Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You didn't read it, apparently. The very next paragraph says...

Not exactly...

Originally Posted by Weave

And apparently, according to the study, the CO2 isnt "trapping" the heat like the climate alarmists have been predicting.....

...Weave is correct. CO2 might be trapping a little heat, but to nothing like the extent which Global Warming Bedwetters have claimed. IOW, the fears are greatly exaggerated, and as we've already seen:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ng-since-1998/

No global warming since 1998? Simple. All you’ve got to do – as Kaufmann et al have done – is apply the Even Though We’re Wrong We’re Right Panacea Get-Out Formula. In this instance the ETWWWRPGOF (as it’s snappily known) involves Blaming The Chinese. Yep, it turns out all that pollution that Chinese are pumping into the air thanks to their unhealthy obsession with economic growth and giving better lives to their children is actually counteracting the effects of Man Made Global Warming...

...In other words Man Made Global Cooling is cancelling out Man Made Global Warming.

-Problem solved! Ha ha ha!
...

The problem with the Global Climate change stuff is this:

1) GWB's make assumptions about the "dangers" of man-made climate change;

2) GWB's make climactic models based on those assumptions;

3) GWB's make predictions based on those climactic models;

4) Predictions turn out to be ridiculously wrong.

...it never occurs to them that maybe that might be because their basic asumptions are wrong.

The likely reason why:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... it's an excuse, as proven by the fact that, 30 years ago, they were screaming just as loudly that the government had to control everything because the climate was about to get cooler, and we were about to go into an Ice Age...

"Never let a crisis go to waste."

...so, it's not a "conspiracy theory":

Originally Posted by Odin

You fools are still pushing that conspiracy theory? ROFLMAO!!!

...but rather:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...the Global Climate Change Bedwetters like the implications of Global Warming because it validates their ideology, so they think it's right...

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...-keynesianism/

You’d think that a government with an increasingly severe unemployment problem would be desperate to approve a project that would provide 20,000 ­direct jobs, even if that government does have ­bigger — but related — things on its mind this week...

One would imagine that any sensible U.S. administration would be keen to secure as much Canadian oil as possible, even without the promise of pipeline jobs. However, at a time when the U.S. economy is losing the employment battle, the administration is still in thrall to environmental alarmism.


http://blogs.forbes.com/joelkotkin/2...-family-homes/

In recent years, homeowners have been made to feel a bit like villains rather than the victims of hard times, Wall Street shenanigans and inept regulators. Instead of being praised for braving the elements, suburban homeowners have been made to feel responsible for everything from the Great Recession to obesity to global warming...

...Some greens seem to regard the single-family house as an assault on eco-consciousness. Yet in many cases, these objections are overstated. Research supporting higher-density housing , for example, has routinely excluded the greater emissions from construction material extraction and production, building construction itself and greenhouse gas emissions from common areas like parking levels, entrances and elevators.

Further, higher densities are associated with greater congestion, which retards fuel efficiency and increases greenhouse gas emissions, a factor not sufficiently considered. Given that less than 10% of Bay Area residents take transit — and barely 3% in its economic engine Silicon Valley — higher density likely would create greater, not fewer, emissions.

The ABAG report also studiously avoids mentioning the potential greenhouse gas reductions to be had by expanding telecommuting... Clearly, by pushing telecommuting, you could get big reductions in GHG without a “cramming” agenda.

Ultimately the density agenda reflects less a credible strategy to reduce GHG than a push among planners to “force” Californians, as one explained to me, out of their homes and into apartments. In pursuit of their “cramming” agenda planners have also have enlisted powerful allies – or perhaps better understood as ” useful idiots” — developers and speculators who see profit in the eradication of the single family by forcibly boosting the value of urban core properties.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You didn't read it, apparently. The very next paragraph says



Try reading this time. You might get informed.
Wow, wait a minute; even Weave get informed? I wouldn't take that bet!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm

What the article proves is that the science is hardly settled and global warming alarmists such as Eric the Red have wildly predicted catastrophe when it hasnt been warranted. Of course, the "mainstream" media has largely ignored this new study because it doesnt fit into thier neat little narrative they have created. I just saw another article about the scientist who claimed that global warming was harming Polar Bears which stories exploded in the media a few years back. Funny, few "mainstream" networks have covered this new development as well. I remember in the late 90's here in the a Pacific Northwest a scientist was caught manipulating data concerning Lynx's. He was, of course, manipulating the data so the endangered species act could be invoked and shut off more public land to logging, development etc. This is the M.O. of the left. Use phony science with manipulated data to distort something and then invoke the law to shut down the activity they object to.
Remember Katrina...idiots like RFK jr were predicting more and more hurricanes like Katrina...well its been 6 years, where's the next Katrina? Certainly a Cat 5 could happen but he made it sound, to the delight of the "mainstream" media, that they would be routine. Hardly....

Originally Posted by Weave

...Remember Katrina...idiots like RFK jr were predicting more and more hurricanes like Katrina...well its been 6 years, where's the next Katrina? Certainly a Cat 5 could happen but he made it sound, to the delight of the "mainstream" media, that they would be routine. Hardly....

-Another example of:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

The problem with the Global Climate change stuff is this:

1) GWB's make assumptions about the "dangers" of man-made climate change;

2) GWB's make climactic models based on those assumptions;

3) GWB's make predictions based on those climactic models;

4) Predictions turn out to be ridiculously wrong.

...it never occurs to them that maybe that might be because their basic asumptions are wrong...

...instead, they look for a cop-out.

Originally Posted by Weave

What the article proves is that the science is hardly settled and global warming alarmists such as Eric the Red have wildly predicted catastrophe when it hasnt been warranted. Of course, the "mainstream" media has largely ignored this new study because it doesnt fit into thier neat little narrative they have created. I just saw another article about the scientist who claimed that global warming was harming Polar Bears which stories exploded in the media a few years back. Funny, few "mainstream" networks have covered this new development as well. I remember in the late 90's here in the a Pacific Northwest a scientist was caught manipulating data concerning Lynx's. He was, of course, manipulating the data so the endangered species act could be invoked and shut off more public land to logging, development etc. This is the M.O. of the left. Use phony science with manipulated data to distort something and then invoke the law to shut down the activity they object to.
Remember Katrina...idiots like RFK jr were predicting more and more hurricanes like Katrina...well its been 6 years, where's the next Katrina? Certainly a Cat 5 could happen but he made it sound, to the delight of the "mainstream" media, that they would be routine. Hardly....

There have been a lot of strong storms, the US has just gotten lucky because the storms missed us. Imagine if major hurricanes Danielle, Earl, and Igor had hit the southeastern US last year instead of recurring out to sea.

Oh, and anyone who uses RFK Jr. as a source for anything scientific then they are an idiot, he's an anti-vaccine nut.

Originally Posted by Weave

What the article proves is that the science is hardly settled.

Science is never "settled." In the case of climate change, what isn't settled is a lot of details which, if known, could tell us how much climate change to expect under what conditions. That in turn could tell us what we need to do about it precisely.

However, on the larger questions of whether the earth is warming and what is responsible for it, the science most definitely is settled. The earth is warming, and the primary cause is human activity from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, plus a few minor contributors. There is no significant dispute on this, and the fact that there continues to be disagreement about minor details in the picture should not give any comfort to those who don't want to take any action or who, like yourself, are inclined to believe the lies funded by the fossil-fuel industry.

You have spoken a number of those lies in the post I partially quoted above. There is no "phony science and manipulated data" involved here except that which is put out on the web sites and other sources funded by the oil industry.

No one has claimed, EVER, that category 5 hurricanes would become "routine." That is a straw man. There has been a claim that global warming would result in increased storm activity. That has happened. If you have read somewhere the argument you are making here, then you have been lied to, and apparently you believe the lie.

I wonder, though, how much confidence you have in that belief. Are you ready to take my bet yet?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Science is never "settled." In the case of climate change, what isn't settled is a lot of details which, if known, could tell us how much climate change to expect under what conditions. That in turn could tell us what we need to do about it precisely.

However, on the larger questions of whether the earth is warming and what is responsible for it, the science most definitely is settled. The earth is warming, and the primary cause is human activity from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, plus a few minor contributors. There is no significant dispute on this, and the fact that there continues to be disagreement about minor details in the picture should not give any comfort to those who don't want to take any action or who, like yourself, are inclined to believe the lies funded by the fossil-fuel industry.

You have spoken a number of those lies in the post I partially quoted above. There is no "phony science and manipulated data" involved here except that which is put out on the web sites and other sources funded by the oil industry.

No one has claimed, EVER, that category 5 hurricanes would become "routine." That is a straw man. There has been a claim that global warming would result in increased storm activity. That has happened. If you have read somewhere the argument you are making here, then you have been lied to, and apparently you believe the lie.

I wonder, though, how much confidence you have in that belief. Are you ready to take my bet yet?

Here are some articles about increased Cat 5 Hurricanes....that arent occurring to frequency that have been predicted....
http://www.grist.org/article/hurrica...global-warming (2007)

This NOAA article argues against what you have said-that storms arent getting more numerous, just STRONGER (2008)

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

Here Nat Geo 2005


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...newarming.html


First, no I wouldnt take that bet, it'll take more than a year to fully debunk the global warming myth. We've gotten a good start since 2009 and people are more and more no longer seeing it as a serious issue. Of course your fellow travellers in the "mainstream" media will trumpet anything they see as evidence and ignore, like the original article I posted, anything that detracts. When the evidence becomes overwhelming, they'll simply move on, never acknowledging their role in perpetuating a falsehood. (remember ALAR)

Here is an example of the data manipulation used by biologists that you say isnt happening....

http://www.gardnerfiles.com/Lynx%20H...2024%20-d-.pdf

Originally Posted by Odin

There have been a lot of strong storms, the US has just gotten lucky because the storms missed us. Imagine if major hurricanes Danielle, Earl, and Igor had hit the southeastern US last year instead of recurring out to sea.

Oh, and anyone who uses RFK Jr. as a source for anything scientific then they are an idiot, he's an anti-vaccine nut.

RFK jr was very prominently displayed by the media declaring, in the immediate days, if not hours after Katrina that this was a result of global warming and that more and more of these storms are going to occur. Hurricane activity has been low the last several years which coincides with the recent cooling that is occurring....

Originally Posted by Weave

Here are some articles about increased Cat 5 Hurricanes

Again, irrelevant. You need to deal with what's actually predicted, not its third cousin twice removed that someone made up.

This NOAA article argues against what you have said-that storms arent getting more numerous, just STRONGER

Well, fine. I'm not a climate scientist and I could easily have gotten it wrong. So . . . what's your point?

Here is an example of the data manipulation used by biologists that you say isnt happening....

Is it from a peer-reviewed source? No, it's from the AP. Given the amount of well-funded lying that goes on regarding this subject, if it's not from a peer-reviewed source, ignore.

Are you taking my bet, or not?

Weave, here's the thing. Climate change is complicated only in its hair-fine details. In regard to the big question, it's really very simple, and it comes down to this.

1) We know that over the past century or so, human activity has dramatically increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

2) We know from basic physics that dramatically increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause the average temperature to increase.

3) We know that the average temperature has, in fact, increased.

Now if you look hard enough, you can find continued controversy in scientific circles about those hair-fine details, and if you are sufficiently motivated you can pretend, to yourself or to others, that this actually means something, but the above three points are the basics and there is no doubt about any of them. In order for the overall AGW hypothesis to be wrong, one of two things would need to happen. Either we just dreamed that we burned all that coal and oil and it never really happened, or the laws of physics as we understand them would have to be totally off on a very basic level.

You cannot establish this by hunting and fishing for evidence of fraud on the part of scientists, because the fraud would have to be so massive, and go back for so long (literal centuries), that it is simply impossible.

You cannot establish this by finding errors in computer models meant to deal with all those hair-fine details of global warming, because the overall hypothesis does not depend on those computer models in any way.

You cannot establish this by finding predictions that people have made on the basis of those computer models that have somehow been incorrect, because the overall hypothesis does not depend on those predictions, either.

You can establish this only by showing that all that coal and oil was never really burned at all, or else that the laws of physics as we understand them are wrong on so deep a level that we might as well chuck all of science out the window. Now, if you want to have a try at that, go ahead. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.

Originally Posted by Weave

Hurricane activity has been low the last several years which coincides with the recent cooling that is occurring....

False, Hurricane activity has been in a high phase since 1995 associated with the Multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation, which flips from a positive to negative phase about every 30 years.

The current consensus is that global warming will REDUCE the number of storms (cool air temps over hot water enhances convection and can help storms getting going), but it will increase their intensity (hotter sea surface temps, lower wind shear, more convection on the ITCZ)

Dear skeptics: Here is more climate data than you can handle

For the climate skeptics who dragged us all through Climategate on the conviction that climate scientists are lying jerks, here is the data you wanted to see. Here it is. The University of East Anglia put it online for all to access. This might make it harder for scientists to get shared data in the future, since people don’t always like it when you give away their work for free, but it is worth it just to shut you up.

Happy now? Oh, what, you actually have no idea how to interpret this raw data?

Trevor Davies, who's in charge of research at the university, told New Scientist that he's sure anyone who analyzes the data properly will come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. But he does ask this: "Should people undertake analyses and come up with different conclusions, the way to present them is through publication in peer-reviewed journals, so we know it's been through scientific quality control." Pro tip for skeptics: A peer-reviewed journal is probably not going to publish a paper that’s just “what about the moon volcanoes??” written in crayon.

Originally Posted by Odin

False, Hurricane activity has been in a high phase since 1995 associated with the Multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation, which flips from a positive to negative phase about every 30 years.

The current consensus is that global warming will REDUCE the number of storms (cool air temps over hot water enhances convection and can help storms getting going), but it will increase their intensity (hotter sea surface temps, lower wind shear, more convection on the ITCZ)

Uh NO....since 2007 storm activity is at a 40 year low.....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/2...ows-new-paper/

Its funny. the current consensus used to be that global warming increased storm activity, now it decreases it...how convenient...

Follow the link from that link and you find this:

http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

9 tropical cyclones formed during July 2011. This brings the last 12-months total to 73, still well below normal but no longer at "record" lows. The ACE of 80 during July 2011 is a considerable difference to the previous 2-years (2009 and 2010), which only saw an ACE of 15.

Tropical Cyclone ACE for the Northern Hemisphere has made it back to "normal" for year-to-date and will move above normal for the Western North Pacific.

So the blog you linked completely misrepresented the article it was quoting from. And you are presenting this as a good source?

This is why I say that if it isn't peer-reviewed it should be ignored. There is just too much money flying around presenting misinformation on the subject.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Again, irrelevant. You need to deal with what's actually predicted, not its third cousin twice removed that someone made up.



Well, fine. I'm not a climate scientist and I could easily have gotten it wrong. So . . . what's your point?



Is it from a peer-reviewed source? No, it's from the AP. Given the amount of well-funded lying that goes on regarding this subject, if it's not from a peer-reviewed source, ignore.

Are you taking my bet, or not?

Weave, here's the thing. Climate change is complicated only in its hair-fine details. In regard to the big question, it's really very simple, and it comes down to this.

1) We know that over the past century or so, human activity has dramatically increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

2) We know from basic physics that dramatically increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause the average temperature to increase.

3) We know that the average temperature has, in fact, increased.

Now if you look hard enough, you can find continued controversy in scientific circles about those hair-fine details, and if you are sufficiently motivated you can pretend, to yourself or to others, that this actually means something, but the above three points are the basics and there is no doubt about any of them. In order for the overall AGW hypothesis to be wrong, one of two things would need to happen. Either we just dreamed that we burned all that coal and oil and it never really happened, or the laws of physics as we understand them would have to be totally off on a very basic level.

You cannot establish this by hunting and fishing for evidence of fraud on the part of scientists, because the fraud would have to be so massive, and go back for so long (literal centuries), that it is simply impossible.

You cannot establish this by finding errors in computer models meant to deal with all those hair-fine details of global warming, because the overall hypothesis does not depend on those computer models in any way.

You cannot establish this by finding predictions that people have made on the basis of those computer models that have somehow been incorrect, because the overall hypothesis does not depend on those predictions, either.

You can establish this only by showing that all that coal and oil was never really burned at all, or else that the laws of physics as we understand them are wrong on so deep a level that we might as well chuck all of science out the window. Now, if you want to have a try at that, go ahead. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.

An article from the AP which is about scientists lying does not need to be peer reviewed. Its from the AP, no friend to the conservative cause. There are more articles about the situation. Do you ask every news article you read to be peer reviewed?
The point of it is that some scientists HAVE manipulated data for ideological reasons. And if you read the transcripts of the "climate gate" emails anyone can see with half a brain that many of the scientists were operating with, at least, a preconcieved notion, of how they wanted the studies to show. Also many temp reading stations are placed in areas where temps can be higher such near airport runways, concrete buidling etc.

As to point 2 of your argument-the previous article I posted, the recent study showed that the amount of warming was VASTLY overstated by scientists. They got it wrong, yet they were more than willing to take DRASTIC measures that would hurt the economies and waste HUGE anmounts of tax dollars that could be saved or at least spent on more worthy measures. Global warming was obviously hyped. And anyone who strays from that line is ostracized, called a "flat earther" etc.

As to point 3, any warming that has occurred has been minor and there has been NO significant warming since 1995 according to Phil Jones of the CRU. There was warming from the year 800 A.D. to about 1300 A.D. that was higher than it was today without "Greenhouse" gasses. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

So now we know today, as opposed to the speculation from a decade ago, is that we do have more "greenhouse" gasses but they havent significantly raised temps around the world. We also know there have been other periods of warming WITHOUT todays current industrial situation. We also know there have been attempts by some scientists to manipulate, obfuscate or alter data to get results they want. I would say the situation is hardly settled and hardly justifies radically altering the way we tax and spend to prevent a problem which may not even be happening.....

Originally Posted by Weave

An article from the AP which is about scientists lying does not need to be peer reviewed. Its from the AP, no friend to the conservative cause. There are more articles about the situation. Do you ask every news article you read to be peer reviewed?

If it's on global warming, and it's not peer-reviewed, I take it with a small salt mine, no matter what position it takes.

Once again, allegations of fraud on the part of scientists would have to be so massive in order to discredit the AGW hypothesis that they would make all of science a huge conspiracy, going back to Isaac Newton (because the physics of this is based on his laws of thermodynamics plus some basic chemistry).

And you have offered nothing whatsoever here. Nothing at all. The consensus of the scientific community remains that the planet is warming, that our own actions are the primary cause, and that this is a serious problem. Your claim that the warming has been minimal is not shared by them. Unless you are prepared to assert that the entire climate-science community -- not just a few scientists here and there, but literally ALL of them (except the ones in the pay of the oil companies) are deliberately acting to defraud the public for sinister motives -- there is nothing you can really say to that.

Originally Posted by Weave

An article from the AP which is about scientists lying does not need to be peer reviewed. Its from the AP, no friend to the conservative cause.

Um...the author of the article was from the HEARTLAND INSTITUTE.

Originally Posted by Weave

...Its funny. the current consensus used to be that global warming increased storm activity, now it decreases it...how convenient...

-Have you ever noticed, that whether it's Global Warming that we're supposed to be hysterical about, or Global Cooling we're supposed to be hysterical about, that there's usually very little discussion of the positive effects of whatever changes are supposed to come?

Of course, that intellectual dishonesty comes from the actual intent: To create a hysterical response rather than reasoned thought.

Originally Posted by Odin

There have been a lot of strong storms, the US has just gotten lucky because the storms missed us. Imagine if major hurricanes Danielle, Earl, and Igor had hit the southeastern US last year instead of recurring out to sea...

Right. And America never "got lucky" before that.

One could just as easily say that we were "unlucky" before, and now is normal.

Besides that wasn't the prediction (see below).

Originally Posted by Odin

...Oh, and anyone who uses RFK Jr. as a source for anything scientific then they are an idiot, he's an anti-vaccine nut.

This is where the esteemed congresscritter got his Global Warming Hysteria info':

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...urricane.shtml

NOAA’s 2006 Atlantic hurricane season outlook indicates an 80% chance of an above-normal hurricane season, a 15% chance of a near-normal season, and only a 5% chance of a below-normal season...

The outlook calls for a very active 2006 season, with 13-16 named storms, 8-10 hurricanes, and 4-6 major hurricanes. The likely range of the ACE index is 135%-205% of the median. This prediction indicates a continuation of above-normal activity that began in 1995...

The main uncertainty in this outlook is not whether the season will be above normal, but how much above normal it will be...

With theorizing from studies like this:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...newarming.html

Hurricanes bring winds and slashing rains that flood streets, flatten homes, and leave survivors struggling to pick up the pieces. But has global warming given the storms an added punch, making the aftereffects more dreadful?

Emanuel's finding defies existing models for measuring storm strength. Current models suggest that the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons should increase by 5 percent for every 1ºC (1.8ºF) rise in sea surface temperature.

"We've had half a degree [Celsius] of warming, so that should have led to a 2.5 percent increase [in intensity], which is probably not detectable," Emanuel said. "What we've seen is somewhat bigger than that, and we don't really know why."

One possibility, Emanuel said, is that ocean temperatures may be increasing more quickly than atmospheric temperatures.

"When that happens we've shown theoretically you get an increase in the intensity of hurricanes," he said.
Of course, we know what really happened...

Audubon magazine, July - August 2011The Perfect Firestorm by Larry SchwarmAn article about megafires, resulting in part from misguided fire suppression policy. In addition to dry weather recently, an enormous amount of tinder had accumulated during the "Smokey the Bear era from the 1940s to the 1970s.""During the past two decades record setting blazes have occurred around the world from Russia to Indonesia, Alaska to Brazil. These 'megafires' exceed all efforts to control them...some blazes burn through more than a million acres."...as the cost of firefighting crossed the billion-dollar mark every year since 2002, another measure of 'mega' began to catch policy makers' eyes: mega expensive...Most firefighting money goes to this minority of massive fires. In 2008 the federal bill hit nearly 1.5 billion, forcing the Forest Service to cut back on other programs."Megafires can also create 'fire whirls,' mini tornadoes of spinning flame that can peel off and set their own course. Ripping 16-inch limbs off of oaks and generating winds of more than 80 MPH."...more than 400 wildfire fighters have died since 1987...."...droves of people have moved into fire-prone areas...."

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Audubon magazine, July - August 2011The Perfect Firestorm by Larry SchwarmAn article about megafires, resulting in part from misguided fire suppression policy. In addition to dry weather recently, an enormous amount of tinder had accumulated during the "Smokey the Bear era from the 1940s to the 1970s.""During the past two decades record setting blazes have occurred around the world from Russia to Indonesia, Alaska to Brazil. These 'megafires' exceed all efforts to control them...some blazes burn through more than a million acres."...as the cost of firefighting crossed the billion-dollar mark every year since 2002, another measure of 'mega' began to catch policy makers' eyes: mega expensive...Most firefighting money goes to this minority of massive fires. In 2008 the federal bill hit nearly 1.5 billion, forcing the Forest Service to cut back on other programs."Megafires can also create 'fire whirls,' mini tornadoes of spinning flame that can peel off and set their own course. Ripping 16-inch limbs off of oaks and generating winds of more than 80 MPH."...more than 400 wildfire fighters have died since 1987...."...droves of people have moved into fire-prone areas...."

Summer moisture is very uneven. Where in Chicago this was the wettest July in history, 150 miles or so to the southeast, Indianapolis recorded its driest summer on record. We all know now that the southern plains of Texas and Oklahoma have experienced record busting temps for several weeks now. On a local college station music show the other night a song was played which referenced the dust bowl. I phoned the lady who hosts the show and reminded her that some areas are experiencing dust bowl-like conditions this year as well. One must wonder if there was some similar theory going around at that time to try and explain those conditions, just as there is today.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Summer moisture is very uneven. Where in Chicago this was the wettest July in history, 150 miles or so to the southeast, Indianapolis recorded its driest summer on record. We all know now that the southern plains of Texas and Oklahoma have experienced record busting temps for several weeks now. On a local college station music show the other night a song was played which referenced the dust bowl. I phoned the lady who hosts the show and reminded her that some areas are experiencing dust bowl-like conditions this year as well. One must wonder if there was some similar theory going around at that time to try and explain those conditions, just as there is today.

Here in Fargo the Red River is usually below normal in August. This year it has been above flood stage since spring. The rain has kept everything nice and green though, usually in August the drier spots of lawns start turning brown.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The consensus of the scientific community remains that the planet is warming, that our own actions are the primary cause, and that this is a serious problem.

Agreed on the first point and the third point -- the political hot potato is the second point, really, and that's a bit less well-established than the other two.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Agreed on the first point and the third point -- the political hot potato is the second point, really, and that's a bit less well-established than the other two.

Correct that it is a political hot potato, incorrect that it is less well-established. I invite you to repeat an experiment I've done several times.

1) Go to Nature on-line: http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html (This is a major, arguably THE major, general-science peer-reviewed journal.)

2) Plug the words "climate change" into the site's search engine.

3) Go down the list of the first X number of articles to arise as a result of the search. I'd suggest at least 100 articles. Read the titles and abstracts, and divide the articles into the following categories:

a) Those that either argue in favor of the AGW hypothesis, or take it as a given and explore things connected with it.

b) Those that argue against the AGW hypothesis (i.e., present evidence either that the earth is not warming or that human activity is not behind it).

Note: be careful with this. There are plenty of articles in journals these days that dispute some picky point or other about somebody's computer model or claim that the results of global warming will be X when the usual scientific opinion is that they will be Y. This sort of thing is NOT a dispute of AGW, it begins with the premise that AGW is correct and is nitpicking about the details. Also, the assertion that a natural cause exists for some part of the observed global warming is not a dispute of AGW, either. In category b), include only those who are directly asserting either that the planet isn't warming or that some other cause than human activity is largely behind it.

c) Articles that have nothing to do with the current global warming, e.g. studies of prehistoric climate change from the fossil record.

Every time I have done this experiment in the past few years, category b) has been empty. Literally empty. Literally zero articles that question whether the AGW hypothesis is correct. Every article has fallen into category a) or c).

There is no significant dispute within scientific circles that the earth is warming and that human activity is the primary cause. Try the experiment yourself and you'll see.

Here is a "Peer reviewed" study showing that man has little to do with global warming and that it is mainly doe to solar conditions.... http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...e-now-settled/

Here is an excerpt:The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

This is the most disturbing part of the column-how scientists get bullied into making global warming "settled" science...

"The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory credence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials."

That CERN report does not mean what you think it means.

Come on, you tree-hugging Lefties. There is no such thing as Global Warming --- and I have serious money riding on open-water resource exploration up around the North Pole. If the military doesn't get there first. (And - true fact - the military is seriously working on the military uses of a non-iced-over arctic.)

Originally Posted by Odin

That CERN report does not mean what you think it means.

Maybe it doesn't mean what YOU think it means:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...e-now-settled/
...The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth...

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Come on, you tree-hugging Lefties. There is no such thing as Global Warming --- and I have serious money riding on open-water resource exploration up around the North Pole. If the military doesn't get there first. (And - true fact - the military is seriously working on the military uses of a non-iced-over arctic.)

-There's Global Warming, and there's Global Cooling, and Global In-Between.

BTW, GB. Shhh! There must be no positive effects effects to global climate change! If there are, then there's no excuse to wreck the free market system.