Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

I am impressed with this very moving essay. His charges and purpose are very clear. He seems to have the right idea of how to make meaningful changes. The statements and facts he presents are what need more publicity.

wrt the arctic ice sheet:
http://www.physorg.com/news77896072.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/CRC0507/CRC%20 ... 5B1%5D.pdf
the last one is a big file, but loaded with data.

kilimanjaro glacier:

Qori Kalis Glacier, Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru, between 1978 (a) and 2002 (b).
http://fixedreference.org/2006-Wikipedi ... etreat.htm

etc.

I suppose it's possible that some glacier somewhere is retreating due to pipelines, jets, etc; that does not, however, account for the *global* retreat of world glaciers, the colapse of the Larsen antarctic shelves A and B, nor the declining summer ice in the arctic.

Nor, for that matter, does it account for the climate change here in California.

wrt. solar cycles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 174450.htm
The 11-year solar peak is "... on average 0.2º C warmer than times of low solar activity..."
Current global temperature is ~0.8-0.9 degrees c warmer than historical averages: in other words, more than 4 times what could be accounted for by the 11 year solar cycle.

discussion on the sun's cycles
quote:
...the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

In other words, there's not evidence for a longer-term solar cycle affecting the climate, either.

Ah, so the sun-cycle theory doesn't hold water, eh? I'd like to see more data on that, actually, because that was one of my main reservations for a while regarding the role of Man in the warming trend, and, if the data really doesn't support the theory that sun-cycles are a cause, then I should reevaluate the strength of my position.

I actually agree.... I don't know much about the science per say behind this global warming scare, but I do know that they plan on using it to get people to go along with globalization and a one world police state, to get people to embrace a collective behive-like mindset, where everyone will be chipped. This is all part of this new age "we are one" mindset, that's gonna basically turn people into borgs.
I mean I want world peace and unity as much as the next person, but I prefer to maintain my individual identity and my freedom.

You might want to look into the US National Academy of Sciences, the most respected general science body in the United States. Read what they say about global warming, and then get back with. Then go and consult with the other academies of sciences around the world, and try telling us that "Scientists don't accept the IPCC position" - most scientists do. Most scientific societies have considered global warming, and they do respect and accept the IPCC.

Even one of the sources you cited said only 6% of published peer reviewed studies disagreed with global warming to some degree. That can only be described as a minority opinion within the scientific community.

If these recent peer reviewed studies that you refer to really do prove that human activity isn't changing the Earth's climate, then science will ultimately incorporate that. Science will change the prevailing conclusions, which are that there is evidence that human activity appears to be responsible for most of the observed temperature increase.

Having studied the human effects on the various geochemical cycles (the nitrogen cycle, phosphorous cycle, mercury cycle, etc) ... I see plenty of evidence that human activity has a dramatic, negative impact on the state of the Earth. There is no doubt that human activity is changing the global equation for these . Pumping phosphorous into a river or the Gulf of Mexico will change it. And the evidence is that humans are changing the carbon cycle, and that pumping massive amounts of gases that increase the retention of heat into the atmosphere does increase the retention of heat.

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-LOW.pdf

Yes, the same James Inhofe that has taken more than a million dollars from oil and gas companies since becoming a politician. We certainly should respect his opinions. The man is courageous crusader. When the torture at Abu Graib was revealed, Imhofe was righteously outraged (outraged that it was revealed, and that anyone would be opposed to the good guys practicing torture). Imhofe that was instrumental in giving away publicly owned resources to the Skiatook Development authority, which turned around and gave those valuable resources to Imhofe's former campaign director. Clearly, he is an impartial arbiter of science and policy.

Inhofe has said that the US should base their middle east policy on (his interpretation of) the Bible. He suggested that one reason that 3000 people died on 9/11 was that the US opposed God's will and didn't support Israel strongly enough. God told Inhofe to oppose lowering the interest rate on student loans. He doesn't believe that beating the s**t out of someone because they say they are gay should be considered a hate crime. Glad that we have at least one saintly person in the US Senate.

Inhofe doesn't even believe that CFCs can affect the ozone layer - although atmospheric chemists settled this one decades ago, Imhofe has described this as another liberal hoax. Drill in Anwar? Sure. God gave us the oil and dominion over the Earth. It would be sinful not to use that oil in Inhofe's opinion.

It's ironic that the same people that are trying to create the idea of a 'church of global warming' are themselves steeped in such bad religion. If you want to believe Inhofe and think that the Weather Channel is the driving force behind the alleged global warming hoax (so it can get a bigger audience), your welcome to do so. I'd rather listen to the National Academy of Sciences on this complex issue.

i just found out something odd/weird. Having read part of the latest IPCC reports, I looked at their lists of contributors and reviewers, the people who provide the research and then "check"/approve/collate the information for the final reports.

In the case of the UK contributors to the report on the pure science foundation for global warming claims, ( which is part 1 of 3; the second one dealing with Impact, Adaptation etc), of the 59 listed: 24 work at the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. And out of the 81 reviewers: 37 work at the Met Office Hadley Centre.

I asked my sister, who works as researcher for an org advising govt on the environment, whether this was normal procedure to rely so massively on one source for information in preparing an unbiased report. She explained that the thing is Hadley is THE major climate research org in the UK; that's where all the funding goes etc, so they have the best material etc, and carry out the most studies.

It turns out that the Met Office Hadley Centre is a part ( with some self financing responsibilities) of the Ministry for the Defence, ultimately answerable to the Secretary for the Defence, and its chief exec is the UK Under Secretary of the Defence. It advertises on the internet as a consultancy service, selling its advice to businesses and organisations globally on how to adapt to climate change/global warming.

.....does this worry anyone else or is this perfectly alright?

Last edited by ouinon on 25 Feb 2008, 10:16 am, edited 3 times in total.

You are correct. They do seem to be respectable. I looked at your link and it is from 2006.
Since your information is out of date, I looked up the February 2008 press release from the NAS. The NAS seems to think the problem may be regional instead of global. They want a top down review of the data, and will present it at the March meeting in DC. That meeting is after the March climatologists meeting in New York. I only skimmed the articles but, I will read them more in depth after I finish my chores. http://dels.nas.edu/dels/
Regardless of what the NAS decides on this subject, there will be political fallout from the March meetings. I am keeping my mind open, and looking forward to it.

BTW, Inhofe does look like he is a flake.

In addition i came across the deposition by a sometime member of the IPCC review panel, Paul Reiter, made by him to the British House of Lords in 2005, which casts an unusual, and unflattering, light on the nature of the " leading scientists" supposedly responsible for the IPCC reports:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 12we21.htm

and heaps of other stuff, but i'm tired and going to bed now!! ( i still think that Denis Rancourt is one of the most convincing, and sympathetic)

With ref to the Met Office Hadley Centre, a large number of participants from Hadley are listed as both contributors and reviewers. ( at least 20 ). The concept of "peer-reviewed" begins to lose credibility when it is a matter of reviewing work by people on your own team.

With ref to general credibility of IPCC reports, apparently the reason why many of the listed contributors and reviewers are research assistants with very little experience, and post grad students, or even just admin asssistants, is because a lot of the really qualified and experienced scientists "simply do not have the time" ... to read the studies or write the reports so they rope in their research assistants, and/or in the case of university science staff, their post grad students, to do most of the work.

I don't know if the 40 odd reviewers and contributors from the Met Office Hadley on the list represent all of Hadley research personnel, or whether certain researchers there were not included because their results did not fit. The nomination process for work on IPCC is made by govts/govt bodies and in this case Hadley IS in a sense the govt. ( one of those weird new privatised money-making agencies within it, anyway). In the same way as tobacco industries carried on a lot of research which they kept quiet about when the results were not convenient.

Would the fact that in a sense the people at Hadley are working for the Govt/ Ministry of Defence mean they were subject to the official secrets act, which would prevent them from talking about their results to anyone without permission from Hadley?

Last edited by ouinon on 25 Feb 2008, 10:13 am, edited 3 times in total.

I consider global warming complete and utter BS. The earth goes through a long climate cycle, what scientists see is merely that. The dinosaurs lived on an earth far hotter than the one known today, then the ice age hit. The earth warmed up again, but not as much. People cannot see this simply because there is no accurate data from farther back than the early 1900s.

I recommend reading State of Fear, by (I think) the person who wrote Jurassic Park (Michael Chriton or something, dunno how to spell his last name). After reading that, you will see what I mean.

it's not that it's not natural.... it's that we're making it happen too fast

State of Fear is a work of fiction by a writer of horror/adventure novels. Consider the plot - a bunch of ecoterrorists want to cause a huge earthquake in order to bring more attention to global warming. WTF?! Since when have earthquakes had anything to do with global warming? I have read some of the studies he 'cites' in the book, and they do not imply what he claims that they imply.

If you follow the funding of many of the scientists who produce that 6% or so of the studies that cast doubt on global warming, you will find that they are being paid by the fossil fuel industry, especially oil.

Here is what the National Academy of Sciences has to say on global warming (hint: it's not 'just regional.'):
http://www.nap.edu/collections/global_w ... index.html
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/103/39/14288

i notice that they specifically refer to the latest IPCC report to support the "human involvement in climate change" part of their conclusions in the second of your links. They only declare on their own authority that climate change is real; that much i agree with. There has always been climate change. But when it comes to human involvement they turn to the IPCC.

Here is a statement in which the credibility of the IPCC is put VERY seriously in doubt.

http://mclean.ch/climate/SPPI-disband_the_IPCC.pdf
( text from page 3)

The idea that we could be responsible for climate change .....

These links are from 2003, 2005, and 2006. I'm not meaning to be nasty, but can we time warp to the present please?