven't. I've never seen you produce any evidence that climate scientists don't take cloud albedo into account. You just keep saying it like it's some smoking gun. It's not. They know a LOT more, and I mean A LOT MORE about the atmosphere and climate than you do. There is literally nothing at all that you have ever thought of that needs to be included in a climate model that they have not thought of. Nothing. Ever. Not one single thing at all.

That study only covers cloud production as influenced by cosmic radiation, not temperature or humidity.

No, it also talks abot whether that increased cloud albedo has any impact on global warming or will in the future.

No you haven't. I've never seen you produce any evidence that climate scientists don't take cloud albedo into account. You just keep saying it like it's some smoking gun. It's not. They know a LOT more, and I mean A LOT MORE about the atmosphere and climate than you do. There is literally nothing at all that you have ever thought of that needs to be included in a climate model that they have not thought of. Nothing. Ever. Not one single thing at all.

here's what gets me about llew's cloud feedback safety net idea - if the warming is supposed to increase the cloud cover enough to counteract the warming, then how the fuck was it so damn hot in the cretaceous? shouldn't the increased heat have created so much humidity which would form clouds thick enough to block out the sun and kill all life on the planet on alternating days?

here's what gets me about llew's cloud feedback safety net idea - if the warming is supposed to increase the cloud cover enough to counteract the warming, then how the fuck was it so damn hot in the cretaceous? shouldn't the increased heat have created so much humidity which would form clouds thick enough to block out the sun and kill all life on the planet on alternating days?

Also, the three chief greenhouse gasses are CO2, methane and, yep, you guessed it, WATER VAPOR!

Even if they do, who the fuck listens to NPR? Old people, people who really like news, and right wingers trying to find some reason to blame NPR for being a leftists conspiracy.

*raises hand* I listen to NPR!

Meanwhile, if they were really trying to boost the scientific credibility of their claims, they seriously screwed up. Any scientist who accepts this money will immediately be seen as a biased source and anything he says will be suspect because of it. Science doesn't work by starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence of it, and that is precisely what they are asking for.

Science doesn't work by starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence of it, and that is precisely what they are asking for.

Apparently Exxon-Mobil's scientific committee also served on Bush's foreign policy board judging by how the tactics are almost identical.

-- The sun is actually warmer than it has been.
-- Most of the century's temperature increases have come before 1940.
-- The glaciers at the Antarctic are growing.
-- The scary 'hockey stick' is a fraud.

no it isn't, no they didn't, not even close, and what are you retarded?

batting a .000, that's impressive

Because it's a slow Friday, I'll treat you to documentation that does support my claims. Most of what the U.N. claims to be man-made global warming is really natural. Sure, climate change exists, but it's natural. This fellow, Monckton, has put together a good analysis of why the U.N. is wrong. The four points I've listed are only the beginning. There's far more statistical manuipulation and other bad science at work in these reports.

Here's a link to a Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml&page=5). Read it. I don't feel like excerpting it.

no it isn't, no they didn't, not even close, and what are you retarded?

The scary hockey stick graph actually IS a fraud. Well, not a fraud exactly, but a deliberate misrepresentation which passed through initial peer review due to the reputation of the author. Read up on it.

The rest of the global climate change hypothesis however holds up pretty well sofar.

Because it's a slow Friday, I'll treat you to documentation that does support my claims. Most of what the U.N. claims to be man-made global warming is really natural. Sure, climate change exists, but it's natural. This fellow, Monckton, has put together a good analysis of why the U.N. is wrong. The four points I've listed are only the beginning. There's far more statistical manuipulation and other bad science at work in these reports.

Here's a link to a Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml&page=5). Read it. I don't feel like excerpting it.

Monckton. Didn't he loose a bunch of money over a puzzle?

Anyhow, one right back at you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/#more-367

The scary hockey stick graph actually IS a fraud. Well, not a fraud exactly, but a deliberate misrepresentation which passed through initial peer review due to the reputation of the author. Read up on it.

oh, i know all about it. and that's how i know that its findings are solid and have been independently replicated by others using different data sets. like all other talking points by creationists/climate change denialists, the 'controversy' here is non-existent.

No you haven't. I've never seen you produce any evidence that climate scientists don't take cloud albedo into account. You just keep saying it like it's some smoking gun. It's not. They know a LOT more, and I mean A LOT MORE about the atmosphere and climate than you do. There is literally nothing at all that you have ever thought of that needs to be included in a climate model that they have not thought of. Nothing. Ever. Not one single thing at all.
I'm not claiming they haven't thought of it. I'm claiming they're not including it because they don't know how. Different thing entirely.

No, it also talks abot whether that increased cloud albedo has any impact on global warming or will in the future.
Yes it does, but the only feedback they're using to change cloud levels over time is solar radiation.

here's what gets me about llew's cloud feedback safety net idea - if the warming is supposed to increase the cloud cover enough to counteract the warming, then how the fuck was it so damn hot in the cretaceous? shouldn't the increased heat have created so much humidity which would form clouds thick enough to block out the sun and kill all life on the planet on alternating days?
Great question. Simple answer.

Right now, we have high carbon levels because we use fossil fuels. We produce, for the most part, clean CO2. Colourless, odourless gas. Dinosaurs, on the other hand, never used fossil fuels, so where did their CO2 come from?

Volcanoes. Those volcanoes (which happened to incompletely combust huge quantities of coal) produced CO2 and soot, and the soot made the clouds much darker. Being darker, they had a much lower albedo and ceased havinging a net cooling effect.

Also, the three chief greenhouse gasses are CO2, methane and, yep, you guessed it, WATER VAPOR!
Dan, you know better than that. Yes, water vapour is a very effective greenhouse gas, and has a strong warming effect. Clouds, however, being white, reflect sunlight into space and have a colling effect.

The question is, which aspect of clouds is the stronger effect?

Guess what? It's the cooling. While all water vapour (both in and out of cloud) has a warming effect on the earth, clouds have net cooling effect. There's no debate about this - clouds cool the earth, and they doo it really effectively. They reflect more than half of all the sunlight that reaches them back into space. That makes them a stronger cooling effect than anything short of fresh snow and mirrors.

My complaint lies in the climate models' failure to predict future cloud levels, and their effect on global temperatures.

As you've pointed out, there are models dealing with specific aspects of cloud modelling (cloud production by solar radiation, cloud inhibition by higher temperatures), but nowhere is there a model that deals with temperature and humidity and solar radiation all at once, modelling clouds in both the low and high atmosphere. There simply isn't, because we don't understand clouds well enough.

At this point, I hope the world doesn't take firm action on climate change, because I really want to find out whether the models are right.

here's what gets me about llew's cloud feedback safety net idea - if the warming is supposed to increase the cloud cover enough to counteract the warming, then how the fuck was it so damn hot in the cretaceous? shouldn't the increased heat have created so much humidity which would form clouds thick enough to block out the sun and kill all life on the planet on alternating days?

Just to confuse things a bit more, full thick clouds could cause an even worse warming effect where clouds will reflect the suns heat into space the clouds will also trap the earths geo-thermal heat. I first heard this some 25 yrs ago, it was called the Runaway Greenhouse Effect which will create conditions like on Venus, permanent and total extinction of life.

Monckton. Didn't he loose a bunch of money over a puzzle?

Anyhow, one right back at you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/#more-367

This could be as tedious as a reply to an article in "Physics of Fluids". But I won't. I'll just start. Both articles have a different take on how to use the Boltzmann constant. There's probably an in between, but the value used by Hansen isn't right because empirical evidence doesn't support his calculations. The real value is undoubtedly much closer to 0.35 -0.5. Nothing in that range gives the wild temperature rises predicted by the U.N. scare crowd.

And I never claimed that Monckton was a good scientist. Only that he collected a good amount of information. He's obviously researched the topic by contacting reputable scientists. The MIT guy is one; there are many more mentioned in the article. I don't see the same sort of openness on the Cuckoo Science site.

oh, i know all about it. and that's how i know that its findings are solid and have been independently replicated by others using different data sets. like all other talking points by creationists/climate change denialists, the 'controversy' here is non-existent.

As a matter of fact, _any_ data set, including random data, run through the 'hockey stick' model will produce the 'scare' curve. Isn't that nice?

From the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB110834031507653590-DUadAZBzxH0SiuYH3tOdgUmKXPo_20060207.html?mod=blogs)

The problem, says Mr. McIntyre, is that Dr. Mann's mathematical technique in drawing the graph is prone to generating hockey-stick shapes even when applied to random data. Therefore, he argues, it proves nothing.

Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Dr. Zwiers, chief of the Canadian agency's Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis, says he hasn't had time to study Dr. Mann's rebuttals in detail and can't say who is right.

Because it's a slow Friday, I'll treat you to documentation that does support my claims. Most of what the U.N. claims to be man-made global warming is really natural. Sure, climate change exists, but it's natural. This fellow, Monckton, has put together a good analysis of why the U.N. is wrong. The four points I've listed are only the beginning. There's far more statistical manuipulation and other bad science at work in these reports.

Here's a link to a Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml&page=5). Read it. I don't feel like excerpting it.

I make no claim to know enough about this issue to debate it to any conclusion. However, that does not seem to stop anyone else around here, so I shall restrain myself to what little I know about.

Author: A toff, former Thatcher advisor and Conservative party shill.

Page one:
Whining about UN bureaucracy and British taxpayers money

The ‘abolition’ of the Medieval warm period. This was ‘abolished because it wasn’t a global effect and got averaged out. It was a temperature anomaly most prominently visible in the North Atlantic region, which is where the initial research into past climates was conducted. The opposite trend was found in Antarctica. In other words, the climate has varied locally over the past 1000 years. Big woop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period

Yes, I know I’m using Wikipedia. The information contained is still valid.

Now he’s bitching about Antarctica gained ice mass in the past 30 years, as if this cast doubt on the whole shebang. Increased evaporation = increased precipitation = more snow. The glaciers are also speeding up, and ice is breaking up faster.

Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could find. Stern says: "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30 years ago, scientists were anticipating a new Ice Age and writing books called The Cooling.
Your point, Viscount Monkton? Regardless of scientists opinion 30 years ago, scientists have been predicting mean surface temperature rises for some time now. Casting doubt on the science of today because it doesn’t agree with the science of yesterday is a tactic creationists use, and is seriously retarded.

Next, he moans about the increased use of computer simulations instead of temperature sensors. Perish the thought that we should try and predict the future, as opposed to watch what happens now. If I see a car rolling towards me, I’m going to try and predict its path, while Viscount Monkton will be sitting there taking measurements.

And now we proceed to the seaside – recent research suggests that the oceans are acting as a temperature sink (as well as a CO2 sink, but that’s another story). This of course, is an invention of the UN to make its models fit the data. Of course.

My last point is this – the second to last paragraph refers to a simple climate model with reasonable data and assumptions, which suggests a warming of .4 – 1.4 ºC, and a best estimate of .6 ºC. Ignoring the fact that any simple climate model – these are the same models he was rubbishing earlier – is going to be hideously flawed, the only evidence I can see he has put forward for this is some calculations he has done in his references pdf. These are dressed up in a scientific format, in some attempt to give him credibility.

Viscount Monkton is a journalist with no scientific experience – attempting to rubbish the collective work of hundreds of scientists and the consensus of at least the past decade. Regardless of the validity of this consensus, it is still a scientific consensus, and the only thing that will change it is science, not right wing ranting and dodgy numbers.

Because it's a slow Friday, I'll treat you to documentation that does support my claims.

seriously, there is honestly no trend in solar activity that can account for the climate change we've seen recently. it just doesn't work - it's been tried and has failed. to quote muscheler et al's how unusual is today’s solar activity? (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf):

"The recent solar activity is not exceptionally high. The 14C results are
broadly consistent with earlier reconstructions based on 10Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780 and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today."
and
"In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun."


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
"Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade."


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html
"The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005."


and the national academy of science reviewed the work by mann et al and say that it was good.

1) Climate scientists know more about this topic than I do. And, barring one of you fellow Generalites having a terminal degree in climatology, they know more about this topic than anyone on this forum.

2) The vast majority of climate scientists (the people who know about the topic as per rule 1) agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic.

3) Almost everyone disagreeing with that consensus is either funded by industry groups with a vested interest in denying the facts, or is in fact not a scientist in a relevant field.

4) Given the opportunity, almost any scientist would rather publish something really radical and consensus-defying IF THE FACTS LINE UP than just stick with the status quo. No one gets a trip to Stockholm for reaffirming the consensus.

5) If a really good case could be made against climate change, scientists would be flocking in droves to study and publish about it. Especially given the fact that they could make a lot more money doing research for Exxon than for the IPCC

6) As a rule, scientists do not participate in big conspiracies to suppress other viewpoints. Science loves having new material to take a look at, if only to tear it to shreds due to a lack of evidence.

By these facts, if the case for climate change was as weak as some seem to believe, the scientific community would be in the process of a very rapid realignment towards a different consensus. This isn't happening. It isn't happening because the science overwhelmingly supports the consensus that anthropogenic climate change exists and is a serious problem. It's kinda like the whole evolution/creationism/ID/pastafarianism flap: the science all lines up behind one position, and no matter how much vested interests wish it were different, reality pays no attention to political pressure or moneyed interests.

Great question. Simple answer.

Right now, we have high carbon levels because we use fossil fuels. We produce, for the most part, clean CO2. Colourless, odourless gas. Dinosaurs, on the other hand, never used fossil fuels, so where did their CO2 come from?

Volcanoes. Those volcanoes (which happened to incompletely combust huge quantities of coal) produced CO2 and soot, and the soot made the clouds much darker. Being darker, they had a much lower albedo and ceased havinging a net cooling effect.

Cretaceous extinction of the dinosaurs has been attributed to a massive meteor impact not CO2

darker volcanic clouds cause a temperature drop, in the years following the eruptions of Krakatoa and Pinatubo. The years following Krakatoa were the of "years of no summers".

The largest mass extinction was the Permian 96% of life perished. This has been attributed to massive volcanic eruptions the "Siberian Traps" which would have initially cooled the earth then as the dust settled the CO2 remained. There was massive CO2 content because the traps were in a heavy coal region. The following warming continued until the oceans rose an estimated 5 degrees c which released the methane locked in the Ocean bottom and created further warming.

1) Climate scientists know more about this topic than I do. And, barring one of you fellow Generalites having a terminal degree in climatology, they know more about this topic than anyone on this forum.

2) The vast majority of climate scientists (the people who know about the topic as per rule 1) agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic.

3) Almost everyone disagreeing with that consensus is either funded by industry groups with a vested interest in denying the facts, or is in fact not a scientist in a relevant field.

4) Given the opportunity, almost any scientist would rather publish something really radical and consensus-defying IF THE FACTS LINE UP than just stick with the status quo. No one gets a trip to Stockholm for reaffirming the consensus.

5) If a really good case could be made against climate change, scientists would be flocking in droves to study and publish about it. Especially given the fact that they could make a lot more money doing research for Exxon than for the IPCC

6) As a rule, scientists do not participate in big conspiracies to suppress other viewpoints. Science loves having new material to take a look at, if only to tear it to shreds due to a lack of evidence.

By these facts, if the case for climate change was as weak as some seem to believe, the scientific community would be in the process of a very rapid realignment towards a different consensus. This isn't happening. It isn't happening because the science overwhelmingly supports the consensus that anthropogenic climate change exists and is a serious problem. It's kinda like the whole evolution/creationism/ID/pastafarianism flap: the science all lines up behind one position, and no matter how much vested interests wish it were different, reality pays no attention to political pressure or moneyed interests.

1-your full of yourself
2-like our PM Harper you probably believe Climate Change is a Socialist scheme to steal money from wealthy nations.
3-90% of the world's climatologists agree with the causes but you know better:rolleyes: because you're just soooo smart. Where is the LOL smilie when you need one

1-your full of yourself
2-like our PM Harper you probably believe Climate Change is a Socialist scheme to steal money from wealthy nations.
3-90% of the world's climatologists agree with the causes but you know better:rolleyes: because you're just soooo smart. Where is the LOL smilie when you need one

what

1) Climate scientists know more about this topic than I do. And, barring one of you fellow Generalites having a terminal degree in climatology, they know more about this topic than anyone on this forum.

2) The vast majority of climate scientists (the people who know about the topic as per rule 1) agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic.

3) Almost everyone disagreeing with that consensus is either funded by industry groups with a vested interest in denying the facts, or is in fact not a scientist in a relevant field.

4) Given the opportunity, almost any scientist would rather publish something really radical and consensus-defying IF THE FACTS LINE UP than just stick with the status quo. No one gets a trip to Stockholm for reaffirming the consensus.

5) If a really good case could be made against climate change, scientists would be flocking in droves to study and publish about it. Especially given the fact that they could make a lot more money doing research for Exxon than for the IPCC

6) As a rule, scientists do not participate in big conspiracies to suppress other viewpoints. Science loves having new material to take a look at, if only to tear it to shreds due to a lack of evidence.

By these facts, if the case for climate change was as weak as some seem to believe, the scientific community would be in the process of a very rapid realignment towards a different consensus. This isn't happening. It isn't happening because the science overwhelmingly supports the consensus that anthropogenic climate change exists and is a serious problem. It's kinda like the whole evolution/creationism/ID/pastafarianism flap: the science all lines up behind one position, and no matter how much vested interests wish it were different, reality pays no attention to political pressure or moneyed interests.
And yet, there have been big pieces of false data in the movement.

Mann's hockey stick graph is the usual example, but there was also a 7 year period (1997-2004) where NASA had contradictory data on stratospheric warming, and yet the global warming movement completely ignored this potential stake through the heart of their climate models.

As a matter of fact, _any_ data set, including random data, run through the 'hockey stick' model will produce the 'scare' curve. Isn't that nice?

small problem - that isn't actually true and using other methods entirely has given equivalent results.

mcintyre and mckitrick have pretty well shamed themselves out of the game

And yet, there have been big pieces of false data in the movement.

Mann's hockey stick graph is the usual example, but there was also a 7 year period (1997-2004) where NASA had contradictory data on statospheric warming, and yet the global warming movement completely ignored this potential stake through the heart of their climate models.

mann et al's graph is excellent, especially in light of the 8 years of additional research since then that has uniformly supported it's general points.

and iirc, it has already been pointed out to you at length that your characterization of what went on with the satellite data is just silly.

mann et al's graph is excellent, especially in light of the 8 years of additional research since then that has uniformly supported it's general points.

and iirc, it has already been pointed out to you at length that your characterization of what went on with the satellite data is just silly.

and he ignores data as well...I point out that volcanic eruptions cause cooling with dust particles in the air and he says the opposite, when the facts show world temps drop after a major volcanic eruption...I did make a mistake however...I referred to the year following Krakatoa as the year with no summer when it was actually after the eruption of TAMBORA in 1815, so 1816 was the year of no summer...

It's the capitalists who created this mess, now they have to clean it up.

It's the capitalists who created this mess, now they have to clean it up.An attitude that's sure to help. Besides, it's not even close to being true. Ignorance caused the mess. Bloodymindedness is what's continuing to cause it. Capitalism isn't related to either.

The pro-business think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, with the help of funds from Exxon-Mobil offered scientists $10,000 to write speeches or articles refuting the just-released UN Global Warming Report. It was originally reported by the UK's Guardian, but is summed up nicely by American Public Media's morning show, the Marketplace Morning Report (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/02/AM200702021.html).

I'm ambivalent about global warming and climate change, but it seems to be that this is basically bribery. Read the transcription of the radio interview via the above link and tell the forum what you think.

The only thing worse then fucktards are wealthy, powerful fucktards with a misanthropic agenda.

When the big lie gets repeated often enough, it becomes truth.
How appropriate.

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Scince the other thread is dead I'll repeat what I said there:

Actualy Exxon's stratergy is less damaging than some others.

In face of mouting scientific reserch Exxon's claims seem more and more rediculous.

companies like BP however are hidding their eco-un-friendly activities behind a green wash of biofules and carbon offsetting.

and he ignores data as well...

It's a good thing that people who keep yelping about the hockey stick issue have the same wherewithal to bring up the revisiting of that particular case this past year to help qualify the argument then, isn't it?

Denying only fails because you people refuse to listen.

The IPCC report today said a bunch of things. Most of them irrefutably true:

The world is warming.
We, at the very least, helped.
It's screwing with weather and raising sea levels.

Sure, all these things are true. But the IPCC goes completely wrong when they predict global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 18 and 58 centimeters by the end of the century.

Because their models aren't good enough for that. Not only do they ignore (and they admit they do this) mitigating feedbacks like cloud albedo, but they also ignore the likelihood of emissions reductions caused by dwindling oil supply.

Eugh. You dismiss the projections to 2100 because the models have no accuracy that far in the future. You're quite right. But predicting emissions reductions because of dwindling oil supply ignores two important considerations: (a) there's huge amounts of coal, hence coal-electricity, and coal is as bad as oil for emissions, or worse, and (b) if the price of oil is right and it's still a monopoly for some applications (like, cars), oil can be extracted from shale and tar, albiet at far higher multiples of the emissions required to make gasoline from crude oil.
Oh, and take a look at the proportion of human-instigated emissions due to oil.

There's some subtlety to your point, though. It's 'let us not do anything until the choice is forced apon us.' It's a cowardly position, but sometimes it wins big when new and attractive options emerge.

...
Just because it's popular doesn't make it good.
Perhaps it's a character call. Look at who it's popular with, and look at their vested interests.
Your position assumes that scientists, who previously cared about nothing but the value of their work as judged by competent peers and enough income to pay their morgage, have suddenly got with the capitalist program and set up some kind of political scam to cut themselves a slice of the economic action.
Either that, or some liberal conspiracy is paying them money to cite each other's papers and create a fabric of lies for some ineffable liberal reason.
Know many academics, yourself?

Well, here's the test of your theory. Let's see the scientific conspirators who need the money now (not after they take over the entire economy) break ranks and make a mad dash for the $10K. Citing each other like crazy on their blogs and youtube pages.

Hmm. It almost looks like an experiment when you think of the 'bounty' that way.

Hmm. That's what I say, oh hey-hey-hey. Hmm.

Again, the climate scientists KNOW they're not modelling cloud albedo feedbacks accurately. I've even shown you links from RealClimate to that effect.

I'll see your cloud albedo feedback, and raise you a clathrate degradation feedback. That's methane: red chips; not the house edge.

Eugh. You dismiss the projections to 2100 because the models have no accuracy that far in the future. You're quite right. But predicting emissions reductions because of dwindling oil supply ignores two important considerations: (a) there's huge amounts of coal, hence coal-electricity, and coal is as bad as oil for emissions, or worse, and (b) if the price of oil is right and it's still a monopoly for some applications (like, cars), oil can be extracted from shale and tar, albiet at far higher multiples of the emissions required to make gasoline from crude oil.
Oh, and take a look at the proportion of human-instigated emissions due to oil.
We can't possibly burn coal at the same rate we are oil. Oil has vast advantages in terms of portability (energy/mass and volume) which make it a far more useful fuel for things like personal transportation.
There's some subtlety to your point, though. It's 'let us not do anything until the choice is forced apon us.' It's a cowardly position, but sometimes it wins big when new and attractive options emerge.
It's not "until the choice is forced upon us", it's "until we actually know what effects our actions will have".the economic action.
Perhaps it's a character call. Look at who it's popular with, and look at their vested interests.
I am not willing to make ad hominen judgements. Either I trust the science or I don't. Who's presenting it is irrelevant.