• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

jhk87 said:
Actually, the msot sustainable way is to "rent" a tree, whereby you basically pay  to borrow a tree that's being silvicultured and then reuturn it at the end of the season. This has several advantages, not the least of them being that you avoid having needles everywhere. Personally, I purchased a Norfolk pine - but then again, I live in an apartment anyhow.

For the sake of it, I'll post an article by Preston Manning on the subject of a "green" economy. With any luck this should break the "lie, libel, liberal/ Conservative" mould that seems to engender mud-slinging:

http://www.manningcentre.ca/content/our-quality-life-depends-green-economy

Although I disagree with his  proposed methodology - creating a carbon market isn't really going to work - his central idea, that environmental degradation is bad not just for the environment, but the economy as well, highlights the falsity of the "economy-vs-environment" dichotomy.

Not to burst your bubble, but most family Christmas trees are either Balsam Fir, or Fraser Fir. The root structure on one of those at 8-10 years old is not going to allow for renting. Also, the most sustainable way would be to plant and cut your own. In fact, planting 2 for every tree you cut takes it a step further.

Yes, for someone in a little apartment, a little pine will do. But, look at the bigger picture, and the main demographic of the consumer.
 
This is an article that appears in Skeptic Magazine - Vol. 15, 2010.  For those not familiar with Skeptic Magazine it takes a critical, logical view of claims like 9-11 conspiracies, aliens, astrology, big foot, evolution, moon landing hoax, so on.

This is the article:

http://www.davidbrin.com/climate3.htm
 
shamu said:
This is an article that appears in Skeptic Magazine - Vol. 15, 2010.  For those not familiar with Skeptic Magazine it takes a critical, logical view of claims like 9-11 conspiracies, aliens, astrology, big foot, evolution, moon landing hoax, so on.

This is the article:

http://www.davidbrin.com/climate3.htm

Just read it, and his fundamental argument is "Trust the Climate Scientists.  If you do not trust the Climate Scientists, you aren't part of the good guy team like me."

He says nothing to address:
1.  Surface Station locations and the urban heat sink effect on those stations over time (1940's Los Angeles is not the same as 2010 Los Angeles)
2.  The shift of Surface Stations southward, while maintaining averaging which biases the temperature record to the warming side
3.  The inability of climate scientist models to accurately predict anything accurately.  The most specific prediction the UK Met Office, the IPCC and many other climate scientists made to push Europe to arms on the issue was that "with Global Warming, snow in England and Europe would soon be a thing of the past."  The fact, they didn't predict cold winters and record snowfalls (first white Christmas in Atlanta since the 1800's and record cold in Ireland causing pipes to burst) shows how fundamentally flawed their models are.  The fact they are now trying to spin this that "Oh yeah, did we mention that warming causes cooling?" angle is another bald-faced lie driven by their Machiavellian rational.  If they had predicted "Warming would've caused cooling"....they probably would've said so.  The fact is when you go back and look at the quotes, NONE of their models ever foretold the current cold snap should highlight to everyone the credibility of those models (there's a famous quote about the reality that if you program models with 'facts' you know to be true, you only ever get the outcome you expect....in this case I think it's safe to say that they've over-prioritized CO2, and underprioritized solar energy and because of that there models always say the same things....now if we can find models that are making accurate predictions, THEN we need to look at those models an in particular the variables used as they are fare more likely to actually be correct)
4.  If it really is manmade CO2 that is the straw that breaks the camel's back, why is it these Climate Scientists always choose to congregate in tourist hotspots like Cancun and Bali that are dependent upong air travellers (and huge CO2 outputs)?  Why are they not leading the world with group teleconferencing? (or for that matter promoting telecommuting as a key plank in their environmental movement)
5.  If it really is manmade CO2 that is the straw that breaks the camel's back, why aren't any of them proposing carbon taxes at point of sale which would actually impact the ridiculous growth of emissions in China, India, Etc.?

There are many more issues such as their previous advocacy of rainforest destroying Palm Plantations providing "renewable fuels" and the fact that key contributors to the warming data set such s New Zealand's weather service admitting they manipulated the data....

Bottom Line:  Until the Warmists actually start answering those questions, it's the skeptics who are the only ones using scientific method.

So I read your article....your turn to read mine....it's looks specifically at the science of the temperature data.  If you disagree with any of it, please reply and post counterarguments.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/


Many thanks, Matthew.  :salute:
 
You're right.

Science needs to be tested, scrutinized, over and over.  Solar flares, locations of surface stations next to expanding populations activity creating heat, models, is  to be continually gone over the scientific method.  And repeat.

They have all, using scientific process and life times of study, time and time again, come up with the same conclusion;  human caused global warming is a fact.  It's a fact.  This is what they are teaching in your schools, from kindergarten to university.

What is funny as hell is this "conspiracy theory" you speak of. Your #4 is about as nonsensical of an argument as I've ever heard.  It's like these evil scientists are building an evil empire of lies for their own gain; free trips to Cancun. Really?  For example, as stated in the article you just read, FOX News is owned by Saudi princes, Russian oil industry, etc; the only "scientists" they can hire are the one the worked for tobacco; Exxon spends millions on your point of view.  YET IT'S THE SCIENTISTS LYING BECAUSE THEY GET TO GOTO CANCUN.  And they use planes, too!  O M G.  Proof right there.  (I wonder if they used their carbon credits?)

Your point number 5.  I don't know.  I'm not a politician.  Politicians make policies.  The Chicken Little approach to changing the status quo is held by industries; Carbon Credits may not be the best policy and eveyone needs the same rules.  Doesn't change the facts. 

As for your link, who is E.W. Smith?  Makes a lot of leaps and conclusions not based on evidence.  Just a big phooey, a blog, not a published article, not by an accredited source.  No citations or sources.  Not even good enough for a Conrad Black newspaper.

Try reading the articles on this site from the internationally accredited experts:

http://www.ipcc.ch/








 














 
shamu said:
You're right.

Science needs to be tested, scrutinized, over and over.  Solar flares, locations of surface stations next to expanding populations activity creating heat, models, is  to be continually gone over the scientific method.  And repeat.

They have all, using scientific process and life times of study, time and time again, come up with the same conclusion;  human caused global warming is a fact.  It's a fact.  This is what they are teaching in your schools, from kindergarten to university.

What is funny as hell is this "conspiracy theory" you speak of. Your #4 is about as nonsensical of an argument as I've ever heard.  It's like these evil scientists are building an evil empire of lies for their own gain; free trips to Cancun. Really?  For example, as stated in the article you just read, FOX News is owned by Saudi princes, Russian oil industry, etc; the only "scientists" they can hire are the one the worked for tobacco; Exxon spends millions on your point of view.  YET IT'S THE SCIENTISTS LYING BECAUSE THEY GET TO GOTO CANCUN.  And they use planes, too!  O M G.  Proof right there.  (I wonder if they used their carbon credits?)

Your point number 5.  I don't know.  I'm not a politician.  Politicians make policies.  The Chicken Little approach to changing the status quo is held by industries; Carbon Credits may not be the best policy and eveyone needs the same rules.  Doesn't change the facts. 

As for your link, who is E.W. Smith?  Makes a lot of leaps and conclusions not based on evidence.  Just a big phooey, a blog, not a published article, not by an accredited source.  No citations or sources.  Not even good enough for a Conrad Black newspaper.

Try reading the articles on this site from the internationally accredited experts:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Try slowing down the typing and staying somewhat coherent next time.

I'm also going to point you back to the post I made about reopening this thread, a page or two back. You're treading close to a warning. Clean up your posts and quit being so confrontational.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
shamu said:
You're right.

Science needs to be tested, scrutinized, over and over.  Solar flares, locations of surface stations next to expanding populations activity creating heat, models, is  to be continually gone over the scientific method.  And repeat.

They have all, using scientific process and life times of study, time and time again, come up with the same conclusion;  human caused global warming is a fact.  It's a fact.  This is what they are teaching in your schools, from kindergarten to university.

What is funny as hell is this "conspiracy theory" you speak of. Your #4 is about as nonsensical of an argument as I've ever heard.  It's like these evil scientists are building an evil empire of lies for their own gain; free trips to Cancun. Really?  For example, as stated in the article you just read, FOX News is owned by Saudi princes, Russian oil industry, etc; the only "scientists" they can hire are the one the worked for tobacco; Exxon spends millions on your point of view.  YET IT'S THE SCIENTISTS LYING BECAUSE THEY GET TO GOTO CANCUN.  And they use planes, too!  O M G.  Proof right there.  (I wonder if they used their carbon credits?)

Your point number 5.  I don't know.  I'm not a politician.  Politicians make policies.  The Chicken Little approach to changing the status quo is held by industries; Carbon Credits may not be the best policy and eveyone needs the same rules.  Doesn't change the facts. 

As for your link, who is E.W. Smith?  Makes a lot of leaps and conclusions not based on evidence.  Just a big phooey, a blog, not a published article, not by an accredited source.  No citations or sources.  Not even good enough for a Conrad Black newspaper.

Try reading the articles on this site from the internationally accredited experts:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

As per recceguy, starting off a conversation by trying to demean me or brand me just makes you look silly.  If you want credibility, stick to the science.

RE:  #4 - I'm not saying that it IS proof that Global Warming is false.  I'm contending that if these individuals were intellectually consistant they would recognize the hypocrisy of their destination choices and would instead promote methods/mediums that are CO2 neutral.  The fact they are not doing that should give us pause.

RE:  #5 - Same issue....if the true objective is to reduce CO2 globally (as climate is not impacted based solely upon what Canada or Switzerland do), then the way to reduce CO2 is to try to get an international consensus on a point of sale carbon tax.  Again the fact that this has not been proposed should give us pause, and ask ourselves why?  Because without China reducing its CO2, the rest of the efforts are a joke if you believe the CO2 causation impact that the IPCC is promoting.

Re:  EW Smith and his blog - If you go back to his blog, there are links to majority of the claims made.  Please take a moment to re-read.  I should add that just becaue someone is not on the IPCC, we should not ignore their hypotheses.  If the IPCC science is sound, they should be able to refudiate his hypotheses and those of guys like Piers Corbyn in an open format.  I shoulld add that often the primary bodies do form inaccurate consensus....geo-centric vs helio-centric universe comes to mind.  You need to recognize that at that time, you'd be on the side of the Vatican, and wouldn't have listened to Copernicus, Galileo, etc. because they didn't belong to your clique, and therefore their opinions should've been dismissed.  Just something to consider before you discard all non-IPCC opinions without critical assessment, simply because they are non-IPCC.

Re:  The IPCC - You have obviously not much due diligence on the make-up of the IPCC, the membership, the dissenting opinions, and the growing group of scientists (who are not politically affiliated) who are on the skeptic side of the argument.  If nothing else Google Rajendra Pauchuri (Chairman of the IPCC) and do a little light reading.

I'll get you started:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

Look forward to your future reply....


Cheers, Matthew.  :salute:
 
Re:  The IPCC - You have obviously not much due diligence on the make-up of the IPCC, the membership, the dissenting opinions, and the growing group of scientists (who are not politically affiliated) who are on the skeptic side of the argument.  If nothing else Google Rajendra Pauchuri (Chairman of the IPCC) and do a little light reading.

I'll get you started:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

Look forward to your future reply....


Cheers, Matthew.  :salute:
[/quote]

ah yes  . . that IPCC,

here's how they do math . . . with honesty, integrity and a sense of fair play.

-or -      how 75 Climate Scientists becomes "97%"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/


Happy New Year guys & gals, Warmistas and Realistas.




 
Just throwing this in here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQWz0nTAhcQ&feature=related
 
Haletown said:
Re:  The IPCC - You have obviously not much due diligence on the make-up of the IPCC, the membership, the dissenting opinions, and the growing group of scientists (who are not politically affiliated) who are on the skeptic side of the argument.  If nothing else Google Rajendra Pauchuri (Chairman of the IPCC) and do a little light reading.

I'll get you started:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

Look forward to your future reply....


Cheers, Matthew.  :salute:


ah yes  . . that IPCC,

here's how they do math . . . with honesty, integrity and a sense of fair play.

-or -      how 75 Climate Scientists becomes "97%"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/


Happy New Year guys & gals, Warmistas and Realistas.

1 - The organisation which run counter to most of the IPCC conclusions, and which are widely sourced by sceptics here, have none of the integrity measures that the IPCC - and, for that matter, the IAC, NAS, and Royal Society have, meaning that it's a rather dirty kettle calling the pot black.

2 - Let's try to keep the language sensible. Warmers and sceptics are fine, but one side trying to claim "realist" or using "denier," with its very loaded connotations, is just going to cause more grief than neccesary for the admins.
 
jhk87 said:
2 - Let's try to keep the language sensible. Warmers and sceptics are fine, but one side trying to claim "realist" or using "denier," with its very loaded connotations, is just going to cause more grief than neccesary for the admins.

Like calling the people here sceptics? And their sources have no integrity? ::)

You are getting so very close to the edge.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
jhk87 said:
1 - The organisation which run counter to most of the IPCC conclusions, and which are widely sourced by sceptics here, have none of the integrity measures that the IPCC - and, for that matter, the IAC, NAS, and Royal Society have, meaning that it's a rather dirty kettle calling the pot black.

2 - Let's try to keep the language sensible. Warmers and sceptics are fine, but one side trying to claim "realist" or using "denier," with its very loaded connotations, is just going to cause more grief than neccesary for the admins.

None of the organisations you have listed would stand up to close scrutiny.  Hockey sticks and disappearing warm periods come to mind as I say that.  There is too much money at stake to garner a straight answer from anyone.  Whether you are an atheist or religious in belief you have to admire the sheer irony (for the atheists) of the weather conditions over the last several years.  For the religious folks, God certainly has demonstrated that He has a wicked sense of humour.  Every time  there has been an attempt by the British parliament to debate the issue, it has snowed.  In Cancun, they set new temperature low records.  The MET in England has forecasted mild winters for the past three years and several folks have said that snow was a thing of the past. 

Is the weather getting warmer or colder?  I don't know and neither does anyone else.  We are talking fractions of a degree over 10 years.  Common sense says that the error factor in measuring global temperatures is greater than that.  But someone has sure made a killing financially over the whole issue.  Millions were made on the carbon markets before they closed and further millions have been stolen from the European markets through market manipulations and ponzi schemes.  B.C. has legislated against tankers to eliminate the potential for Alberta to export through the north of the province yet U.S. tankers are free to move through the same waters from Alaska south.  The advertising supporting that move was paid for by U.S. organisations. 

Take away the profits and the political controls and see if anyone still says that global warming will kill you.  I doubt it.
 
Photo:
The eternal darkness that blankets the high Arctic three months a year is becoming brighter every year and, according to one observer, it's the result of global warming.

Article:
Global warming shines a light on the dark Arctic winter

                      (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
 
recceguy said:
Like calling the people here sceptics? And their sources have no integrity? ::)

You are getting so very close to the edge.

Milnet.ca Staff

I have hardly made accusations of mass conspiracy or massive, Al Gore-like frauds. I've merely pointed out that some of the organisations quoted have very few self-check mechanisms. I really don't see how this is counter to Milnet.ca policies, and have recently got a note praising my neutrality with regards to your quoted post.

None of the organisations you have listed would stand up to close scrutiny. ... There is too much money at stake to garner a straight answer from anyone.

Of all organisations, the NAS, and AAAS have extneral checks, including professional credibility. Given that there are no national academcies in the sceptic camp and much of the quoted material from sceptics here has been from blogs or think-tanks awash in indutry money, I reiterate that it's a very dirty pot calling the kettle black.
 
The appeal to authority isn't a guarantee of reliable reporting, especially if other motives are in play. Take this example, where a medical doctor committed fraud and used the prestigious journal "The Lancet" to provide authoritative cover:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds
By the CNN Wire Staff
January 5, 2011 8:14 p.m. EST

British journal blasts autism study

Editor's note: Watch Anderson Cooper's interview with the author of the discredited study, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, on "AC360°" at 10 p.m. ET tonight.

(CNN) -- A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday.

An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.

"It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

Britain stripped Wakefield of his medical license in May. "Meanwhile, the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession," BMJ states in an editorial accompanying the work.
Explainer: Autism and vaccines

Speaking to CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Wakefield said his work has been "grossly distorted" and that he was the target of "a ruthless, pragmatic attempt to crush any attempt to investigate valid vaccine safety concerns."

The now-discredited paper panicked many parents and led to a sharp drop in the number of children getting the vaccine that prevents measles, mumps and rubella. Vaccination rates dropped sharply in Britain after its publication, falling as low as 80% by 2004. Measles cases have gone up sharply in the ensuing years.

In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 90% of those infected had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was unknown, the CDC reported.

"But perhaps as important as the scare's effect on infectious disease is the energy, emotion and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it," the BMJ editorial states.

Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers -- a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. After years on controversy, the Lancet, the prestigious journal that originally published the research, retracted Wakefield's paper last February.

The series of articles launched Wednesday are investigative journalism, not results of a clinical study. The writer, Brian Deer, said Wakefield "chiseled" the data before him, "falsifying medical histories of children and essentially concocting a picture, which was the picture he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare."
Unfortunately, (Wakefield's) core group of supporters is not going to let the facts dissuade their beliefs that MMR causes autism.
--Dr. Max Wiznitzer, pediatric neurologist

According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds ($674,000) from the lawyers. Godlee said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism.

"It's always hard to explain fraud and where it affects people to lie in science," Godlee said. "But it does seem a financial motive was underlying this, both in terms of payments by lawyers and through legal aid grants that he received but also through financial schemes that he hoped would benefit him through diagnostic and other tests for autism and MMR-related issues."

But Wakefield told CNN that claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism "came from the parents, not me," and that his paper had "nothing to do with the litigation."

Read autism coverage on "The Chart" blog.

"These children were seen on the basis of their clinical symptoms, for their clinical need, and they were seen by expert clinicians and their disease diagnosed by them, not by me," he said.

Wakefield dismissed Deer as "a hit man who has been brought into take me down" by pharmaceutical interests. Deer has signed a disclosure form stating that he has no financial interest in the business.

Dr. Max Wiznitzer, a pediatric neurologist at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital in Cleveland, said the reporting "represents Wakefield as a person where the ends justified the means." But he said the latest news may have little effect on those families who still blame vaccines for their children's conditions.

"Unfortunately, his core group of supporters is not going to let the facts dissuade their beliefs that MMR causes autism," Wiznitzer said. "They need to be open-minded and examine the information as everybody else."

Wakefield's defenders include David Kirby, a journalist who has written extensively on autism. He told CNN that Wakefield not only has denied falsifying data, he has said he had no way to do so.

"I have known him for a number of years. He does not strike me as a charlatan or a liar," Kirby said. If the BMJ allegations are true, then Wakefield "did a terrible thing" -- but he added, "I personally find it hard to believe that he did that."
 
 
I don't mean to appeal to authority, I'm merely pointing out that the supposed lack of credibility and accountability in many climate scientists is not effectively answered by strongly opinionated sites, blogs, and think-tanks.
 
I'm a global warming skeptic; I believe the climate is changing; I believe it has been changing ever since there was a climate. I am pretty sure that we, humans, play some part in changing the climate but I am not persuaded that we should or can retreat to a 17th century agrarian economy to solve the problem.

That being said, I agree with jhk87: as suspect as the big science community's motives may be the and as dishonest as some of the climate change gurus may be, the anti-change gang and the blogosphere provide even less scientific evidence and most skeptics have neither credentials nor credibility to back up their claims.

Frankly, most of the stuff I read from the blogosphere, on most topics, sounds like juvenile ranting and raving. That includes some of the stuff here on Army.ca.
 
jhk87 said:
I really don't see how this is counter to Milnet.ca policies, and have recently got a note praising my neutrality with regards to your quoted post.

Got your PM complaining about bias and responded to it before I saw the gem in bold. Now I am more than a little focused on the gem in bold.

I challenge you, right here in the open, to send this person a note and ask them to send same to me via PM. I'll then ask you to supply me with a forwarded copy of said note.

Time and time again we get guys playing this card and I am sick of it.

So, clock is ticking.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I'm a global warming skeptic; I believe the climate is changing; I believe it has been changing ever since there was a climate. I am pretty sure that we, humans, play some part in changing the climate but I am not persuaded that we should or can retreat to a 17th century agrarian economy to solve the problem.

That being said, I agree with jhk87: as suspect as the big science community's motives may be the and as dishonest as some of the climate change gurus may be, the anti-change gang and the blogosphere provide even less scientific evidence and most skeptics have neither credentials nor credibility to back up their claims.

Frankly, most of the stuff I read from the blogosphere, on most topics, sounds like juvenile ranting and raving. That includes some of the stuff here on Army.ca.

The idea of "Big Science" as having a motive is implausible, and the "17th-century agarian economy" is a strawman.
 
57Chevy said:
Photo:
The eternal darkness that blankets the high Arctic three months a year is becoming brighter every year and, according to one observer, it's the result of global warming.

Article:
Global warming shines a light on the dark Arctic winter

                      (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

I'm no expert, but wouldn't that be due to an orbital change?
 
Back
Top