More myths and falsehoods about global warming
Since the release of the film An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006) featuring former Vice President Al Gore, the issue of global warming has received increased media attention. In March 2007, Media Matters for America documented several false, misleading, or baseless claims about the causes and seriousness of global warming that were circulating in the media at the time. Since then, media figures have continued to advance misinformation about global warming:
1. 1934 was the hottest year globally
Several media figures have misrepresented an August 2007 correction made by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to its climate figures after the discovery of inconsistencies in its U.S. temperature data. According to Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at GISS, the correction resulted in a re-ranking of NASA's list of the warmest years in the United States. For example, whereas 1998 was previously ranked as the warmest year in the United States, it is now ranked second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after the correction -- is not statistically significant. Further, the GISS stated that the revisions to the climate data have "no effect on the rankings of global temperature." However, during the August 10, 2007, edition of Fox News' Special Report, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921" but did not note that those rankings applied only to the United States. Glenn Beck made a similar claim during the October 24, 2007, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show. Beck declared that "the globe was the hottest" in 1934 and claimed that this "stat ... was, I believe, intentionally distorted by the guy the left holds up as the scientist on global warming," an apparent reference to James Hansen, director of GISS.
In fact, according to GISS, 2005 remained the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998. (2007 is now tied with 1998 as the second warmest year in the global instrumental record.) According to a January 16 GISS statement, "The eight warmest years in the [global] GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."
2. The sun, not human activity, causes global warming
Echoing earlier claims by nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and columnist John McCaslin, media figures have distorted scientific research to claim that the sun -- rather than human activity -- is primarily responsible for global warming. During the August 21, 2007, edition of Special Report, host Brit Hume cited "new research by University of Washington mathematicians [that] shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming" as evidence to support his claim that "[global warming] skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown." But an August 9, 2007, New Scientist article on the mathematicians' research warned that "[c]limate-change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun's variability can explain global warming -- but [the report's co-author] mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true." According to the article, Tung, who is a University of Washington professor of applied mathematics and an adjunct professor in Atmospheric Science, says his finding, in the New Scientist's words, "adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming."
Similarly, in a March 22, 2007, National Review Online (NRO) commentary, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) mocked those who "think that our planet is suffering from a fever," saying: "Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. ... I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder." In a July 27, 2007, Washington Post article, then-staff writer John Solomon quoted portions of Thompson's commentary, but failed to note that Thompson's argument -- that warming on other planets is evidence that warming on Earth is the result of natural circumstances, and not human activity -- is one, according to a scientist interviewed in National Geographic about the theory, that is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion." Indeed, according to the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, "Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gas) concentrations." The authors of the IPCC report noted that the phrase "very likely" translates to greater than 90 percent probability. The IPCC further reported that "it is very unlikely [less than a 10-percent chance] that the contribution from solar forcing to the warming of the last 50 years was larger than that from greenhouse gas forcing."
3. Gore is exaggerating about rising sea levels
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, media figures have attacked Gore and the film by accusing him of exaggerating scientific assessments and predictions about rising sea levels, the possible links between global warming and hurricanes, and arctic melting. The attacks have taken the form of false comparisons and misrepresentations of his claims. Indeed, during the June 1, 2007, edition of Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes falsely claimed that there is a "difference between Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" because "Al Gore says that over the next century sea level rises 20 feet" but the IPCC "says, 'Well, maybe 17 to 23 inches.' " In fact, Gore never said in either the film or the book version of An Inconvenient Truth that the potential 20-foot rise in sea levels would happen "over the next century," as Barnes claimed. Rather, the supposed "difference" between Gore and the IPCC on the issue of sea levels relies on a false comparison. While the February 2007 IPCC report projected a maximum 23-inch sea-level rise before 2100 as a result of rising temperatures, Gore's statement predicted a 20-foot rise in sea levels if the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets were to melt completely or collapse at an indefinite point in the future. Indeed, the IPCC reported that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet. The IPCC also supports Gore's claim that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would result in a sea level rise as high as 20 feet:
Recent satellite and in situ observations of ice streams behind disintegrating ice shelves highlight some rapid reactions of ice sheet systems. This raises new concern about the overall stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the collapse of which would trigger another five to six metres of sea level rise. While these streams appear buttressed by the shelves in front of them, it is currently unknown whether a reduction or failure of this buttressing of relatively limited areas of the ice sheet could actually trigger a widespread discharge of many ice streams and hence a destabilisation of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Similarly, on the May 2, 2007, edition of his CNN Headline News show, Beck aired an hour-long "special report" titled "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," which he promised would present the "other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anymore." During the program, Beck stated: "Just look at the difference between Greenland's ice melt in Al Gore's scenario when spread out over a century versus what the IPCC projects."
Yes of course Beck is a well respected authority on this subject.
Oh yea, (Sarcasm off).
Global warming deniers are an off-shoot of the faith-based crowd - who cares about the environment when believers are going to be lifted to heaven when the rapture comes.
The global warming deniers have learned a great deal from the liars and ignoramuses who reject the fact of evolution. The techniques used to attempt to cast doubt on the science are very similar. They're also very much like the methods tobacco companies used to cast doubt on research linking tobacco use to health issues for several decades.
No credible scientist will ever claim 100% proof of anything. Use that fact to pretend that anything less represents substantial doubt.
Take quotes of scientists out of context to misrepresent their positions. (Quote-mining)
Hype weak studies that offer peripherally different indications as being equivalent in value to the dozens of studies they seemingly contradict.
Smear the reputations of proponents of the consensus opinion or imply ulterior motives.
I could go on and on.
oil companies have even used some of the same lobbyists over the years as the tobacco companies. and one of the things mentioned above is the "mars is warming" theory, which as this link points out is occurring at the southern pole of mars, which could mean that it likely has to do with being tilted toward the sun.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Oh, my god!! Several decades ago there was an unknown scientist (or at least described as such now) of unknown qualifications who published a book making predictions that are wrong!!!
That's it. All science now can not be believed.
Spouting words verbatim that Rush Limbaugh says is apparently your religion. I am so unbelievably perplexed as to why can't people think for themselves and let this radio talk show host hold their worldview for them. It is sad.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
hstybuf6553 / Wednesday February 13, 2008 11:33:55 AM EST
When I was at sea we had to ship out through the Suez Canal, the Straits of Gibralter, and the English Channel to end up in the North Sea from Seward, Alaska. Months at sea.
Today, we would only have to take a day cruise through what was the Artic Ice Cap. I suppose that is a good thing to some, but if you think the currents, and tides, the eco-system that has sustained us for the ages is something that can survive without one of the two ice caps, then your not concerned about our future, just your money.
For your sake I'll make this very simple for you. You are a MORON.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Histybuff wrat:
>>global warming is a religion. you might just as well be a scientologist or a kaballah adherent as believe in this crap.
This post makes no sense at all. Global warming is the consensus of the scientific community. There have been huge numbers (hundreds?) of peer-reviewed scientific papers that show global warming is happening and that it is man-made. There has not been 1 peer-reviewed paper that undercuts the theory of global warming. Obviously, there is no science to support scientoglogy.
Why do you post such embarrassing stuff, history buff? I would think as a history buff you would post thoughtful comments.
"Global warming as religion" is a talk radio invention to fool people who into thinking that being concerned about the environment is somehow acting against G.O.D. The big guy.
"...that's why it's a religion, because it is not based on fact or scientific evidence."
Are you living under a rock? There is a consensus of the entire international community regarding global warming. The scientific dissenters are lone isolated voices in the wilderness, many of them funded by industrieal interests with an agenda to dispute any scientific findings that could possibly negatively impact their profits. Go back to the Rush Limbaugh show with the other lunatic, alternate reality crowd.
Histybuff wrat:
>>you people crack me up. you actually believe the pap you are spouting. that's why it's a religion, because it is not based on fact or scientific evidence.
link
link
link
"'The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal,'" said U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who also is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
Your denials, Histybuff, are what are really stupid. Just because you don't want to accept global warming doesn't mean it isn't real.
you people crack me up. you actually believe the pap you are spouting. that's why it's a religion, because it is not based on fact or scientific evidence.
Why are you god folks even responding to this obvious troll?
Buf:
Read what you wrote; it applies to you, not to your critics. Disregarding facts that you do not like is denial taken to an extreme and shows a disconnection from reality.
So pretty much EVERY PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT agree it IS real. It is clearly the scientific consensus and to YOU that means its a religion because it ISNT backed up by facts and science. Rightwing screechmonkeys tell you its not real and WITHOUT those peer reviewed articles and, you know ACTUAL SCIENCE, I guess that means the facts and science are on YOUR side. We crack YOU up. Increase your medication.
you might just as well be a scientologist or a kaballah adherent as believe in this crap. -HstyBuf
...or Christianity or Islam or Judaism or Zoroastrianism. For a lawyer, you sure can't form a coherent argument.
Buf:
Citing a nameless scientist a few years ago is meaningless. Read the article above and follow the links. Disregarding the science which verifies global warming, once again, says more about YOU than about the science. Once again, if you want any credibility you need to examine actual facts, not talking points.
Today in NJ my temperature readout on my dashboard is 57, so today, I'm a global warming denier.
On Monday though it was in the single digits, so I was a believer.
It's not like climatology is a study of long range patterns. This is the 21st Century. Science no longer sets the standards. It's the prevailing wind.
My views on global warming change daily.
It's not like climatology is a study of long range patterns.
Sorry If I have failed to recognize sarcasm. Many folks (as hinted here) confuse climate with weather.
They don't seem to care. All they know is what they're told by the right wing pimps.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
See how it says John McCain's voting record is right smack in the middle of the authoritarian/right field? That means he's conservative.
And before you say "Yes, but Obama and Clinton are in that field too," did I say they weren't conservative?
And as far as REP.org goes, if you actually read some of their materials, you'll find out that not only is environmental stewardship a principal conservative tenant, but every single member of the board is a conservative.
Obviously your hatred for Al Gore and love of Limbaugh (because let's face it, it's only right wing radio you get this stuff from) has blinded you to political and social realities. It's a shame, because with a law degree, you could do a lot of good for the environment.
That is if you actually have one...
Histbuff wrat:
>>why you attribute the truth to Limbaugh is beyond me. but consider this, although i know you won't, why is it that liberals believe in global warming, while conservatives do not.
Given the links I have provided, and given that I have pointed out that there is not *one* peer reviewed scientific paper that disproves global warming, I can only conclude that conservatives don't believe because they are willfully ignorant.
http://www.rep.org/index.html
That's a whole lot of conservatives who believe in global warming.
HSTYBUF: Could it be that by their very nature, and definition of the word “conservative” – they don’t like change, rocking the boat, going against the status quo – or whatever you want to call it? So the easiest thing to do to stay true to your “values’ is deny its existence. I understand where you and the rest of the conservative “skeptics” are coming from, but it’s just plain wrong - and the evidence proving you’re wrong continues to mount.
Knowing all you argue for here at MM, I’m also willing to guess that any attempts to curtail or “fix” global warming would have dire financial implications for you and your investments. Besides, at 64, you’ll be long gone before we see the ugly consequences of neglecting the issue, so why should you care? Geez, Hist – it’s really not that difficult to understand your train of thought – or any other wealthy individual who “doesn’t believe in” global warming.
Because his truth is, verbatim, your truth. Pretend as you wish that you came up with your half formed opinions here all by yourself. Unfortunately, people like you, for whatever reason, need his guidance.
The psychological aspects of the average Limbaugh dittohead would be a fascinating study.
Kinda like argiung whether black is a color or the absence of color.
Meaning what, Histybuff? You make absolutely ridiculous claims that global warming isn't supported, and then you link to a generic denial site?
Let me repeat again: there is not *one* peer reviewed scientific study that refutes global warming. When you can show me just one such report, then at least we can start to debate. Until then, I will conclude you haven't given us a good reason why we should not accept the view of the top scientists in the word.
how do you prove a nonevent. we've had ice ages and warming periods well before what is currently hapenning.
65 million years ago there was 5x the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. foliage abounded and the dinosaurs grew to be huge because of all that food. so what if we get a little more co2?
Oh, good grief! How do you prove a non-event? It is called falsiblity? Do you even understand what that is? Global warming is a scientific theory; therefore, it has the potential for being proved false. You can prove it false by simply looking at the CO2 in the atmosphere, by comparing that to rising temperatures, etc.
Please don't start with your bogus arguments about 65 million years ago. First, you have provided no link. Second, your arguments are so simplistic to be laughable. These arguments have been answered a million times.
The burden of proof is on you. The best scientist in the world have proven that global warming is real and that it is man-made. They have shown this in scientific papers. No one has shown why these scientific are wrong. You can't do so, either, so you have no argument.
Okay...here's a link to a blog written by climate scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/
No doubt you will claim they are all oil industry shills or right-wing hacks and deniers, so why bother.
Look...there's no denying the climate is changing, and perhaps human activity is contributing, but I think it is a waste of resources to think we can somehow reverse the trend or control the climate - it's the height of narcissism.
We need to do two things:
1) Become more energy efficient and reduce dependence on fossil fuels in general and foreign oil in particular. Nuclear energy appears to be the answer. But don't my word for it. Check out this website set up by Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace: http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm (another right-wing oil industry stooge? I think not).
2) Deal with the issue of warming rather than trying to reverse it. If seas are rising, start relocating population centers. Perhaps migration to newly-temperate and uninhabited northern territories of Asia and Canada.
Oh, and one more funny think about your claim that there was 5 times as much co2 in the atmosphere 65 million years ago. Funny think about that:
link
"volcanic gases, not meteors, may have caused mass extinction"
65 million years ago there was 5x the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. foliage abounded and the dinosaurs grew to be huge because of all that food. so what if we get a little more co2? - hstybuf6553
Ok, so we have a historical demonstration that high levels of CO2 can be linked to GW. Life on Earth at that time had evolved for the conditions that existed at that time. Had there been a sudden change over a century to our current CO2 levels ecosystems would have collapsed and mass extinctions would have occurred. There are documented instances of such extinctions linked to rapid climate change.
Life on Earth today is evolved to survive in our current world's climate. Rapid climate change would have a huge effect on existing ecosystems that evolution couldn't keep pace with. It takes thousands of years for life to rebound from mass extinctions.
That's "so what" if we get more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Meaning what, Histybuff? You make absolutely ridiculous claims that global warming isn't supported, and then you link to a generic denial site?
Junk Science is not a generic denial site. it's a top premium denial site.
You liar! (joke). I went there, and it seems rather ridiculous. It features a Holly so and so, and her best credential is that she has written a children's book denying global warming!
Or maybe I am missing something. Maybe I need to join the Rush club to get premium membership?
Oh, and it's funny how Milloy has been a lobbyist for the API.
That's American Petroleum Institute. Idiot.
Didn't you have you car washed by Alan Greenspan's nephew who gave you the straight dope on how concern about global warming adversely effects the economy?
Come on, we miss the stories about the upper crust that you've been entertaining us with for the last few weeks.
"...our resident Forrest Gump"
Perfect, Foghorn. Har!
He of course is lying. Every though and opinion he has comes directly from the Limbaugh playbook.
When people discuss the waning influence of Limbaugh, remember the dittoheads. They are legion, and they will be his legacy.
Histybuff wrat:
>>to satisfy you, you may remember me telling you about the dinner i hosted at my house with the marine biologist and head curator at the Natural History Museum of LA County who was specifically asked about global warming. this was about 1996. he pooh poohed the whole thing. He didn't deny climage change, but did dismiss global warming.
That settles it for me! You remember an event over a decade ago with some unnamed marine biologist, and that is the same as the consensus of the best scientists in the world?
Hsty,
Two questions:
1) when most of the scientists agree on something, I require more substantial proof. Also, why was Exxon offering scientists money to say global warming was a fraud? If it was easy to say that global warming doesn't exist, and this position was the truth, why would Exxon have to offer money for that position?
2) You said on another thread that you had lived in LA for 64 years. Is it safe to say that you have lived there all your life?
you said, "those 18 years were 3 in the army and vietnam, 3 in israel, 3 in law school, 6 in houston."
That's only 15 years. you didn't do a three year bit in the joint did you?
Or did you mean of those 18 years 6 were spent in the army with 3 of the six years spent in Vietnam, 3 in Israel, 3 in law school and 6 in Houston?
Fair enough, why were you asked to be a pollwatcher in Ohio for 2004 and why did you vote there then too?
Any ideas on why Exxon is soliciting scientists?
i didn't vote in ohio, i was sent there by the repub party. i voted early in l.a., actually at the beverly hills city hall, though i don't live in b.h.
68-72, army and vietnam
72-76 israel
76-79 law school
79-86 houston
excuse the rounding errors
i don't know anything about exxon except chavez is not selling them any more oil.
Histybuff wrat:
>>he was speaking about the galapagos, as he had written the definitive book about the fishes of the galapagos.
Yes, a google search shows this man authored a book on that subject. But I can't find anything he has written on global warming. So again, a memory you had ten years ago is not the same as the scientific papers written by the best scientists in the world.
Histybuff wrat:
>>I never said he had written anything about it. He was asked about it after his talk.
Could you stop playing the bufoon now? Your memory of what a biologist might or might not have said (we can't prove that, can we?) does nothing to refute the consensus that global warming is real and man made, as the best scientists in the world have shown in peer-reviewed papers.
Funny, i don't know what your point is about what killed the dinosaurs, but it is certain that a meteor did not kill them. It could haveum been a meteorite, however, that crashed into the yucatan. that theory makes sense as there is a level of iridium in the earth's crust found world wide dated to that period. meteorites are a source of iridium.
i guess gasses from volcanoes could have done it, coupled with ash and iridium floating in the atmosphere blocking out the sun
>>Funny, i don't know what your point is about what killed the dinosaurs, but it is certain that a meteor did not kill them.
My point is that the CO2 killed them, the same CO2 that you said was harmless.
I really don't care about your theories on the dinasours--or anything else. You post silly stuff (like global warming is not backed up by science) and are simply playing a buffoon here. I'm not sure which is worse, whether you believe the crap you post, or if you don't believe it and just want attention.
well, you have no proof that co2 killed them. there are more poisonous gasses than co2 that come from a volcano.
the meteor theory makes eminent sense.
Histybuff wrat:
>>Saunder says, these flood basalt events may have released enough greenhouse gases - sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) - to "dramatically change the climate."
"'Saunder says, these flood basalt events may have released enough greenhouse gases - sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) - to "dramatically change the climate.'"
link
Really, you are a fool. How many times do I have to ask you the same question, which you cannot answer: show me *one* peer reviewed paper refuting global warming.
You are just playing the buffoon here (or, as some would say, the troll). You post ridiculous statements, don't back them up, and then go on to post other ridiculous or irrelevant statements.
I'm going to have to quibble with that link. SO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
I will admit that I have probably not done nearly as much scientific "research" as most of those posting here, but not all climate change can be blamed on humans. Earth has gone through plenty of cycles in the past, "Ice Ages" end when there is global warming that melts away the ice, and return when temperatures drop again. Do humans contribute to the changes now? Undoubtably so, but let's not assume that there is just one cause and one solution. If the changes happened in the past- free of human involvement- then there are obviously several factors that contribute to these changes. I wonder what people will be posting when we begin the next period of global cooling.
Funny how one side mocks the other and claims that there is no original thinking being done, when both sides are guilty of the same stuff. Those who are so certain about the "facts" and "science" of global warming are merely spewing out the words of their own "experts."
Kenny, this isn't about two sides of a debate, its about science. One side will grasp at anything that backs up their faith based view that there is nothing humans can do to foul up the planet. Oddly enough that group gets funding by the corporations that make money fouling up the planet.
The other side is concerned because the scientific concensus is that we have a problem. If you can really demonstrate scientifically that the scientific concensus is wrong, be my guest.
Sure there is natural variation to the climate. No one denies this. Now try this on for size: If the climate is naturally unsteady, what do you think added all that carbon is going to do to it? Quick analogy to make it clear to you - you are in a room full of bikers sipping beer quietly. Someone walkes in the room with gallons of wiskey and tequilla.
KennyG wrat:
>>Funny how one side mocks the other and claims that there is no original thinking being done, when both sides are guilty of the same stuff. Those who are so certain about the "facts" and "science" of global warming are merely spewing out the words of their own "experts."
The side that says that global warming does not exist has produced no scientific evidence to back up their claim. They don't have any. It is that simple. I am not going to take seriously a bunch of denialisits who don't have truth on their side
FunnyPants,
Check out these blogs from real climate scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/
No doubt you will claim they are all oil industry shills or right-wing hacks and deniers, so why bother.
Also, check out this website set up by Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace: http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm (another right-wing oil industry stooge? I think not).
so, they didn't die from c02 and so2, they died from the changes to the climate caused by co2 and so2. but there would have ash as well. that is usually the cause of climate change caused by volcanic activity.
volcanic activity in 1815 caused a great deal of atmospheric dust and changed the climate in many areas, resulting in what is called the year without a summer.
i don't understand all the hoorah, even if what the alarmist chicken littles say is true. greenland was once green, and is becoming greener again. they like it. better fishing, better agriculture. what's the big deal
i believe, i believe.
no one ever claimed it was a lush paradise, just that it was nicer than it is now.
You know HSTYBUF, I’m sure that in 1481 there were thousands of HSTBUFs and Robert J. Lavenberg types -and there were organizations like The Heartland Institute(Catholic Church) making a case for them.
Arguing with you, or anyone who is still not convinced we are in trouble if we don’t do something soon, is about as futile as it must have been arguing with The Pope back then. The big difference today is the consequences.
You're not the least bit bothered by the fact that you might be wrong - or that the sticks that people like you are poking in the wheel of progress might have devastating consequences??
Histybuff wrat:
>>i don't understand all the hoorah, even if what the alarmist chicken littles say is true. greenland was once green, and is becoming greener again. they like it. better fishing, better agriculture. what's the big deal
First, you have no argument at all. You cannot back up your claims in the least. I asked you to produce just *one* paper that refutes global warming.
You cannot.
You have no argument.
Now you are switching the debate. You are arguing that global warming might not be that bad. You have no evidence for this claim, either. I would suggest that you read the UN report. The consequences of global warming range from catastrophic to ming boggling catastrophic.
Stop being such a clown.
why 1481?
i'm all for progress. it is the luddites, like al gore, funnypants, and you that want to deprive us of the means to realize progress. It takes power, and without it life is brutal and short. Wind, geothermal, and solar can provide some of that power, but not enough to run the world. It takes oil, coal and nuclear, all of which the luddites would deny us.
Who is for progress. Not you.
as for greenland:
In prehistory, Greenland was home to a number of Paleo-Eskimo cultures. From AD 984 it was colonized by Norse settlers in two settlements on the west coast on the fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island. They thrived for a few centuries, but after nearly 500 years of habitation disappeared sometime in the 15th century.[1][2]
Data from ice cores indicate that from AD 800 to 1300 the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate similar to today. Trees and herbaceous plants grew there, and the climate initially allowed farming of livestock as in Norway.[1] These remote communities thrived on farming, hunting and trade with Norway. When the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated south from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway.
Around the 14th and 15th centuries, the Scandinavian settlements vanished, likely due to famine and increasing conflicts with the Inuit.[3] The condition of human bones from this period indicates the Norse population was malnourished. Main reasons appeared to have been soil erosion due to destruction of the natural vegetation for farming, turf, and wood by the Norse, a decline in temperatures during the Little Ice Age, and armed conflicts with the Inuit.[1] It has been suggested that cultural practices, such as rejecting fish as a source of food and reliance solely on livestock ill-adapted to Greenland's climate, caused recurring famines, which along with environmental degradation led to the abandonment of the colony.[1]
Histybuff wrat:
>>i'm all for progress. it is the luddites, like al gore, funnypants, and you that want to deprive us of the means to realize progress. It takes power, and without it life is brutal and short. Wind, geothermal, and solar can provide some of that power, but not enough to run the world. It takes oil, coal and nuclear, all of which the luddites would deny us.
Nice try. You want to switch the argument. Again, histroy buff, just show me *one* paper that refutes global warming. Just one.
You can't.
You have no argument.
As for the rest of your clowning around, let me point out something so obvious that even a 5th grader could grasp it. Since global warming is real, ignoring it does not mean you are for progress. On the contrary, it means you are denying science. And if you deny this science, you are going to make the earth less habitable for humans, and that is not progress. Of course, I should add there are ways to generate power that would not involve ruining our enviornment.
Again, buff, you can't show me one article that refutes global warming. Not one.
Just admit you are wrong.
Exhibit A: Greenland --Climate change can damage society
Exhibit B: Climate is naturally volatile
Exhibit C: Carbon traps heat in the atmosphere
Exhibit D: Modern man has released significant quantities of carbon that had been removed from the atmosphere for millions of years
Exhibit E: The sun has increased its intensity since much of the carbon humans have released was trapped by plants and removed into the eaths crust
Exhibit F: Projected population in the next 50 years 9 billion
Exhibit G: See exhibit A
Greenland is why you should worry about global warming!!!!
I havent looked for a peer-reviewed article and doubt any exists. why is that? because anyone who would write such a paper would be committing professional suicide. anyone who would write it would be lynched by the lefties. in the intellectual climate of the day, anyone who crosses the left is excoriated, banished, and made anathema.
lawrence summers, former pres of harvard, asked why women did not do better in math and questioned if it was something for which they were not constitutionally suited. he was ridden out of town on a rail.
just look on this board. someone dares, really dares, to say something against the conventional wisdom of the moment and he is a troll, a buffoon, an idiot, etc.
Histbuff wrat:
>>I havent looked for a peer-reviewed article and doubt any exists. why is that? because anyone who would write such a paper would be committing professional suicide. anyone who would write it would be lynched by the lefties.
False. I could make the same statement about anything. "The reason that there are no peer reviewed papers on unicorns is because publishing one would be committing professional suicide." You see how dumb that argument is? Anyone can write a paper refuting global warming. You can, if you want. But expect it to be scrutinized.
If someone were to write a good paper refuting global warming, rather than committing professional suicide, they would win acclaim for themselves, and certainly the oil companies would pay them well. To write a paper supporting global warming does not gain you fame; it is proving what is the consensus that wins you scientific fame.
>>just look on this board. someone dares, really dares, to say something against the conventional wisdom of the moment and he is a troll, a buffoon, an idiot, etc.
I have called you a buffoon not because I disagree with you, but because you make absurd claims, don't back them up, and then make more absurd or irrelevant claims. Remember, it was *you* who started the name calling by telling us that we believed in global warming like it was our religion. You also claimed there was no science to back up the theory of global warming. That is simply ridiculous. How can you make such a claim and then expected to be taken seriously?
yes, i could write a paper, but who would care. where would i get peers to review it. that's what you asked for, a peer reviewed paper. but read this.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
See my response below to the bogus science of Lindzen.
Any scientist can get his paper peer reviewed. Are you know saying that unicorns exist because the only reason they don't is that no one will peer review a paper on them? So unicorns exist, history buff? You realize the logical fallacy you are making, don't you?
i really don't understand your logic, but people have written papers about narwahl whales (known as the unicorn whale because of its unicorn like tusk).
you can't have a paper reviewed if you don't write it, and you won't write it if it means you won't get grants, tenure, etc. because you don't want to drink the liberals kool-aid.
Historybuff wrat:
>>you can't have a paper reviewed if you don't write it, and you won't write it if it means you won't get grants, tenure, etc. because you don't want to drink the liberals kool-aid.
Or really? And where is your proof that this is the case? You have proof showing that if you write a paper refuting global warming you won't get tenure? Let me guess that you have as much proof of this as you do that global warming is not real: none.
You are merely making an argument based on motivation, a logical fallacy.
Again, history buff, there is absolutely no science that backs up your claims. None. So just admit you are wrong.
Yeah, you obviously don't understand his logic, or logic whatsoever. First, Narwhal's? Yeah, they're real, and have been documented as scientific fact. Here's an image search. Unicorns? I don't know what you've been told, but the Unicorns were eaten by the two lions on Noah's Ark, so they don't exist. (that was a joke.)
Second, I would suggest you read up on logical fallacies, and practice the use thereof, in order to familiarize yourself with how exactly to avoid a fallacious statement. It would do us all a world of good for you to learn that (but you should know all of this already, yes? You are a lawyer.)
Dbeden wrat:
>>Unicorns? I don't know what you've been told, but the Unicorns were eaten by the two lions on Noah's Ark, so they don't exist.
Obviously, you don't know squat. We can't see unicorns because we don't have enough faith. Once Eve at the apple and instigated original sin, we lost our ability to see the divine.
The lions ate the Phoenix, not the unicorns.
Buf:
Look at posts from Jeter2. I rarely agree with him, he is definitely Conservative, and he has earned my respect despite our intellectual differences. He is neither abusive nor a troll, he clearly thinks about issues, and he does not spout talking points. The reason people have no patience for you is because your postings show a disconnection from reality, not because your opinions are not politically liberal. Your handle implies that you have studied history, at least for fun, but your understanding of history is virtually nonexistent. You have opinions, but rather than self-examine, you bend facts or disregard what you do not like in order to fit them to your beliefs. For example, you have not provided any peer-reviewed papers against global warming because THERE ARE NOT ANY SUCH PAPERS. Examine the context of every single claim that global warming either does not exist or is not caused by human beings--look at who provides such information. You have called global warming a theory. Gravity is also a theory--how much proof do you want?
Historybuff wrat:
>>how some intellectual curiosity you fools.
You see, History buff, you are the one whose beliefs are like a religion. You don't believe in global warming, and no amount of science can convince you otherwise. I know, because I have argued with posters like you all the time. It is the same technique. They continually link to denialists, and when we show why they are wrong, they just link to other denialists. Since there are hundreds of denialists sites, the foolishness never ends.
That is why I told you to proved a *peer-reviewed* paper. You can't.
You have no argument.
Just admit you are wrong.
About Lindzen, he is simply wrong, which is why he has produced no scientiific work backing up his perspecitive. He has shown he has been wrong in a scientific way, but he keeps saying the same thing, pretending he is not making a mistake (much like you!).
link
Okay, let me let you in on a little secret. Sites like the Cato Institute, junkscience.com, and all the other right wing think tank sites have no merit here. They might be the Bible in right-wing looney world, but these groups have been proven to provide false information in the interest of their corporate parents.
Here's my feelings on Global Warming. I have been a skeptic of it for a long time, and continue to be wary of it. (let me finish before ya'll jump on me for this.)* However, if we fail to substantially reduce greenhouse gases, we will leave for our grandchildren a world of increased disease (the expansion of tropical ecosystems means more exotic diseases), food insecurity (shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars), and a whole host of other problems. Now, if we do manage to clean up our pollution and bring the CO2 levels down, we will create a cleaner and safer environment to secure the future of this country and it's peoples.
*I don't deny it doesn't exist, I just don't trust climate models of a world-wide system when we can't predict the local weather more than 10 days in advance.
Dbeden wrat:
>>*I don't deny it doesn't exist, I just don't trust climate models of a world-wide system when we can't predict the local weather more than 10 days in advance.
I agreed with your posts, but this sentence is egergiously wrong. Weather is not climate. We have to point this out all the time. So this argument is really dishonest.
Yes, I agree. The scary thing is that you are correct when you say "we don't know how bad it will be." It could be really, really bad. Even if it is somewhat bad, it would cause enough economic damage to really hurt society.
So yes, let's prepare. And anyway, what is wrong with getting off our dependence on fossil fuels?
A bulleting for you: The Greenhouse gas effect is simply the back-scattering (back to earth, that is) of infra-red radiation. Man-made global warming advocates like to talk about CO2 because, ... well, because it's the only significant man-made gas in the atmosphere (much greater than CO, etc.).
As a backscattering gas, however, CO2 is a piker in the hierarchy of atmospheric gas scattering molecules. In fact, it's contribution to infra-red back-scattering (the "greenhouse effect") is only a fraction of a per cent of the only significant greenhouse gas (and one, sadly enough for the MMGW proponents, is not under control of man) WATER VAPOR (think of clouds).
Ah, the old water vapor argument. I was waiting for that one. Here's a tip: if you bring up water vapor and CO21 being a fraction of the atmosphere, you are proving to those in the know that you have no idea what you are talking about with reagrds to the climate.
Allow me to make an analogy. Our drinking water contains some Chlorine level that should not exceed 2 parts per million (ppm). That is a miniscule amount. If that level were upped to, say, 200 ppm it is still a very small percentage, but I would not recommend drinking it.
Jawil11 escribir:
>>Our drinking water contains some Chlorine level that should not exceed 2 parts per million (ppm). That is a miniscule amount. If that level were upped to, say, 200 ppm it is still a very small percentage, but I would not recommend drinking it.
That's just plain silly. Obviously, anyone with common sense knows that such a small amount of something that you can't even see it can't do you harm. Just look at the people in some African tribes who don't listen to scientists who tell them they have to purify their water because their is larvae in the water that can grow into worms inside of a human once ingested. But have you really ever seen an African with legs swollen by worms? I mean, let's just use common sense.
In the same way, let's use common sense about global warming. I am looking out my window right now and seeing *ice* on the ground. Oh please! Where's this so-called global warming? And let's use common sense with air planes. Metal is heavier than air, so air planes can't fly.
Just to prove how wrong you are, I am going to dilute some arsenic in water 200 ppm and drink it. I'll be back posting here, laughing in your face, showing how wrong you are. You people and your science!
So this is where everybody is!!
Well I've got nothing to add about this topic because unlike many of you I don't spend much time thinking about it. Does that make me a bad person?
I just figure someone will take care of it ;-)
Carry on.
It's to emphasize my pretended agreement with CD's point. It's a habit I picked up from Stephen King, when his car broke down outside my house he read some of my stories while waiting for a tow truck.
I suggest we all do the name dropping routine when dealing with our friend.
Is that the same book that told you not to capitalize the first word of a sentence?
Maybe you should concentrate on making relevant and honest arguments. You don't seem to have any real superiority in your English skills.
History buff wrat:
>>I can't remember which leader it was, but it was the pm of one of the countries liberated from communism ala Reagan, who said global warming, environmentalism, is the new communism. i know you want a cite, but i'd have to look for it. he said it though.
And you wonder why I dismiss you as a buffoon? I refuted everyone one of your arguments. You could not produce any evidence to back up your claims. So what do you do? Simply reassert your thesis!
Just because some unnamed leader of a communist country equates communism with global warming, doesn't mean it is. That is just making an assertion. You stated that global warming was a religion. When we pointed out that it is the consensus of the scientific community, you ignore our arguments and restate your original nonsense.
What a clown.
A)Environmentalism is the new communism.
B)Global warming is like a religion.
Communism has no religion. How do environmentalists recognize global warming?
Historybuff wrat:
>>formerly communist company.
Yes, you are a clown. Now you have reverted to correcting posters' grammar, and you deliver this clunker of a line. Did you mean "former Communist country?"
>>I don't understand all this reliance on scientists.
Yes, I'm sure you don't. After all, when I get sick, I go to the doctor, but I had a colleague who told me to drink some herbal tea and said she didn't understand all t his reliance on doctors. We rely on scientists because science is where the debate is!
I mean, really, History buff, can you possibly be serious? Having thoroughly lost the debate, you want to know start attacking science. Well, let's just forget about a thing called the enlightenment and go back to believing that the earth is the center of the solar system.
Just admit you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.
Historbuff schrieb:
>>i meant country, obviously.
And did you mean "former" rather than "formerly?" Why are you such an ass in trying to correct other posters' spelling and punctuation? (Oh, that's was pretty funny the way you told someone who had spelled 'straitjacket' 'straight jacket' that the correct spelling is 'strait jacket.' Not only is 'straightjacket' a correct alternative spelling, but all the sources I checked showed that 'straitjacket' is one word. So you were doubly wrong. Good job.)
I hope you don't fly. After all, the technology of flying rests on science, and you seem to be anti-science all of a sudden.
Two years ago I was struck with a neurological disorder that affected my right leg below the knee. The pain was intense and often I could not walk more than a few feet at a time.
I saw perhaps eight or nine doctors. I had a spinal block, a local block, and even knee surgery; all to no avail. After nine months I visited an acupuncturist and soon thereafter the pain began to subside.
Did the acupuncturist help, or had the disorder run its course? Who can say? What I can say is that the doctors offered no relief or cure. Were they at fault? Of course not; some things are just unfathomable.
Twenty years ago the “scientists” were predicting a new ice age. I guess they were wrong. But now they are predicting global warming and you rush to bow down in their church as they pontificate with certitude over something as complicated as the climate. I would no more do that than join Tom Cruise at Scientology headquarters, or Aimee Semple McPherson in Echo Park.
Historybuff wrat:
>>Twenty years ago the “scientists” were predicting a new ice age. I guess they were wrong.
No, they weren't. Show me some peer reviewed studies that predicted global warming. You won't be able to. The ice age mantra is one of the big lies of the denialists. (The ice age theory was a story in scientific magazine; it was not hundreds and hundreds of papers supporting a theory.)
You really are a fool. You keep comparing the consensus of the best scientists in the world to a religion. You apparently can't tell the difference. Hey, buffoon, don't get on a plane next time, because panes are based on science. And the next time there is a nuclear bomb test, go and stand where they will explode the bomb. After all, nuclear bombs are just science, right?
Just admit you are wrong. Just admit you can't produce a single peer reviewed paper refuting global warming.
funnymanpants wrote:
>>No, they weren't. Show me some peer reviewed studies that predicted global warming.
Sorry. That should be
No, they weren't. Show me some peer reviewed studies that predicted an ice age
Speaks the other leading example of moral relitivity :0P here today. Though you've given enough examples previously that its not such a surprise.
That would be a typicical gambit. The New Communism, yup alot of potential there. Much better than the"Biggest con in the world", don't need to worry so much about answering the whos, hows and wheres, if you can post the communist label on it. Best of luck with that.
surf kansas, support global warming
It's a rare comic who can make sadistic humor work.
Your not even a bad comic.
And you have editorial issues!
Only 7 years, 11 months and 13 days left to Armageddon, according to algore's doomsday clock.
"Don't let science get in the way of a good political ploy", Algore while flying in his carbon-footprint enlarging private fossil fuel eating jet from his CO2 overproducing home to extensive hot air creating No-ding-dong prize acceptance speech.
Look at any of these non-political driven studies...if you dare
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf
As usual, you are all rhetoric and no fact. This from your first link:
"Many researchers have tried to link sunspot activity to climate change, but the new results cannot be used to explain global warming, according to the scientists who did the study"
Woops!
And this from your second link:
"In any case, the conclusion that can be taken from this discussion is that the warming since 1975 is outside the range of a purely solar effect and may safely be ascribed to a strong anthropogenic component. "
Double woops! That directly contradicts your point that there is no global warming.
Your third link notes:
"It is also important to note
that these maxima were recorded 80 years ago (rainfall) and 149
years ago (Mkomazi floods) and that there is no evidence of an
increase in time that could be associated with global warming."
Tripple woops! (Note that the third paper has nothing to do with global warming, anyway.)
I'll put the same challenge to you I put to historybuff. Just produce *one* peer reviewed paper that refutes global warming.
You can't.
You have no argument to show that global warming is not real and not man made.
kernalfingerlickinggood,
Look below....if you dare!
I love it when the denialists link to sources that disprove their claim. It's kind of cute: aw, look, he thinks he can read! precious!
somethingfunnyinyourpants,
Please check out my response below....if you dare!
Czech prez: Environmentalism is new communism
'Biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity'
Posted: March 20, 2007
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com Editor's note: The current global warming frenzy is exposed as never before in the March edition of WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, in an issue titled, HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming."
As the House Energy and Commerce Committee prepares to question former Vice President Al Gore tomorrow morning about global warming, Czech President Vaclav Klaus is warning congressmen that environmental extremism is the modern equivalent of communism.
Responding yesterday to U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and former House Speaker Denny Hastert, R-Ill., the Czech leader said: "It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom."
"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants," said Klaus, responding to questions posed by the two lawmakers. "Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism."
(Story continues below)
He added, "The so-called climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world."
In a letter to Klaus, Barton, the committee's ranking Republican, and Hastert, ranking Republican on the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, asked the Czech president to comment on global warming, based on his background as an economist and political leader, especially since he is familiar with European responses to global warming.
"We believe your perspective on the political, economic and moral aspects of the climate change debate can be useful as we seek to assess the potential impacts of proposed U.S. climate-related regulations on the economic well-being of its citizens and their ability to contribute to future economic vitality and innovation here and abroad," Barton and Hastert said.
Klaus urges policymakers to rely on free-market principles, not government coercion, in formulating public policy. In his written response to the House committee members, the Czech leader said:
"I warn against adopting regulations based on the so-called precautionary principle which the environmentalists use to justify their recommendations, the clear benefit of which they are not able to prove." Klaus added, "Responsible politics should take into account the opportunity costs of such proposals and be aware of the fact that the wasteful environmentalist policies are adopted to the detriment of other policies, thus neglecting many other important needs of millions of people all over the world. Each policy measure must be based on a cost-benefit analysis."
Last month, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, congratulated Klaus for speaking out against the fears of man-made global warming. Klaus had told a Czech newspaper on Feb. 8 that fears of catastrophic man-made global warming were a "myth" and critiqued the U.N.'s report, calling it "political." Klaus also said other government leaders would speak out, but "political correctness strangles their voice."
"President Klaus is to be commended for his courage in speaking not only the truth about the science behind global warming fears, but the reality of the politicization of the U.N.," Inhofe said. "President Klaus's reported comments questioning the fears of catastrophic man-made global warming are in line with a growing chorus of scientists, peer-reviewed literature and government leaders who are finally realizing the true motivations behind climate scares. The scientific and political momentum is clearly shifting away from climate alarmists to climate realists," Inhofe said.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54784
Historybuff scrieb:
>>It was the Czech President who said it.
Yes, you are a buffoon. How many times to you have to show your ignorance? Remember what I said about the denialists, how they were the ones with the religion, how they would keep posting links to denailists websites no matter how many times we proved them wrong? Now you are doing just that.
Congratulations on your new religion.
As I said before, just because some former Communist--Klaus--thinks that global warming is a hoax, doesn't mean it is. You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between proof and assertion. Klaus has produced no science to back his opinion. He is simply a bl*w hard, like you.
Again, history buff, I challenge you to just produce *one* peer reviewed article refuting global warming.
You can't do it.
You have no argument. Just admit you are wrong.
No, I don't think I'll do that.
Please refer the article found here http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
and the several peer reviewed papers refuting the global warming hysterial claims. you wanted it, you got it, so just shut up from now on, you driveling fool.
Historybuff wrat:
>>and the several peer reviewed papers refuting the global warming hysterial claims. you wanted it, you got it, so just shut up from now on, you driveling fool.
No. Sorry, but you linked to a site by James Infore, a notoriously wrong senator, a denialist. He claims that these papers refute global warming. They don't:
link
Woops! So who is the drivelling fool?
Again, here is the challenge to you. Link to one paper that *really* refutes global warming. Not one that a nut case like Inhofe thinks refutes it.
You won't be able to. You have no argument. Just admit you are wrong.
i knew nothing would satisfy your sick bent mind. you could be standing in the middle of the mojave desert with a two hundred foot thick sheet of ice inching your way, and you'd still be screaming global warming.
well, i didn't come here to convice you as to the truth of the matter, for cetainly there is no hope of that, but to be a thorn in you fat pimply ass.
Historybuff wrat:
>>i knew nothing would satisfy your sick bent mind.
I accept your defeat. You could do it with more honor, but then again, I guess when you don't have the facts on your side, it is easier to insult. You must have been one great lawyer.
Oh, have you learned how to use a dictionary yet? I think it is funny that you try to correct a poster's spelling and then get it wrong yourself.
Historybuff scrieb:
>>and the several peer reviewed papers refuting the global warming hysterial claims. you wanted it, you got it, so just shut up from now on, you driveling fool.
Ah, but the very source you quote contradicts your argument! You see, you shouldn't trust people like Inhofe, who is called "The U.S. Senate's leading abuser of science" (link). You see, when you do, you make a fool of yourself. And when you call someone a drivelling fool, and then end up linking to a scientist who contradicts you, then you look stupid. You might want to save the insults for when you need them.
link
In 2007, Schwartz published a new estimate of climate sensitivity to rising carbon dioxide.[2] Schwartz estimated climate sensitivity based on the heat capacity and the time constant of the climate system. Heat capacity was estimated with ocean heat content and the time constant by perturbations and relaxations in the surface temperature record. His estimate of climate sensitivity was about one-third of the most recent estimate by the IPCC. Schwartz's estimate has been criticized by climate researchers Grant Foster, James Annan, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. In their analysis, Schwartz's method produces climate lag times that are "unrealistically low in comparison to the known behaviour of the models in response to changes in GHG forcing." [1]
Despite his lower estimate for sensitivity, Schwartz is still concerned about global warming. Schwartz explained his research by saying "it means that the climate is less sensitive to [carbon dioxide] than currently thought, which gives some breathing room, but a lower sensitivity does not solve the long-term problem that would result from continued buildup of [carbon dioxide]."[3]
Historybuff scrieb:
>>you cut off the article. even at a tripling of the co2 level the mean temp would only increase .4 degrees. anyway, this is tiresome.
Yes, it is tiresome. Thinking is hard work, isn't it?
As I pointed out above, and as the very quote points out, Scwartz is simply wrong. But even if he were right, he still thinks global warming real and man-made! So how does that help your argument? Do you have a reading problem?
Oh ye of little intelligence… You guys make this all too easy.... You must read ALL of the material presented. I know the bigger words may intimidate but keep a thesaurus handy and give her a try…I will gently guide you one step at a time..
From the first study…
“The study's finding: Sunspot activity has been more intense and lasted longer during the past 60 to 70 years than at anytime in more than eight millennia.”
“Sunspots have been studied directly for about four centuries, and these direct observations provide the most reliable historic record of solar activity. Previous studies have suggested cooler periods on Earth were related to long stretches with low sunspot counts. From the 1400s to the 1700s, for example, Europe and North America experienced a "Little Ice Age." For a period of about 50 years during that time, there were almost no sunspots.”
“The study's methods appear solid: "The models reproduce the observed record of sunspots extremely well, from almost no sunspots during the seventeenth century to the current high levels," Reimer said.”
And for algore who says the debate is closed, "Whether solar activity is a dominant influence in these [climate] changes is a subject of intense debate," says Paula Reimer, a researcher at Queen's University Belfast who wrote an analysis of the new study for Nature. Why? Because "the exact relationship of solar irradiance to sunspot number is still uncertain."
Now, from the second study…
The Last 25 YearsLean’s study found that "solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970". However, lest we take unwarranted comfort from the fact that the Sun seems most important and anthropogenic warming is less than originally estimated, keep in mind that if the Sun controls substantial climate fluctuations by changing its brightness by only 0.25%, a change of more than 1 percent in virtual brightness? (from trace greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4) could have a considerably greater impact. The fact is we do not know for sure which will have the greater effect, but it is well to remember that the reconstruction of sunspots, their relationship to solar energy output, and the link to overall background brightness are areas of science that are still changing. Thus, solar contributions may be much less (or a somewhat more) than those currently estimated. However, the final sentence then contradicts what was just reported, maybe for political reasons?? “In any case, the conclusion that can be taken from this discussion is that the warming since 1975 is outside the range of a purely solar effect and may safely be ascribed to a strong anthropogenic component.” Nothing in the paragraphs above in this report substantiates this final sentence. And the third study…It is about the cyclical effects of sun spots on water levels in Southern Africa and that NONE of the methods of predicting climate change used by the IPCC is of any quality. Again, try reading the final few pages of the article. This study is based on the numerical analysis of the properties of routinely observed hydrometeorological data which in South Africa alone is collected at a rate of more than half a million station days per year, with some records approaching 100 continuous years in length. The analysis of this data demonstrates an unequivocal synchronous linkage between these processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. This confirms observations and reports by others in many countries during the past 150 years. It is also shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage between the statistically significant, 21-year periodicity in these processes and theacceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space. Despite a diligent search, no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributedto human activities. And more bad news for the human-haters...The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) dismisses the view that solar activity has a meaningful influence on global climate. The basis for this view is that variations in the receipt of solar activity are too small to account for variations in the climatic responses. These variations were determined from satellite and other observations. What the IPCC scientists failed to appreciate is that changes in the level of solar radiation received on earth are amenable to precise calculation. The variations are well in excess of the IPCC value of +0,3 Wm–2 quoted earlier. Gee, again I thought that the science was already settled?