Real evidnce against AGW

[Chris]

This is long but counters those who think GW is not real and not caused by our wasteful ways.

global warming 43 min

Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle"

They won't watch it.

 

[Bern80]

Charles said that those who believe and spread the word of global warming ignore ALL information that disputes their knowledge of the subject. This is making an ignorant claim.

Well this thread has an awful lot of disputing knoowledge and so far you seem to have ignored all of it. So I would say that statement remains accurate. You flat out ignored my first links because you believed it wasn't peer reviewed when a) it was and b) peer review doesn't exactley count for much these days.

 

[Bern80]

This is long but counters those who think GW is not real and not caused by our wasteful ways.

global warming 43 min

Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle"

I will watch it. Just a quesiton. Does it have any actual science in it?

 

[Chris]

I will watch it. Just a quesiton. Does it have any actual science in it?

This link has the actual science.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

 

[Bern80]

This link has the actual science.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Which would go to square one, that anything that says something other than the above is just plain wrong and be discarded correct?

 

[midcan5]

I will watch it. Just a quesiton. Does it have any actual science in it?

You be the judge, I say yes, very well argued.

 

[CharlestonChad]

No it is not. The mantra from you guys is that any report or study that disputes man made Global warming is funded by big oil and thus a lie. Any Scientist that publishes anything that disagrees with man made Global warming, according to you guys, is on the pay roll of Big Oil or is not really a scientist at all. You do not even dispute the information, just paint it as tainted and ignore it.

Most of the evidence presented against global warming comes from sources that profit from the use of oil. If this source is not linked or funded to an energy corporation, AND it is peer reviewed, then I will take the time to read through the study. I will not waste my time reading information that is not peer reviewed.

 

[Bern80]

Most of the evidence presented against global warming comes from sources that profit from the use of oil. If this source is not linked or funded to an energy corporation, AND it is peer reviewed, then I will take the time to read through the study. I will not waste my time reading information that is not peer reviewed.

Isn't that really just an excuse to not expose yourself to an alternative view?

Again it was peer reviewed, the APS lied about it and I have seen no evidence that he is linked to big oil (not that it would inherently make his findings inaccurate anyway).

You think you're side isn't lobbying scientists to find what they want them to find? Based on your thinking I should disregard any articles linked to Green Peace or the Sierra Club right?

 

[Bern80]

Okay I am watching the critique of the documentay and am essentially taking notes as we go so this may get long and some things written now may be subject to change as I get through it.

I admit I watch with skepticism which leads me to question most every aspect of the argument. The first thing I have noticed is that he makes an awful ot of assumptions about what he believes we the documentary creators want us to infer. To me regardless of the maker's intent, inferences are going to be different depending on the individual. One so far that bothers me is he believes the documentary is trying to get people to believe that CO2 is the only driver of climate. Most of us know that not to be the case. In short seeing a view point does not inherently mean it will be endorsed.

- Interestingly he attributes the cooling between 1940 and 1975 to industrialization due to reflective aersols (unknown whether that's true).

- points to IPCC models which to me can be completely disregarded because knowing that the IPCC is on record as haveing inteniionally manipulated and omitted counter productive arguments to AGW gives them really no credibility what so ever.

- Has helped to clarify the amount of CO2 man is contributing to atmosphere. Notes that CO2 makes up ~ .05% of percent of the atmosphere and that man has contributed about 2% of that, the rest being natural. 2% of .05 is .001%. That is our contribution to the atmosphere. Need to know how that can be the main driver in the current warming trend.

- Falsley states that the documentary is stating that Temperature causes increase (false dichotomy argument). The documenary doesn't say this. All it notes is that CO2 rise trailed temperature rise. The closest statement made is that CO2 rise is product of temperature rise. Which is really nothing more than saying this has been shown to happen when temperature rises. he further goes on to tell us that we are meant to infert that CO2 is not the driver now. Again people will infer many things based on many variables. The documentaries intent is only one of them. He states he has destoryed the false dichotomy argument, but as far as i could tell, such an argument wasn't really made in the first place.

- Into climate change models. Again what he says the dockumentary is saying isn't really what it is saying at all. He claims it is stating that modelers are putting in variables to achieve desired results, which is never said or even implied. All that is said it is difficult to account for the large number of variables that make up climate change.

- I agree with his suspicion that the solar acitivity/temp graph appears manipulated. However, he did initially show a graph of his own recnsonstrction (believing it to be too messy rather sarcastically) Even in the 'messy' graph which i presume he is saying can be considered more accurate one can see a patter of temp rising with solar activity.

Okay finished.

First off, it is critique of a dockumentary which has to be taken with a grain of salt (the dockumentary I mean) just as an Inconvenient Truth does. Both are meant to drive home a point which seems to open such projects up for manipulation.

The overriding issues or unanswereed questions are that he doesn't explain how such a small increase in CO2 can have such a dramatic impact on climate. The question is never answered, "is man the predominant cause of the warming trend?"

 

[Zoomie1980]

That's the million dollar question. He sure went to some great lengths if he's lieing. He wrote a paper. Added 3000 words of clarification from what would have to be fake reviews. And wrote a letter to the president of the APS. From listening to him speak I have no reason to believe he's lieing. The facts that I understand in his paper are not really in contention. We have indeed experienced no warming in the last 7-10 years.

Funny how most of the climate studies stop their data with 2005. 2006 and 2007 were two very cold years. It took 100 years for the global average temp to rise .7 F. .63 of that .7 has been WIPED OUT in the last two years alone.

Why? Solar activity has declined at the fastest rate since modern measuring began in the early 1960's.

 

[Chris]

Funny how most of the climate studies stop their data with 2005. 2006 and 2007 were two very cold years. It took 100 years for the global average temp to rise .7 F. .63 of that .7 has been WIPED OUT in the last two years alone.

Why? Solar activity has declined at the fastest rate since modern measuring began in the early 1960's.

Most climate studies stop their data with 2005?

Why do you lie?

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

 

[Bern80]

Most climate studies stop their data with 2005?

Why do you lie?

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Is basic english not your first language? You have sited one source and he said MOST, not ALL.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Isn't that really just an excuse to not expose yourself to an alternative view?

Again it was peer reviewed, the APS lied about it and I have seen no evidence that he is linked to big oil (not that it would inherently make his findings inaccurate anyway).

You think you're side isn't lobbying scientists to find what they want them to find? Based on your thinking I should disregard any articles linked to Green Peace or the Sierra Club right?

No excuse. I read alternative views that are peer reviewed. I don't read studies that are not put through the rigors of the scientific community. It really isn't a hard concept.

 

[Bern80]

No excuse. I read alternative views that are peer reviewed. I don't read studies that are not put through the rigors of the scientific community. It really isn't a hard concept.

So actually the answer to the question was yes. Doesn't really matter in this case though. It was peer reviewed so i guess you need to come up with a better excuses.

 

[CharlestonChad]

So actually the answer to the question was yes. Doesn't really matter in this case though. It was peer reviewed so i guess you need to come up with a better excuses.

Are you dense? Peer review is a proven process. I'm not reading some bullshit study. In fact, I've barely even commented on my global warming views in this forum, yet you say I'm so biased that I won't even open my eyes to alternative data. Is this a trend with you anti-GW crowd? Blame anyone who doesn't agree with you as an Al Gore worshiping enviro-wacko..

 

[Bern80]

Are you dense? Peer review is a proven process. I'm not reading some bullshit study. In fact, I've barely even commented on my global warming views in this forum, yet you say I'm so biased that I won't even open my eyes to alternative data. Is this a trend with you anti-GW crowd? Blame anyone who doesn't agree with you as an Al Gore worshiping enviro-wacko..

Are you? I repeat for the upteenth time it was peer reviewed. The study was peer reveiwed and the APS lied about it. Within two sentences you imply that you are open minded but say you won't read some bullshit study that you have no credible reason to call bullshit.

 

[TopGunna]

Are you dense? Peer review is a proven process. I'm not reading some bullshit study. In fact, I've barely even commented on my global warming views in this forum, yet you say I'm so biased that I won't even open my eyes to alternative data. Is this a trend with you anti-GW crowd? Blame anyone who doesn't agree with you as an Al Gore worshiping enviro-wacko..

Chad, I think you're overstating the usefulness of "peer review." It can help to remove gross errors, but not systematic errors. Additionally, the peer review process doesn't tackle the validity of underlying assumptions. It merely checks to ensure that those assumptions (bad as they may be) are applied correctly and consistently.

For any scientific study to have any credibility whatsoever, you need to replicate results.

Also, it's worth mentioning that to invalidate AGW theory, I don't have to prove an alternate hypothesis - I simply have to disprove the original hypothesis. We are talking about physical science - not social science.

 

[Chris]

Is basic english not your first language? You have sited one source and he said MOST, not ALL.

One source?

These are the people whose job it is to study the climate for NASA.

This is not some lone crackpot with a PHD.

Big difference.

 

[Bern80]

One source?

These are the people whose job it is to study the climate for NASA.

This is not some lone crackpot with a PHD.

Big difference.

Fine I'll give it to ya. It proves what exactley?

 

[Zoomie1980]

Most climate studies stop their data with 2005?

Why do you lie?

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Most of the sources those with a political agenda use, including Al Gore's book, end in the early 2000's when we were still in a major warming cycle. There is VERY LITTLE new work done yet including the last two years.

Another great ploy Gore's cited "statistics" used was to cherry pick reporting sites that prior the 1970's were largely in rural areas, like Houston's Intercontinental Airport (now known as Bush Intercontinental....), that during the reporting period became highly urbanized, gradually migrating inside the Urban Heat Island. They of course, ignore many permanently rural recording sites.