The Official Global Warming Thread

[Lyion]

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (http://www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

[Zanchief]

Stop googling Canadians who disagree with Global Warming to try and stick it to me and Tikker.

We all know some people disagree. We all know some people much smarter then I disagree. But you can't deny that for every person who thinks Global warming is blown out of proportion there are ten people, just as qualified, who think it's a very real threat.

It serves no purpose to have a google-off.

[Evermore]

My beer farts are the cause of global warming.

QFT

[Scatillac]

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

The global temperature are trending up so we are all going to die.

as long as i get to watch my old roomate die before me, im ok with that.

[kinghooter00]

Someone say GOOGLE?????

[Lueyen]

Someone say GOOGLE?????

I almost sprayed soda on my monitor.

[Arlos]

Why, cause he finally used it right?

-Arlos

[kinghooter00]

I am finally getting the hang of this google thing. Hellz yeah!!!

This whole global warming thing is a joke. Even if there was some way to stop it, we can't even get our budget straight in America or stop poverty. How the fuck are we going to turn around a climate shift??? People are fucking spaced out sometimes.

[Jay]

Hey King. Did you actually ever play EQ or did you stumble upon the board as a result of Scattilac aka Groder

[Tikker]

I am finally getting the hang of this google thing. Hellz yeah!!!

This whole global warming thing is a joke. Even if there was some way to stop it, we can't even get our budget straight in America or stop poverty. How the fuck are we going to turn around a climate shift??? People are fucking spaced out sometimes.

that's the problem

people only see the issue from 1 side

I don't think anyone would argue that mankind has polluted the shit out of the environment


I don't think most people argue that it's been getting warmer the last few years


are the 2 related? maybe, maybe not
it could easily be just cyclical climate shift


but arguing that it's not happening at all is just fucking retarded

[Arlos]

The thing is, there is a LOT that companies could be doing to lower how much pollution they are producing. But, because implementing them costs money, and most business can't see beyond the profit sheets of the current quarter, they simply won't implement them unless they are forced to. (despite the fact that doing so often lowers long term costs, etc.) Hell, under this administration they've made it easier for companies to dump poisons directly into the environment, and cut back on the ability for law enforcement to stop them.

Beyond the simple implementation of pollution controls, there's a lot we could be doing to reduce pollution and cutting our dependance on fossil fuels. Solar Power is on the verge of major revolutionary breakthroughs, pump some serious government research dollars into it, and before long we might not need to run many of those heavily polluting coal power plants that are currently in operation, say.

We could meet every single ounce of this country's need for diesel fuel with biodiesl sources. Biodiesel is more expensive than petro-diesel right now, but that's because it's not being practiced widely enough to get economy of scale factors coming up to reduce those costs. Not to mention, biodiesel is less polluting than petro-diesel, AND swapping over would significantly lower our dependance on the middle east's oil, and you'd think investing in this to make the switch would be a win-win.

Beyond that, there's things like promoting the use of Ethanol fuels, and so on. Remember, Brazil completely removed it's entire dependance on foreign oil by forcing through a mass ethanol program, and it worked just fine, at least to my knowledge. Hasn't happened here cause the oil companies have too much clout.

So, REGARDLESS of your feelings of global warming, whether you believe it or not, how possibly can cutting downon pollution be bad for us? Just look at the cities we live in, and the brown ugly haze that goes into the air we all breathe. How badly is that harming us? How would it be bad to DO something about that? ANd that's just one symptom....

-Arlos

[kinghooter00]

Nothing is going to change though, thats the thing... This world is too focused on wars and domination. In the end, it will only be something that will be talked about and argued over till the shit hits the fan and everyone goes "Fuck, guess we're all fucked now".
Its pointless to try to change the wheel that is already set in motion. Mother Nature is a bad bitch and even 100% turn around isn't going to stop the climate shift we are about to see.
Its going to be fucking incredible.

[Zanchief]

Nothing is going to change though, thats the thing... This world is too focused on wars and domination. In the end, it will only be something that will be talked about and argued over till the shit hits the fan and everyone goes "Fuck, guess we're all fucked now".
Its pointless to try to change the wheel that is already set in motion. Mother Nature is a bad bitch and even 100% turn around isn't going to stop the climate shift we are about to see.
Its going to be fucking incredible.

Is that your scientific opinion?

[KILL]

I can't wait to scuba dive Disney World.

[kinghooter00]

Nothing is going to change though, thats the thing... This world is too focused on wars and domination. In the end, it will only be something that will be talked about and argued over till the shit hits the fan and everyone goes "Fuck, guess we're all fucked now".
Its pointless to try to change the wheel that is already set in motion. Mother Nature is a bad bitch and even 100% turn around isn't going to stop the climate shift we are about to see.
Its going to be fucking incredible.

Is that your scientific opinion?

Just as good as the others...

[Lueyen]

Nothing is going to change though, thats the thing... This world is too focused on wars and domination. In the end, it will only be something that will be talked about and argued over till the shit hits the fan and everyone goes "Fuck, guess we're all fucked now".
Its pointless to try to change the wheel that is already set in motion. Mother Nature is a bad bitch and even 100% turn around isn't going to stop the climate shift we are about to see.
Its going to be fucking incredible.

Is that your scientific opinion?

Just as good as the others...

Here hooter, just go sign up with UCS:

http://www.ucsusa.org/

you to can be part of the overwhelming consensus of the "scientific community"

[kinghooter00]

Hey King. Did you actually ever play EQ or did you stumble upon the board as a result of Scattilac aka Groder

never played EQ. I want to but can't find the time.
Scattilac did show me the board and now i'm hooked.

[Lyion]

Interesting follow up to the Global Warming smear.. I see a reoccuring theme of left wing smear tactics without facts or credence..

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110009649

EVIEW & OUTLOOK

Global Warming Smear
The political campaign to shut up an American think tank.

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:00 p.m. EST

Mark Twain once complained that a lie can make it half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on. That's been the case of late in the climate change debate, as political and media activists attempt to stigmatize anyone who doesn't pay homage to their "scientific consensus."

Last week the London Guardian published a story headlined, "Scientists Offer Cash to Dispute Climate Study." The story alleges that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, collected contributions from ExxonMobil and then offered climate scholars $10,000 so they could lobby against global warming legislation.

Another newspaper, the British Independent, picked up on the story and claimed: "It has come to light that one of the world's largest oil companies, ExxonMobil, is attempting to bribe scientists to pick holes in the IPCC's assessment." (The IPCC is the United Nations climate-change panel.)

It would be easy to dismiss all this as propaganda from British tabloids, except that a few days ago the "news" crossed the Atlantic where more respectable media outlets, including the Washington Post, are reporting the story in what has become all too typical pack fashion. A CNNMoney.com report offered that "a think tank partly funded by ExxonMobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels."

Here are the facts as we've been able to collect them. AEI doesn't lobby, didn't offer money to scientists to question global warming, and the money it did pay for climate research didn't come from Exxon.

What AEI did was send a letter to several leading climate scientists asking them to participate in a symposium that would present a "range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension." Some of the scholars asked to participate, including Steve Schroeder of Texas A& M, are climatologists who believe that global warming is a major problem.

AEI President Chris DeMuth says, "What the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI -- and Brookings, Harvard and the University of Manchester -- to pay individuals" for commissioned work. He says that Exxon has contributed less than 1% of AEI's budget over the last decade.

As for Exxon, Lauren Kerr, director of its Washington office, says that "none of us here had ever heard of this AEI climate change project until we read about it in the London newspapers." By the way, commissioning such research is also standard practice at NASA and other government agencies and at liberal groups such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, which have among them spent billions of dollars attempting to link fossil fuels to global warming.

We don't know where the Brits first got this "news," but the leading suspects are the reliable sources at Greenpeace. They have been peddling these allegations for months, and the London newspaper sleuths seem to have swallowed them like pints on a Fleet Street lunch hour.

So, apparently, have several members of the U.S. Senate. Yesterday Senators Bernard Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry sent a letter to Mr. DeMuth complaining that "should these reports be accurate," then "it would highlight the extent to which moneyed interests distort honest scientific and public policy discussions. . . . Does your donors' self-interest trump an honest discussion over the well-being of the planet?"

Every member of AEI's board of directors was graciously copied on the missive. We're told the Senators never bothered to contact AEI about the veracity of the reports, and by repeating the distortions, these four Democratic senators, wittingly or not, gave credence to falsehood.

For its part, Exxon appears unwilling to take this smear campaign lying down. Bribery can be a crime, and falsely accusing someone of a crime may well be defamation. A company spokesman says Exxon has written a letter to the Independent demanding a retraction.

One can only conclude from this episode that the environmental left and their political and media supporters now believe it is legitimate to quash debate on climate change and its consequences. This is known as orthodoxy, and, until now, science accepted the legitimacy of challenging it.

[Zanchief]

I see a reoccuring theme of left wing smear tactics without facts or credence..

So I guess that would even things up then.

[Scatillac]

PARIS, France (AP) -- Are we really heading for an ice-free Arctic?

More than 50,000 researchers hope to find an answer during a massive study of how global warming and other phenomena are changing the coldest parts of the Earth -- and what that means for the rest of it.

Scientists formally kicked off the International Polar Year on Thursday, the biggest such project in 50 years. It is unifying researchers from 63 nations in 228 studies to monitor the health of the polar regions, using icebreakers, satellites and submarines. The project ends in March 2009.

Schoolchildren in Oslo, Norway, many with signs that said "Give us back winter" or "We want snow," built snowmen on the City Hall square to mark Thursday's launch.

The director of the Norwegian Polar Institute described seeing glaciers melt at an accelerated rate in recent years at his Arctic outpost of Ny-Alesund.

The polar year is important because it is "pooling the resources of many countries in a coordinated effort to solve a major scientific problem of our time," Kim Holmen said by telephone.

Global warming "is the most important challenge we face in this century," Prince Albert II of Monaco said in launching the project in Paris. "The hour is no longer for skepticism. It is time to act, and act urgently."

He noted an authoritative report released last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that said global warming is unequivocal, very likely human-caused -- and will last for centuries.

A scientist on that panel warned that the world could be heading for an ice-free Arctic, a proposition backed up Thursday by Ian Allison, a co-chair of the International Polar Year committee and researcher with the Australian Government Antarctic Commission.

"The projections are that ice in the Arctic will disappear in the summer months. There will no longer be perennial ice ... sometime within the next century," he said.

"This will have enormous consequences" on the 4 million people living in polar regions -- and well beyond, he said, as the melting ice disrupts ecosystems all the way to the equator.

Russian geographer Vladimir Kotlyakov, who has studied polar regions for 50 years and is a lead figure in the polar year project, was skeptical of the predictions of an ice-free Arctic. But he did not deny climate changes already were affecting Russia.

"We'll have to change our agriculture, our industry, even our mentality as a frozen country," he said at the Paris event.

In stressing the global impact of the polar study, Michel Jarraud of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said a major breakthrough of the last International Polar Year, in 1957-1958, was in scientists' understanding of the tropics and their weather systems.

This time, the scientists are armed with much better technology, especially satellites to study polar regions, known as the cryosphere. They will study everything from the effect of solar radiation on the polar atmosphere to the exotic marine life swimming beneath the Antarctic ice.

The polar year is being sponsored by the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization and the International Council for Science. About $1.5 billion has been earmarked for the year's projects by various national exploration agencies, but most of the money comes from existing polar research budgets.

In classrooms around the world Thursday, teachers conducted ice-related activities and experiments to call attention to the project, organizers said.

Two leading researchers formally launched the project at Paris' Palace of Discovery museum by slicing into an enormous cake made to look like a glacier, topped with meringue and caramelized "icicles."

At the Oslo event, snowball skirmishes between children erupted.

"Just like me, I'm sure you want it to be possible to ski ... in the future," Norwegian Crown Prince Haakon said.

Besides yielding a more complete picture of the impact of global warming, the cooperation will help try to quantify the amount of fresh water leaking out from underneath ice sheets in Antarctica.

Other projects include the installation of an Arctic Ocean monitoring system, described as an early warning system for climate change, and a census of the deep-sea creatures that populate the bottom of Antarctica's Southern Ocean.

The Antarctic's lakes and mountains -- some trapped under about 3 miles of ice for more than 35 million years -- will be sounded. Using telescopes, balloons and spacecraft, scientists at the poles will investigate plasma and magnetic fields kicked up by the sun.

Anthropologists also are planning to study the culture and politics of some of the Arctic's 4 million inhabitants.

[Scatillac]

its all been quiet for a while, first news i have come across in some time.

[ClakarEQ]

I thought I posted this already but perhaps not.

This isn't so much about global warming being true or not, well sort of I guess

Science has proven many things as factual. Not just guess work or theory but real proof.

One of those things in several niches is parasitic relationships. I won't post the details, you can wiki or google it.

It is fact that our relationship with earth is parasitic. We do not return equal to or more than we take.

The host is earth, humankind is the parasite.

The host reacts to parasites in several ways. Suffer and die, sometimes unknowingly, sometimes without the ability to change it. Think of ticks, or tape worms, whatever, it doesn't really matter. The end result of a parasitic relationship is one of two things. The parasite is "controlled", or the host dies. Self imposed parasite control for humans would be sterilization via evolution or medical, etc. Hosts controlling parasties would be killing off some and/or future generations of parasites, etc.

Anaglogies - Dr.'s remove tape worms to save the host, animals mud bathing to kill flees, etc.

I'm not aware of any real world analogy for self controled parasites, they typically infest a host until it is dead and move on to the next.

I guess to cut to the chase as I'm out of time and want to go home.

Humans are parasties to earth, earth and eveloution IMHO have and are attempting to implement parasite control (disease and sickness, global warming, etc), but she is failing. In fact we are the most robust parasite known in existance.

Ultimately however, control is emminent. It will either occur self imposed (nuclear bombs), or host driven ( mass death from disease via evolution, etc).

It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not. Eventually we will either self impose control or mother nature will do it for us.

Damn it got off track there :\

Point is, either we attempt to work with our host so we can all get along, or one of two other things will happen, the host has to go, or the parastie has to go. There is no room for grey.

If global warming is a tactic that science wants to take even if they don't realize it is parasitic control, than fine, why fight it, what do we have to lose?

The other options seem far worse, and even if the "other options" are generations from now, why not take the oppertunity to make change "today"?

If your boss comes in and says, "Bob, you are being promoted, do you want it now? or do you want it in 10 years", what would you do?

Now if you think this is all hogwash bullshit, hey, that is fine, you have your opinion.

But know that you can't change the facts, we are parasites on this host and our time without control has limits.