NationStates Jolt Archive

More evidence continues to accumulate that global climate change may be due to factors other than “greenhouse gases.” A recent study by Professor R. Timothy Patterson, director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, points to natural cycles in solar activity and related variations in cosmic-ray penetration of the atmosphere. Prof. Patterson’s conclusion: we should be worrying about global cooling, not global warming:



My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.

Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

Full story posted at
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: there no “consensus” regarding global warming, contrary to the Al Gore school of climatology hysteria. All the bombast and pontification in the world can’t change that fact, nor explain away evidence such as that discovered by Prof. Patterson and others.

Those who label Prof. Patterson and others “deniers” are themselves in denial.

And btw: in light of the foregoing, it looks like one of my earlier posts on the subject of "global cooling" wasn't just satirical after all ;)

and last february was the 34th coldest in the last 92 years thus disproving global warming!

Oh, wait, that was someone elses bullshit, still doesn't make this any better.

Ooh, this is gonna be good...

*pulls up chair, makes popcorn, passes drinks around*

*sighs* Insert standard list of proofs here that you refuse to look at. Insert list of scientists here who have stated the evidence for global warming is overwhemling that you also refuse to look at. Insert explinations along with the usual one study does not refute make that you also refuse to acknowledge. And finally, insert about 20 pages of flames and outerwise that always follows your threads, normally because you refuse to look at the above said evidence and get called on it, repeatedly.

Did I miss anything?

Ooh, this is gonna be good...

*pulls up chair, makes popcorn, passes drinks around*

*drags over lawnchair, SPF30 sunscreen and cooler*

doritos anyone?

Woah, woah woah... :mad:

Didn't anyone tell all of you: The Debate is Over.

Thread over.




:p

Back again for another beatdown I see. Don't you get tired of being pwned, New Mitanni?

I wish the Earth was cooling, my harbles have been roasting as of late.

Hmmm.....

*gets some husky puppies and a dog sled* I'll be ready by 2020!

Seriously though, the Earth Climate is a complex and ever-changing system, and to try to pin it down to one cause like Co2, or sun spots is just silly and inane, there are hundreds of factors that goes into what makes the Earth Climate hotter or cooler.

*drags over lawnchair, SPF30 sunscreen and cooler*

doritos anyone?

Sure, thanks. :)

*grabs a handful, hands Sarkhaan a drink*

Back again for another beatdown I see. Don't you get tired of being pwned, New Mitanni?

Some people are gluttons for punishment...

Care for a drink?

*drags over lawnchair, SPF30 sunscreen and cooler*

doritos anyone?
Cool Ranch?

How much do you get paid by the GOP New Mitanni for sitting at a computer and sprouting this garbage?

How much do you get paid by the GOP New Mitanni for sitting at a computer and sprouting this garbage?

How much do you get paid by them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Intelligence_%28Iran%29) to sprout your pro-Iranian government garbage? :p




Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

Psh. Leave it to geologists to not know anything about the sun...

Ice ages and the like are caused by changes in the earth's orbit, primarily by the change in eccentricity mostly. However, this doesn't change the fact that the temperature has been increasing at a much faster rate than ever before in the Earth's history over the past ~100 years.

How much do you get paid by the GOP New Mitanni for sitting at a computer and sprouting this garbage?

If he's getting paid, the GOP is dumber with money than even I thought.

If he's getting paid, the GOP is dumber with money than even I thought.

Nah, I think he volunteers. Truly a labor of love. ;)

If he's getting paid, the GOP is dumber with money than even I thought.

.......nah.....too easy......

Been there since the day after tomorrow.

I read in an article in Popular Science that this global cooling scenario is very plausible an it is theorized that it has a cyclic period.

Though, this scenario is cause by the change of salinity in Earth's ocean,... which of course, is caused by melting polar caps,... which in turn is caused by .... wait for it.... global warming.

Cool Ranch?

I'll take some regular Doritos and a Coke.
*Sets up lawn chair*

Woah, woah woah... :mad:

Didn't anyone tell all of you: The Debate is Over.

Thread over.




:p

Debate is never over, especially for science.

Debate is never over, especially for science.

The debate is also closed for religion, we know that's an unprovable load of crap.

The debate is also closed for religion, we know that's an unprovable load of crap.

lol, yes but thats different.

I'll take some regular Doritos and a Coke.
*Sets up lawn chair*

*hands you a Coke*

God's existence can't be proven or disproven, so it's stupid to even argue about it.

I'd take something that can be proven over something that can't any day.

The debate is also closed for religion, we know that's an unprovable load of crap.

God's existence can't be proven or disproven, so it's stupid to even argue about it.

God's existence can't be proven or disproven, so it's stupid to even argue about it.

Doesn't have to be disproven--that whole proving a negative thing, right? Until there's evidence that one or more exists, there's no reason to believe in them.

Doesn't have to be disproven--that whole proving a negative thing, right? Until there's evidence that one or more exists, there's no reason to believe in them.

I don't really see any harm in believing in a higher being. I mean if such belief helps you be a better person, and helps you respect and love your fellow man more, then whats the harm? The only harm I can see in this is when people use that belief for their own sick twisted ideology and self justification of their political/social/ and military agenda.

Doesn't have to be disproven--that whole proving a negative thing, right? Until there's evidence that one or more exists, there's no reason to believe in them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force#Gravity_as_a_fictitious_force

Doesn't stop me from falling. :rolleyes:

I've said it before, but it still amazes me. Only you some of you yanks seem to be waffling on the fact of climate change. 'oh, maybe it's not our rampant pollution making it worse! IT'S NATURAL'.

Ostriches.

I don't really see any harm in believing in a higher being. I mean if such belief helps you be a better person, and helps you respect and love your fellow man more, then whats the harm? The only harm I can see in this is when people use that belief for their own sick twisted ideology and self justification of their political/social/ and military agenda.

That's exactly what religion has become on the right, and to separate it is becoming increasingly difficult.

That's exactly what religion has become on the right, and to separate it is becoming increasingly difficult.

People have got to be tired of them in the robes sometime, right?

I think this is just a phase in humanity's history.

I've said it before, but it still amazes me. Only you some of you yanks seem to be waffling on the fact of climate change. 'oh, maybe it's not our rampant pollution making it worse! IT'S NATURAL'.

Ostriches.

ALways some thirteen-year-old kid from Iowa on all these forums, who thinks they can pretend to be from afar, without studying at all...

The alternative scares me... that someone thinks that only americans and canadians are freaking out about this debate, means that they must be completly isolated from... well, just about all media...

I don't really see any harm in believing in a higher being. I mean if such belief helps you be a better person, and helps you respect and love your fellow man more, then whats the harm? The only harm I can see in this is when people use that belief for their own sick twisted ideology and self justification of their political/social/ and military agenda.

I'm not saying there's harm in believing--if belief helps you to be a better person, then one might say it's beneficial. But the danger you describe at the end of your post has happened, more often than not, throughout human history.

ALways some thirteen-year-old kid from Iowa on all these forums, who thinks they can pretend to be from afar, without studying at all...

The alternative scares me... that someone thinks that only americans and canadians are freaking out about this debate, means that they must be completly isolated from... well, just about all media...

Isn't global warming an international issue since.... CAPTAIN PLANET?

... good grief... HEART! *shudders*

Doesn't have to be disproven--that whole proving a negative thing, right? Until there's evidence that one or more exists, there's no reason to believe in them.

Fair enough, but just as His presence can't be proven, neither can His absence. Therefore, since the burden of proof lies on both sides - and neither side can conclusively prove the other is wrong - it's pointless to argue about it.

Fair enough, but just as His presence can't be proven, neither can His absence. Therefore, since the burden of proof lies on both sides - and neither side can conclusively prove the other is wrong - it's pointless to argue about it.

You can't prove absence inasmuch as you can prove anything. All you can prove is the existence of something. The equation doesn't go both ways. The starting point is nullity--nothing need be proven about the null set. It is the given that begins any exploration. And it exists until there is evidence that something exists.

Look, I understand the desire to believe that atheism and belief are two sides of the same coin, but it just isn't so. Most atheists, if provided empirical, repeatable evidence of a divine presence, would concede the existence of such a being. But that hasn't happened, and I don't think it's likely to.

Isn't global warming an international issue since.... CAPTAIN PLANET?

... good grief... HEART! *shudders*

Lamest. Cartoon. Ever. :p

Can't say I didn't watch it every Saturday morning, though. ;)

Fair enough, but just as His presence can't be proven, neither can His absence. Therefore, since the burden of proof lies on both sides - and neither side can conclusively prove the other is wrong - it's pointless to argue about it.

That is not the case because we can already say that no evidence exists to prove the existance of God, the absense of evidence to prove that God exists for the meantime proves he doesn't exist. Before we discovered cancer, it didn't exist. The burden is on the religious people to prove he exists, the same way if I said I saw a giant flaming eyeball God, I would have to prove it to others, the only difference between that and Christianity is that multiple people share the same delusion, which itself produces a positive self-reinforcement because individually their belief is ridiculous until other people believe it, and when they have other who think as they do their ego is sated, it is the pack mentality delusion of religion. Science proves.

You can't prove absence inasmuch as you can prove anything. All you can prove is the existence of something. The equation doesn't go both ways. The starting point is nullity--nothing need be proven about the null set. It is the given that begins any exploration. And it exists until there is evidence that something exists.

Look, I understand the desire to believe that atheism and belief are two sides of the same coin, but it just isn't so. Most atheists, if provided empirical, repeatable evidence of a divine presence, would concede the existence of such a being. But that hasn't happened, and I don't think it's likely to.

That's true. Fair enough.

*drags over lawnchair, SPF30 sunscreen and cooler*

doritos anyone?
Yeah, thanks!
I haven't called Desperate Measures - think he's busy? :)

*munches Doritos*
*pulls another lawnchair up, sits*

*listens to thunder roll overhead*

So is there any truth to the whole "the sun did it" theory?

I'm not a big activist on the global warming, but it's not *too* hard to believe that having a burning ball of gas only 93,000,000 miles away, which could fry us all if it heated up by even 1%, might play into it. However, like I said, I haven't really read the latest. ;)

So is there any truth to the whole "the sun did it" theory?

I'm not a big activist on the global warming, but it's not *too* hard to believe that having a burning ball of gas only 93,000,000 miles away, which could fry us all if it heated up by even 1%, might play into it. However, like I said, I haven't really read the latest. ;)

The whole argument diverts attention from the real issue, which is: polluting the planet harms our health, whether it's too much CO2, too much metals, too much chemicals etc etc.

Concentrating on the, admittedly incomplete, but fairly compelling argument that CO2 causes climate change draws away attention from the fact that pollution, in general, is harmful and we should find ways to reduce it.

The same tactics as were used to deny the smoking-cancer link, tactics so effective that people still have their doubts - regardless of all the other damage smoking does.

That's how people extend these debates, by focusing on a tiny debatable portion and somehow making that the central issue in then public eye.

Same with evolution.

The whole argument diverts attention from the real issue, which is: polluting the planet harms our health, whether it's too much CO2, too much metals, too much chemicals etc etc.

Concentrating on the, admittedly incomplete, but fairly compelling argument that CO2 causes climate change draws away attention from the fact that pollution, in general, is harmful and we should find ways to reduce it.

The same tactics as were used to deny the smoking-cancer link, tactics so effective that people still have their doubts - regardless of all the other damage smoking does.

That's how people extend these debates, by focusing on a tiny debatable portion and somehow making that the central issue in then public eye.

Same with evolution.

Could be. I've seen a bunch of headlines about the sun heating up and Mars, etc. but few statistics to back it up. But there's no question that we need to cut pollution - that much should be simple, and a priority.

Could be. I've seen a bunch of headlines about the sun heating up and Mars, etc. but few statistics to back it up. But there's no question that we need to cut pollution - that much should be simple, and a priority.

We've been cutting back our pollution for 30 years now....

We've been cutting back our pollution for 30 years now....

Yeah, I know. But there's still some out there, I'm sure. It's not like you get bronchitis from breathing air thats too clean, after all. ;)

Yeah, I know. But there's still some out there, I'm sure. It's not like you get bronchitis from breathing air thats too clean, after all. ;)

Yes, but with our society relying on stuff like fossil fuel, Nuclear power, coal, and other emission producing form of energy, we can only cut our emission back so far until we reach a point where our energy system is going to have to have a complete overhaul.

Yes, but with our society relying on stuff like fossil fuel, Nuclear power, coal, and other emission producing form of energy, we can only cut our emission back so far until we reach a point where our energy system is going to have to have a complete overhaul.

Probably. But it's never bad to make all the cuts we can. The changeover's another thing.

Yes, but with our society relying on stuff like fossil fuel, Nuclear power, coal, and other emission producing form of energy, we can only cut our emission back so far until we reach a point where our energy system is going to have to have a complete overhaul.

Which we're going to have to do even if it wasn't damaging the environment, simply because we're going to run out of it--even nuclear has a finite fuel source, though we haven't really tapped into it yet.

*sighs* Insert standard list of proofs here that you refuse to look at. Insert list of scientists here who have stated the evidence for global warming is overwhemling that you also refuse to look at. Insert explinations along with the usual one study does not refute make that you also refuse to acknowledge. And finally, insert about 20 pages of flames and outerwise that always follows your threads, normally because you refuse to look at the above said evidence and get called on it, repeatedly.

Did I miss anything?

Yes, wise guy, you did.

It's getting late, I've just dealt with Part II, and I'll deal with you later today. Reading much more of you now just gives me acida.

I will, however, note in response your own refusal to look at the twenty-four or so references within the article I cite, including for example the reference to Prof. Claude Allegre's present position. There are far more than "the usual one study", as you so misleadingly state, that dispute and refute "the above said evidence."

As for getting "called on it," call all you want. I've cited sources. You've cited sources. The truth is determined by facts, not by "consensus."

Which we're going to have to do even if it wasn't damaging the environment, simply because we're going to run out of it--even nuclear has a finite fuel source, though we haven't really tapped into it yet.

Yea, but Nuclear will outlast fossil and coal power by a long shot.

I knew I had seen this shitty thread from him before

Replay of the same bad logic
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530686 (I really do not know why Hysteria II was posted before I)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=520153
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519891

This guy seems to have a vendetta against global warming and is doing a crappy job at disproving it

Yea, but Nuclear will outlast fossil and coal power by a long shot.

Not if we depend on it as a sole energy supply--uranium is not as widely available as coal or oil, so while we'll get more energy per unit, there are a hell of a lot fewer units to begin with. The long term solution is renewables.

Could be. I've seen a bunch of headlines about the sun heating up and Mars, etc. but few statistics to back it up. But there's no question that we need to cut pollution - that much should be simple, and a priority.
The problem with Mars is that it isn't massive enough to retain a dense enough atmosphere to allow for liquid water, any water would just sublimate from ice to gas right away. Mars also isn't in the sun's habitable zone, although interior heating would probably be able to help it.

A star's habitable zone does tend to move outwards as it ages, but I don't think that's the issue here. If it was the issue then we'd have a gradual warming up instead of this sharp rate of increase we've seen over the past 100 or so years.

As I said earlier: Leave it to the geologists to not know a damn thing about the sun and act as though they do.

*drags over lawnchair, SPF30 sunscreen and cooler*

doritos anyone?

pfft I gots a beanbag chair...

BBQ anyone?

pfft I gots a beanbag chair...

BBQ anyone?

Didn't you read the OP?


The world is cooling so it'll be much too cold to have a bbq.

Global warming is a load of bullshit.

The only reason we should find alternatives to oil and gas is because eventually we will run out.

Greenhouse gases and global warming theory is government funded to get more tax out of us.

Global warming is a load of bullshit.

The only reason we should find alternatives to oil and gas is because eventually we will run out.

Greenhouse gases and global warming theory is government funded to get more tax out of us.

Yeah and all them there scientists that come up with all these so called facts are all really government agents

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7720/tinfoilhat2cy2.jpg

I don't understand the OP. Why have you picked out one scientific study that predicts global cooling, while ignoring the overwhelming number of studies that suggest global warming? Are you particularly well qualified to judge which studies are reliable and which to ignore? Or do you think that the presence of any disagreement at all among scientists is a reason to dismiss their general consensus?

More evidence continues to accumulate that global climate change may be due to factors other than “greenhouse gases.” A recent study by Professor R. Timothy Patterson, director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, points to natural cycles in solar activity and related variations in cosmic-ray penetration of the atmosphere. Prof. Patterson’s conclusion: we should be worrying about global cooling, not global warming:



Full story posted at
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: there no “consensus” regarding global warming, contrary to the Al Gore school of climatology hysteria. All the bombast and pontification in the world can’t change that fact, nor explain away evidence such as that discovered by Prof. Patterson and others.

Those who label Prof. Patterson and others “deniers” are themselves in denial.

And btw: in light of the foregoing, it looks like one of my earlier posts on the subject of "global cooling" wasn't just satirical after all ;)
Busted!!

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163#src2

You lose....close thread please!! :p

Busted!!

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163#src2

You lose....close thread please!! :p

Your "secrets" citation proves exactly nothing.

Address the facts, not the source of the funding that the scientists used to discover them.

Doesn't matter. America is currently on the path that leads to the path that we should have been on nearly a decade ago to become greener. Hiss and arch your back as much as you like but we are unlikely to take any steps backward at this point.

The debate is also closed for religion, we know that's an unprovable load of crap.

This thread became totally off-topic for a second just around here.

I don't understand the OP. Why have you picked out one scientific study that predicts global cooling, while ignoring the overwhelming number of studies that suggest global warming?

It isn't just "one" study that disputes "global warming" in general and anthropogenic GW in particular. The article I cited itself refers to a large number of other scientists who don't accept the so-called "consensus."

Are you particularly well qualified to judge which studies are reliable and which to ignore?

I don't claim to have any particular qualifications, beyond the sense that tells me that general circulation models and other simulations, which can't even predict the weather a month from now, are unlikely to be capable of accurately predicting world-wide climate changes over the next 50-100 years.

But someone like Prof. Claude Allegre, whom I have cited in a previous post and who is referred to in the "Deniers Series" of which the present article is part (link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388 ), does. I find his skepticism on a subject which he himself first help bring to public notice more persuasive than the panicky pronouncements of GW believers.

And while we're on the subject, I'd ask the same question of GW advocates.

Or do you think that the presence of any disagreement at all among scientists is a reason to dismiss their general consensus?

"Consensus" is not how science advances. It's not about who gets the most votes, it's about who best explains the facts. Ten thousand scientists can proclaim that substances burn by giving up phlogiston, but it only takes one Lavoisier to demonstrate that you need oxygen and thus show that the phlogiston theory is wrong. The scientific "consensus" used to be that Aristotle was right and heavy objects fell faster than light objects, until Galileo showed otherwise. There are may other examples of a scientific "consensus" being proved wrong.

I reiterate: I see no "consensus" that anthropogenic GW is a real phenomenon, and even if such a consensus existed, the mere fact of agreement would not establish the phenomenon if facts exist supporting a contrary theory.

So sad. So very very sad.

This thread became totally off-topic for a second just around here.

The topic was for shit to begin with. We had to do something.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries
We all realize two centuries is only 200 years right?

I don't claim to have any particular qualifications, beyond the sense that tells me that general circulation models and other simulations, which can't even predict the weather a month from now, are unlikely to be capable of accurately predicting world-wide climate changes over the next 50-100 years.


Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate.

More evidence continues to accumulate that global climate change may be due to factors other than “greenhouse gases.” A recent study by Professor R. Timothy Patterson, director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, points to natural cycles in solar activity and related variations in cosmic-ray penetration of the atmosphere.


All this is known. Scientists don't think its only greenhouse gasses. All these "new causes" have been known to have to do with global warming for a long time.

Your "secrets" citation proves exactly nothing.

Address the facts, not the source of the funding that the scientists used to discover them.
You want me to address the "facts??" provided by a person, who has been funded by big oil, to disprove global warming?? :p

Your "secrets" citation proves exactly nothing.

Address the facts, not the source of the funding that the scientists used to discover them.

Are you honestly trying to say that the funding would have no bearing on the conclusions at all?

We've been cutting back our pollution for 30 years now....

Not nearly enough since we are polluting more now that 10 years ago...

Are you honestly trying to say that the funding would have no bearing on the conclusions at all?

If they were good scientists doing good science, it wouldn't. Big if. One has to balance the fact that the oil industry has a vested interest in promoting as much study of global warming as possible regardless of the results as well as their vested interest in results they like. One has to consider that some scientists would not be swayed by the source of their funding and some would have a vested interest in making sure they are 'wanted' by the funders n the future. As for me, I don't know who to believe anymore. :(

As for me, I don't know who to believe anymore. :(

Ain't that the sodding truth.

Lies, lies we were told as children.

I simply don't have the time to study every field of every subject of every issue, even if I weren't the tremendous time-waster that I am. I simply can't trust anything I read anymore without getting that sneaky feeling that somewhere there's an agenda involved.

Best to stick with fiction, frivolity and another 'f' that, well whatever.

EDIT: Bugger, I ruined my 1111 post count.

You want me to address the "facts??" provided by a person, who has been funded by big oil, to disprove global warming?? :p
Sure there's a conflict of interest here. But it's no different from the conflict of interest any global warming proponent has. Think about it. How many climatology jobs do you think have been created by the global warming hysteria (as New Mitanni so eloquently phrased it)? I'd wager probably an awful lot. Now what happens if global warming is suddenly debunked completely? Governments and international agencies no longer have nearly as much of an impetus to fund a bunch of global warming studies, and an awful lot of climatologists are out of a job.
A star's habitable zone does tend to move outwards as it ages, but I don't think that's the issue here. If it was the issue then we'd have a gradual warming up instead of this sharp rate of increase we've seen over the past 100 or so years.
I'm sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but did you actually read the article? It's referring to sunspots as a cause of climate change, not expansion of the sun. An increasing number of sunspots causes an increase in solar output, and this, along with the associated increase in the solar wind, brings about global warming. And conversely, a decrease in sunspots causes cooling. Since sunspots come about in cycles, climate change can be associated with this factor. The expansion of the sun however, occurs over such a dramatically long timeframe that it would likely take millions of years to notice a climate change.

And on a completely different subject...

That is not the case because we can already say that no evidence exists to prove the existance of God, the absense of evidence to prove that God exists for the meantime proves he doesn't exist. Before we discovered cancer, it didn't exist.
You're joking, right?

Look, I understand the desire to believe that atheism and belief are two sides of the same coin, but it just isn't so. Most atheists, if provided empirical, repeatable evidence of a divine presence, would concede the existence of such a being. But that hasn't happened, and I don't think it's likely to.
Or maybe they'd just invent some inane theory like evolution to explain away rationality. But that's a debate for a different thread, isn't it?

Sure there's a conflict of interest here. But it's no different from the conflict of interest any global warming proponent has. Think about it. How many climatology jobs do you think have been created by the global warming hysteria (as New Mitanni so eloquently phrased it)? I'd wager probably an awful lot. Now what happens if global warming is suddenly debunked completely? Governments and international agencies no longer have nearly as much of an impetus to fund a bunch of global warming studies, and an awful lot of climatologists are out of a job.
Their professional reputations would not also be in too good a position.

Or maybe they'd just invent some inane theory like evolution to explain away rationality. But that's a debate for a different thread, isn't it?
If by debate, you mean we mock you mercilessly until you run away crying for your mother, then sure, it's a debate for another thread.

Sure there's a conflict of interest here. But it's no different from the conflict of interest any global warming proponent has. Think about it. How many climatology jobs do you think have been created by the global warming hysteria (as New Mitanni so eloquently phrased it)? I'd wager probably an awful lot. Now what happens if global warming is suddenly debunked completely? Governments and international agencies no longer have nearly as much of an impetus to fund a bunch of global warming studies, and an awful lot of climatologists are out of a job.

OK, but think about the other way. How many climatology jobs have been created by the attempt to debunk global warming? At least as much, surely. Cuz we're not talking just government and international agencies funding, we're talking Big Oil and Big Government with a heavy vested interest in debunking the "hysteria." I'd say, even more jobs. Not to mention there's a whole lot more money in ignoring global warming than in recognizing it.

All New Mitanni is really doing is saying "there needs to be consensus before it's science," finding any scientist who doesn't consede and then using it to try to dismiss the whole damned thing. This is no more scientific or appropriate than me finding any historian who believes the Holocaust didn't exist and using that to say "there is no historical consensus on whether the Holocaust happened."

If consensus had to be universal, as New Mitanni is obviously claiming, then there is no consensus on anything.

OK, but think about the other way. How many climatology jobs have been created by the attempt to debunk global warming? At least as much, surely. Cuz we're not talking just government and international agencies funding, we're talking Big Oil and Big Government with a heavy vested interest in debunking the "hysteria." I'd say, even more jobs. Not to mention there's a whole lot more money in ignoring global warming than in recognizing it.
Sure, that's fine. All I'm saying is that there's just as much of a conflict of interests on either side.

All New Mitanni is really doing is saying "there needs to be consensus before it's science," finding any scientist who doesn't consede and then using it to try to dismiss the whole damned thing. This is no more scientific or appropriate than me finding any historian who believes the Holocaust didn't exist and using that to say "there is no historical consensus on whether the Holocaust happened."

If consensus had to be universal, as New Mitanni is obviously claiming, then there is no consensus on anything.
Actually, the exact opposite is true. New Mitanni produced a source in opposition to the generally accepted theory regarding global warming. And instead of actually finding evidence to refute the source, most everyone on this thread has instead used the argument that 'everyone else disagrees with you, so you must be wrong.' Seriously, re-read the thread and tell me I'm wrong.

If by debate, you mean we mock you mercilessly until you run away crying for your mother, then sure, it's a debate for another thread.
This is why you have to sit at the kid's table for Thanksgiving dinner.

This is why you have to sit at the kid's table for Thanksgiving dinner.

You're cute when you're dumb.

You're cute when you're dumb.
My daddy could beat up your daddy.

My daddy could beat up your daddy.

Your use of Georgia font is annoying.

Everything refutes New Mitanni's 'source'. This thread is made of fail, and fit only for mocking sarcasm.

Oh, and the Nazz IS your daddy. You should have a word with your mother about that.

We get to say you must be wrong because the 'everybody else' of which you speak has already proved New Mitanni's source to be wrong.

Hey guys! I think Global Warming is a hoax! I want you to spend the next couple of hours proving me wrong! Why? Because I totally merit the attention!

Gravity is a lie too. Unless you can prove it to me, right now, then I win!

Geminorum? Vetalia's moons are named Vetalia Geminorum A and B....what a curious coincidence.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. New Mitanni produced a source in opposition to the generally accepted theory regarding global warming. And instead of actually finding evidence to refute the source, most everyone on this thread has instead used the argument that 'everyone else disagrees with you, so you must be wrong.' Seriously, re-read the thread and tell me I'm wrong.
We get to say you must be wrong because the 'everybody else' of which you speak has already proved New Mitanni's source to be wrong.

My daddy could beat up your daddy.

He probably could--my dad is 66 years old, has a hip in need of replacing, has Alzheimers and pernicious anemia, and a crippled left arm from polio when he was a kid. But I'm not pussy enough to get my daddy to fight for me either.

I don't claim to have any particular qualifications, beyond the sense that tells me that general circulation models and other simulations, which can't even predict the weather a month from now, are unlikely to be capable of accurately predicting world-wide climate changes over the next 50-100 years.

"Consensus" is not how science advances. It's not about who gets the most votes, it's about who best explains the facts. Ten thousand scientists can proclaim that substances burn by giving up phlogiston, but it only takes one Lavoisier to demonstrate that you need oxygen and thus show that the phlogiston theory is wrong. The scientific "consensus" used to be that Aristotle was right and heavy objects fell faster than light objects, until Galileo showed otherwise. There are may other examples of a scientific "consensus" being proved wrong.


Everyone here has been dismissive of you because we are not specialists in environmental physics, and neither are you. A technical argument about simulation models just isn't feasible. Now it is true that we can apply common sense to seeing which scientists sound sensible. I think your attempt to do this failed, though. Given that we are not qualified to make such judgments, then, our recourse is to go with the consensus of reliable scientists. It is true that this is often wrong, but our job is not to be the scientist who finds the truth, but rather the citizen who makes decisions about what to do using the information at our disposal.

Sure, that's fine. All I'm saying is that there's just as much of a conflict of interests on either side.


Actually I've shown that there is more conflict of interest for "debunkers" simply because there is more money involved.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. New Mitanni produced a source in opposition to the generally accepted theory regarding global warming. And instead of actually finding evidence to refute the source, most everyone on this thread has instead used the argument that 'everyone else disagrees with you, so you must be wrong.' Seriously, re-read the thread and tell me I'm wrong.


...that isn't in any way the exact opposite to what I said. Seriously, re-read my post and get back to me.

Their professional reputations would not also be in too good a position.

People still peddle that Freudian bunkum without shame. So I don't imagine professional reputation is really a consideration.

Actually I've shown that there is more conflict of interest for "debunkers" simply because there is more money involved.
But on an individual level, each scientist's job is potentially at stake. According to your theory, the "debunkers" have more money at stake, and that may or may not be true. But in the end, if they lose their job, the end result is zero dollars. We're probably just splitting hairs though. I think we can both agree that a conflict of interests exists on both sides.

...that isn't in any way the exact opposite to what I said. Seriously, re-read my post and get back to me.
According to you, New Mitanni is saying that the consensus is wrong because one person disagrees. But what the majority of the thread is saying is that that one person is wrong because the consensus disagrees. That definitely seems like two opposites to me.

We get to say you must be wrong because the 'everybody else' of which you speak has already proved New Mitanni's source to be wrong.
Oh really? I must have missed something then. I just went through the thread again. I've clearly overlooked all of this proof. Would you kindly point me in the right direction?

Geminorum? Vetalia's moons are named Vetalia Geminorum A and B....what a curious coincidence.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Geminorum is Latin for "of the twins." In my nation's name it is a reference to the twins Romulus and Remus of Roman mythology. Likewise, your moons could be considered twin moons.

He probably could--my dad is 66 years old, has a hip in need of replacing, has Alzheimers and pernicious anemia, and a crippled left arm from polio when he was a kid. But I'm not pussy enough to get my daddy to fight for me either.
I've always been a fan of adult conversation, but I can continue this childish bullshit with you if you like. How about this one: I know you are but what am I?

According to you, New Mitanni is saying that the consensus is wrong because one person disagrees. But what the majority of the thread is saying is that that one person is wrong because the consensus disagrees. That definitely seems like two opposites to me.

No, New Mitanni is saying not that the consensus is wrong, but that it doesn't exist. (And therefore is wrong.) I am saying that consensus DOES exist because his definition is too narrow to have any use. (See: "No consensus" for the existence of the Holocaust.)

You have yet to say how his "opposite" anyway, is "true."

Do you believe there is no historical consensus on whether the Holocaust happened? After all, there are those with PHDs who say it doesn't.

Or maybe they'd just invent some inane theory like evolution to explain away rationality. But that's a debate for a different thread, isn't it?
Right here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529098) I need new victims.

Well I think we can all point and laugh at Mitanni now because we know the consensus exists and he's full of crap.

Well I think we can all point and laugh at Mitanni now because we know the consensus exists and he's full of crap.

We've been doing that for months. We need a new game.

We've been doing that for months. We need a new game.

Spin the bottle?

We've been doing that for months. We need a new game.

Suggestions?

Suggestions?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12802498&postcount=95

Spin the bottle?

Good wholesome fun. I approve.

Spin the bottle?

I remember that from high school, yet what I remember is just getting embarrassed and feeling guilty afterwards, lol.

Spin the bottle?

How about Spin Bottle?

How about Spin Bottle?

How about Grabass.

No, New Mitanni is saying not that the consensus is wrong, but that it doesn't exist. (And therefore is wrong.) I am saying that consensus DOES exist because his definition is too narrow to have any use. (See: "No consensus" for the existence of the Holocaust.)
I think we're splitting hairs again. I was using the word 'consensus' not to mean a universal agreement, but a generally accepted idea. So you're saying that New Mitanni is trying to say that the idea is not universally accepted and is therefore untrue, but what most of this thread is saying is that global warming is universally accepted with this one exception, and that makes the exception untrue. I stand by my original statement.

You have yet to say how his "opposite" anyway, is "true."
I don't have that authority by any stretch of the imagination. But the scientist who did the research does have that authority. The evidence against a human cause of global warming has been presented, but no one in this thread has taken the time to refute it in any meaningful way.

Do you believe there is no historical consensus on whether the Holocaust happened? After all, there are those with PHDs who say it doesn't.
That's what I'm trying to say. A consensus doesn't necessarily have to be unanimous, it only has to be generally accepted. That is the case both with the holocaust and with CO2 emissions as the cause of warming. But history has shown time and time again that a consensus should never be confused with fact.

Right here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529098) I need new victims.
I've seen the thread. I wasn't going to, but sure, I'll take the bait.

Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate.

Er, what?
So are we riding this one out, DM?
I read something interesting today .... :)

Are you honestly trying to say that the funding would have no bearing on the conclusions at all?

Probably a republican. They seem to have a STRONG aversion to mental connections between moral/social corruption and financial gain.
"Let the market work it out."

Geminorum? Vetalia's moons are named Vetalia Geminorum A and B....what a curious coincidence.

No puppet though, eh?

I think we're splitting hairs again. I was using the word 'consensus' not to mean a universal agreement, but a generally accepted idea. So you're saying that New Mitanni is trying to say that the idea is not universally accepted and is therefore untrue, but what most of this thread is saying is that global warming is universally accepted with this one exception, and that makes the exception untrue. I stand by my original statement.

I'm not arguing for what "most of the thread" is (allegedly) saying. I am arguing against what new Mitanni here is.


That's what I'm trying to say. A consensus doesn't necessarily have to be unanimous, it only has to be generally accepted. That is the case both with the holocaust and with CO2 emissions as the cause of warming. But history has shown time and time again that a consensus should never be confused with fact.

Of course.... so why does NM believe that his exception disproves the existence of the consensus?

Or that the consensus is wrong?

Er, what?
So are we riding this one out, DM?
I read something interesting today .... :)

I reply with something witty involving time and money and how this thread is crap...

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: there no “consensus” regarding global warming, contrary to the Al Gore school of climatology hysteria. All the bombast and pontification in the world can’t change that fact, nor explain away evidence such as that discovered by Prof. Patterson and others.

Those who label Prof. Patterson and others “deniers” are themselves in denial.

And btw: in light of the foregoing, it looks like one of my earlier posts on the subject of "global cooling" wasn't just satirical after all ;)

Senator Jim Inhofe (R) OK agrees with you. I also agree with you.

If these scientists where funded by an oil company, then how can we be sure they are impatial?