Global cooling or global warming?

[FactFinder]

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Convenient Lie

The scary claims about heat waves and droughts are based on computer models. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. They were unable to anticipate the massive amounts of heat energy that escaped the tropics over the past 15 years, forcing modelers back to the drawing board. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.

The fundamentalist doom-mongers ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season.

Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument?

"It's the money!" says Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

And the politicians would have one less excuse to take control of our lives.

In a nutshell.

When real science is applied a much different picture emeges than the uhhumm computer models. A case of GIGO?

 

[Oddball]

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch.

This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen ( b. February 8, 1940) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]
He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.[2] Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that "of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject."[3]

Lindzen has been a keynote speaker at media events and conferences of a range of think tanks disputing climate change including the Heartland Institute[4] and the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Fossil Fuel Interests Funding
In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[10]

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[11]

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."[

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

 

[FactFinder]

Americano, you wanted to know where the money trail is in this global warmier coolier scam. Here is a start at the trail...and wouldn't ya know who is starting off as the biggest player.

Goldman Sachs Sells $12M in Carbon Offsets in Largest Such U.S. Deal So Far

Goldman Sachs Sells $12M in Carbon Offsets in Largest Such U.S. Deal So Far · Environmental Leader · Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives

and:

Street Cred: Goldman Sachs Buys Into Carbon-Credit Developer
By Jeffrey Ball
Jonathan Shieber, of Dow Jones’ Clean Technology Insight, reports:

It looks like the financial wizards at Goldman Sachs are betting that the U.S. government is going to impose a cap-and-trade system for global-warming emissions sooner rather than later, despite the financial crisis shaking up the corridors of power from Wall Street to Washington

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/27/street-cred-goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-credit-developer/

There is more. Just google carbon credits Goldman Sachs
They have so many plants in government positions it is no wonder we have beem getting terrorized with hype.

 

[Ame®icano]

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

Exactly.

So when Lindzen say "if you want me to give you my opinion, you have to pay my expenses of $2500 a day" that is wrong, plus he's a liar and cheat.

When Al Gore charge $1 million per speech about something that he has no academic background nor knowledge, he's a hero, Nobel prize winer and successful businessman. The $1 million is small price to pay, considering that Al has to start his private jet and put all that makeup on his plastic face.

So, who has valid argument here, Lindzen or Gore?

 

[Ame®icano]

Americano, you wanted to know where the money trail is in this global warmier coolier scam. Here is a start at the trail...and wouldn't ya know who is starting off as the biggest player.

Goldman Sachs Sells $12M in Carbon Offsets in Largest Such U.S. Deal So Far

Goldman Sachs Sells $12M in Carbon Offsets in Largest Such U.S. Deal So Far · Environmental Leader · Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives

and:

Street Cred: Goldman Sachs Buys Into Carbon-Credit Developer
By Jeffrey Ball
Jonathan Shieber, of Dow Jones’ Clean Technology Insight, reports:

It looks like the financial wizards at Goldman Sachs are betting that the U.S. government is going to impose a cap-and-trade system for global-warming emissions sooner rather than later, despite the financial crisis shaking up the corridors of power from Wall Street to Washington

Street Cred: Goldman Sachs Buys Into Carbon-Credit Developer - Environmental Capital - WSJ

There is more. Just google carbon credits Goldman Sachs
They have so many plants in government positions it is no wonder we have beem getting terrorized with hype.

I understand that Goldman Sachs made money on selling carbon offsets, but where those carbon offsets came from to begin with, who gave it to them? If i talk out my neighbor from cutting his trees in backyard, do I get carbon offsets and can I sell them?

So question still is, where those carbon credits are coming from and who is making money from it?

BTW, thanks for the answer.

 

[mdn2000]

I got to say, I do respond to Old Crock, so I must be a moron, Old Crock does not read anything Old Crock links to.

The global warming scientists have not proved anything other than they must go to great lengths and use billions of dollars to get the result they want.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

in 1970s, there was "global cooling" consensus among scientists

wrong

UNESCO simposium on "a reversal of the preceding (warming) climatic trend", where scientists from 36 countries were “physically” sure but “statistically” less certain about "global warming".

Rome Symposium organized by Unesco and the World Meteorological Organization.

January 30, 1961, Monday
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.

NY Times - Archives

"In this symposium we have not be able to treat the controversial question of man's possibilities to foresee the future development of or to influence the climate by artificial means."


Your link, pg. 473

 

[mdn2000]

The more I read the more amazed I am at how little the scientist admit they know. If you read the studies the scientist admit they need more data and that its impossible to crunch all the numbers. The scientist must program into the computers assumptions to make up for the inabiltiy to attain all the data and facts as well as the must make assumptions in their calculations in order to make up for the lack of being able to have a computer powerful enough to crunch all the data.

Even if scientist could acquire every detail of the earths climate it would take forever just to input the data into a computer, and again if such a computer even exsisted.

The earth is way to big and complex. The scientists admit this.

 

[Old Rocks]

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

Exactly.

So when Lindzen say "if you want me to give you my opinion, you have to pay my expenses of $2500 a day" that is wrong, plus he's a liar and cheat.

When Al Gore charge $1 million per speech about something that he has no academic background nor knowledge, he's a hero, Nobel prize winer and successful businessman. The $1 million is small price to pay, considering that Al has to start his private jet and put all that makeup on his plastic face.

So, who has valid argument here, Lindzen or Gore?

No links to this charge? Show the proof or stand a liar.

 

[KittenKoder]

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

Exactly.

So when Lindzen say "if you want me to give you my opinion, you have to pay my expenses of $2500 a day" that is wrong, plus he's a liar and cheat.

When Al Gore charge $1 million per speech about something that he has no academic background nor knowledge, he's a hero, Nobel prize winer and successful businessman. The $1 million is small price to pay, considering that Al has to start his private jet and put all that makeup on his plastic face.

So, who has valid argument here, Lindzen or Gore?

No links to this charge? Show the proof or stand a liar.

No, when called on it he has the chance to either defend or call it opinion, if he defends without a link, then you can call him a lair, until then he's just posting what could be opinion, in which case it cannot be a lie no matter how you spin it.

 

[Old Rocks]

He can show proof, or he can stand a liar. I am betting that he is a liar.

 

[Ame®icano]

Look, old fart, I was being polite and patient with you throughout the whole thread. I asked you several times the same question and you always refused to answer. Then when I asked you for proof on Lindzen, you ignore all that and now I am an asshole?

Well, until you apologize first and then answer what I asked you number of times, you won't get anything from me. How about that?!

Until then, you're on ignore.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boohoo

 

[Ame®icano]

Less than a month before the Copenhagen summit on climate change, the International Energy Agency says that governments must act now to avoid catastrophic results.

Governments must act now to ward off catastrophic climate change or face additional costs of $500 billion per year of delay, according to a report released Tuesday by the International Energy Agency.

No time to waste on climate change, report declares

The question is, how do you stop something that is naturally occurring on the planet?

 

[Old Rocks]

Naturally occuring does not mean that there are no recognizable causes. The PT extinction event, as well as the PETM, were caused by natural events that put a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere, and created a feedback effect that put huge amounts of CH4 into the atmosphere.

We know the sequence of events from the research in paleo-climatology, and the present increase in CO2 is happening at a faster rate than it did in either of the time periods posted. Not only that, we know that we have enough CH4 in the ocean clathrates to create a very fast and major climate change. What we do not know is at what level is the point of no return.

Just because the cause today of the dramatic increase in GHGs is anthropogenic in origin is not going to change the result.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, dumb ass, you answered a post with a nonsensicle cartoon. That is pretty much the limits of your intellect.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, Amero, you do stand a liar.

 

[mdn2000]

OK, dumb ass, you answered a post with a nonsensicle cartoon. That is pretty much the limits of your intellect.

And to show how smart Old Crock is read Old Crocks comment at the bottom of the quote and read the paragraph Old Crock went back to and highlighted in bold print. Old Crock misunderstood his own source even after I pointed this out to Old Crock.

Old Crock's typical response:

Stupid ass, the steel is smelted with electricy, Doooodeeee.......

The relevant fact from Old Crock's source:

This energy, supplemented by
natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrap

It is obvious now that Old Crock is much more than a mental midget, Old Crock has suffered irrepairable drug induced brain damage, pass the dutchie dooooooude.

I have worked in two steel mills. Both were fired with electricity. In fact, most melting of the primary source, ore or scrap, or any combination of those, are done in electric furnaces today.

http://www.stahlwerk-thueringen.de/files/File/2704_besu_engl.pdf

You know old crock, fuck off, its over and over with you, you post a source and do not read your own source, you worked in two all electric steel mills, bullshit. I was not going to look at this source but I knew you were nothing but a moron. Here I go again, I will qoute Old Crock's source, Old Crock's source describes the most modern steel plant in the world. Of course the first plant using this technology was built in the USA in Indiana by Nucor steel. No one else thought the "continous roll" process would work. Check out the book "American Steel".

Now to quote Old Crock's source, showing once again that Old Crock never reads his own sources which shows Old Crock has knows nothing about energy and even less about the fairy tale "green energy".

The smelting shop
The electric arc furnace is charged with two containers of recycled steel per cycle; the
furnace needs approx. 50 minutes to convert this material into 120 metric tons of
molten steel. The furnace works on the direct current electric arc furnace principle. An
electric arc is generated between a graphite electrode with a diameter of 750 mm and
the bottom of the furnace which functions as the anode. This energy, supplemented by
natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrap

Before rolling, the beam blanks - both our own as well as those from external suppliers
- are placed in a natural gas fired pusher furnace where they are heated to a temperature
of approximately 1,200 °C.

So there you have it, no iron smelting plant exists that uses only electricity, hence the fairy tale of green energy being sustainable in the future is pure fantasy.

Stupid ass, the steel is smelted with electricy, Doooodeeee....... said nothing at all about the reheat process that is done before the rolling.

The slabs are created using electricity, the slabs are later put into a reheat furnace to be heated to the correct rolling temperature for the rolling process.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

The consensus is that we are having global cooling.