@nodnar acrsn asked the questions so I answered them .. I am being as reasonable as the circumstance requires with a bunch of patients and tolerance thrown in.. It is not just where I stand but why I stand there. No heavy searching required it is all main stream stuff if you are willing to look.. Yes it would be to much to ask .. If it were only that simple but my responsibility is to the next seven generations, it's part of my DNA and my responsibility as an elder to my family, my tribe and the earth .. Also would it be to much to ask why you continue to hold this position ? "who are we to draw conclusions?" that is your conclusion is it not " i still think this whole global warming thing is a just scam"
The problem with dismissing CO2 levels with a conclusion that it is not part of global warming overlooks why it is still a factor in other areas.. Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143735.htm Source: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/20/the-flames-of-ocean-acidity/
@acrsn to your point on government regulation going to far Source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/illegal-kitchen-garden_n_1687558.html
This is a good article worth a read Dividing cognitive labor, sharing a world: the American public and climate science.
I hope I can at least get some to weigh in here because the article points out rather well the impasse that we find ourselves in. Source : http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...orld-the-american-public-and-climate-science/
Those living in northern Europe might be interested in this article and it's data also those with climates that are trending warmer could expect to see similar results possibly. [h=1]Emerging Vibrio risk at high latitudes in response to ocean warming[/h] Source : http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1628.html
This article was a little bit of a heavy lift for me but worth the effort I thought.. An extreme climatic event alters marine ecosystem structure in a global biodiversity hotspot Source : http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1627.html a, Blended sea surface temperature anomaly map for March 2011 (relative to a 1971–2000 baseline), indicating a warming anomaly of >2.5 °C along the warm temperate western coast of Australia. The Jurien Bay (JB) and Hamelin Bay (HB) study regions are also shown. b,c, Weekly temperature anomalies during 2011 (relative to means of the preceding five years) generated from in situ measurements at ~ 10 m depth at the sites where community data were collected: Jurien Bay (b) and Hamelin Bay (c). They grow some of these there (Whale sharks) on Australia's western coast. My favorite fish..
A good article on how the infrastructure is being effected by the prolonged heat Source : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/u...-threatens-infrastructure.html?_r=1&ref=earth
Richard Mueller, a Koch Industries backed Scientist, retracts previous statements to make this recent statement. Source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/richard-muller-climate-change-humans-koch_n_1715887.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501 Indeed, most humans are still children: "Nothing to do with us, Gov..." We cleared so many forests, burnt so much fossil fuel, released so many toxic gases in huge quantities, creating even continent-size ozone holes for quite a while each year and so on and so forth - and yet, depending on who funds their "research", many keep playing the ostrich game... Like little children, if I put my hand in front of my face, the other person does not exist... Bloomin' marvellous...
[h=1]GRAPHIC: A Day In The Life Of Big Oil[/h] 1 Center for American Progress, 7/30 2 Center for American Progress, 7/31 3 EPA 4 Wall Street Journal 5 Open Secrets
I wonder how long Oklahoma's Senator James Inhoffe can continue to deny Global warming as the homes of his constituency continue to go up in smoke? [h=1]July Heat Records Crush Cold Records By 17 To 1, ‘Historic Heat Wave And Drought’ Fuels Oklahoma Fires [/h] By Joe Romm on Aug 5, 2012 at 12:29 pm Historic heat wave in Oklahoma A historic heat wave and drought fueled raging fires on Friday in Oklahoma. The fires destroyed at least 65 homes, forced multiple evacuations, and closed major roads. Oklahoma City had its hottest day in history, hitting 113°, tying the city’s all-time heat record set on August 11, 1936. The low bottomed out at 84°, the warmest low temperature ever recorded in the city (previous record: a low of 83° on August 13, 1936.) Oklahoma City has now had three consecutive days with a high of 112° or higher, which has never occurred since record keeping began in 1891. With today’s high expected to reach 113° again, the streak may extend to four straight days. Yesterday was the third consecutive day with more than a third of Oklahoma experiencing temperatures of 110° or higher, according to readings from the Oklahoma Mesonet. NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC) declared a “Critical” fire weather day over most of Oklahoma yesterday, due to extreme heat and drought, low humidities, and strong winds. Between 4 – 5 pm CDT Friday, Oklahoma City had a temperature of 113°, a humidity of 12%, and winds of 14 mph gusting to 25 mph. Another “Critical” fire weather day has been declared for Saturday. A cold front approaching from the northwest will bring winds even stronger than Friday’s winds, and Oklahoma will likely endure another hellish day of extreme heat, dryness, and fires.
Maybe not entirely our doing but to claim utter irresponsibility is - well, utterly irresponsible and totally immature!!!
Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more. That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy. The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online. What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response. The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently. Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles. For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now. In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures. Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes? Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant. Well, the results are in, and the winner is….Don Easterbrook. Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?” Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it. All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate. Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening. That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future. Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase. Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well. Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend. But that is not all. We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures. The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes). Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots during such periods in modern times. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850. The Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death. Such impacts of the sun on the earth’s climate were discussed at the conference by astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Nir J. Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author with leading German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun. Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question is only how cold this present cold cycle will get. Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s? Or will the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum? He says it is impossible to know now. But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC. Source
Paul Krugman: Loading the climate change dice Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21145143/paul-krugman-loading-climate-change-dice A couple of weeks ago the Northeast was in the grip of a severe heat wave. As I write this, however, it's a fairly cool day in New Jersey, considering that it's late July. Weather is like that; it fluctuates. And this banal observation may be what dooms us to climate catastrophe, in two ways. On one side, the variability of temperatures from day to day and year to year makes it easy to miss, ignore or obscure the longer-term upward trend. On the other, even a fairly modest rise in average temperatures translates into a much higher frequency of extreme events -- like the devastating drought now gripping America's heartland -- that do vast damage. On the first point: Even with the best will in the world, it would be hard for most people to stay focused on the big picture in the face of short-run fluctuations. When the mercury is high and the crops are withering, everyone talks about it, and some make the connection to global warming. But let the days grow a bit cooler and the rains fall, and inevitably people's attention turns to other matters. Making things much worse, of course, is the role of players who don't have the best will in the world. Climate change denial is a major industry, lavishly financed by Exxon, the Koch brothers and others with a financial stake in the continued burning of fossil fuels. And exploiting variability is one of the key tricks of that industry's trade. Applications range from the Fox News perennial - "It's cold outside! Al Gore was wrong!" -- to the constant claims that we're experiencing global cooling, not warming, because it's not as hot right now as it was a few years back. How should we think about the relationship between climate change and day-to-day experience? Almost a quarter of a century ago James Hansen, the NASA scientist who did more than anyone to put climate change on the agenda, suggested the analogy of loaded dice. Imagine, he and his associates suggested, representing the probabilities of a hot, average or cold summer by historical standards as a die with two faces painted red, two white and two blue. By the early 21st century, they predicted, it would be as if four of the faces were red, one white and one blue. Hot summers would become much more frequent, but there would still be cold summers now and then. And so it has proved. As documented in a new paper by Hansen and others, cold summers by historical And so it has proved. As documented in a new paper by Hansen and others, cold summers by historical standards still happen, but rarely, while hot summers have in fact become roughly twice as prevalent. And nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000. But that's not all: Really extreme high temperatures, the kind of thing that used to happen very rarely in the past, have now become fairly common. Think of it as rolling two sixes, which happens less than 3 percent of the time with fair dice, but more often when the dice are loaded. And this rising incidence of extreme events, reflecting the same variability of weather that can obscure the reality of climate change, means that the costs of climate change aren't a distant prospect, decades in the future. On the contrary, they're already here, even though so far global temperatures are only about 1 degree Fahrenheit above their historical norms, a small fraction of their eventual rise if we don't act. The great Midwestern drought is a case in point. This drought has already sent corn prices to their highest level ever. If it continues, it could cause a global food crisis, because the U.S. heartland is still the world's breadbasket. And yes, the drought is linked to climate change: Such events have happened before, but they're much more likely now than they used to be. Now, maybe this drought will break in time to avoid the worst. But there will be more events like this. Joseph Romm, the influential climate blogger, has coined the term "Dust-Bowlification" for the prospect of extended periods of extreme drought in formerly productive agricultural areas. He has been arguing for some time that this phenomenon, with its disastrous effects on food security, is likely to be the leading edge of damage from climate change, taking place over the next few decades; the drowning of Florida by rising sea levels and all that will come later. And here it comes. And here it comes. Will the current drought finally lead to serious climate action? History isn't encouraging. The deniers will surely keep on denying, especially because conceding at this point that the science they've trashed was right all along would be to admit their own culpability for the looming disaster. And the public is all too likely to lose interest again the next time the die comes up white or blue. But let's hope that this time is different. For large-scale damage from climate change is no longer a disaster waiting to happen. It's happening now.
@R29k The author of your quoted article uses the Heartland institutes conference for his arguments Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash [h=1]Heartland Institute facing uncertain future as staff depart and cash dries up[/h] Free-market thinktank's conference opens in Chicago with president admitting defections are hurting group's finances The first Heartland Institute conference on climate change in 2008 had all the trappings of a major scientific conclave – minus large numbers of real scientists. Hundreds of climate change contrarians, with a few academics among them, descended into the banquet rooms of a lavish Times Square hotel for what was purported to be a reasoned debate about climate change. But as the latest Heartland climate conference opens in a Chicago hotel on Monday, the thinktank's claims to reasoned debate lie in shreds and its financial future remains uncertain. Heartland's claims to "stay above the fray" of the climate wars was exploded by a billboard campaign earlier this month comparing climate change believers to the Unabomer Ted Kaczynski, and a document sting last February that revealed a plan to spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change. Along with the damage to its reputation, Heartland's financial future is also threatened by an exodus of corporate donors as well as key members of staff. In a fiery blogpost on the Heartland website, the organisation's president Joseph Bast admitted Heartland's defectors were "abandoning us in this moment of need". Over the last few weeks, Heartland has lost at least $825,000 in expected funds for 2012, or more than 35% of the funds its planned to raise from corporate donors, according to the campaign group Forecast the Facts, which is pushing companies to boycott the organisation. The organisation has been forced to make up those funds by taking its first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry. The main Illinois coal lobby is a last-minute sponsor of this week's conference, undermining Heartland's claims to operate independently of fossil fuel interests. Its entire Washington DC office, barring one staffer, decamped, taking Heartland's biggest project, involving the insurance industry, with them. Board directors quit, conference speakers cancelled at short-notice, and associates of long standing demanded Heartland remove their names from its website. The list of conference sponsors shrank by nearly half from 2010, and many of those listed sponsors are just websites operating on the rightwing fringe. "It's haemorrhaging," said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, who has spent years tracking climate contrarian outfits. "Heartland's true colours finally came through, and now people are jumping ship in quick order." It does not look like Heartland is about to adopt a corrective course of action. In his post, Bast defended the ads, writing: "Our billboard was factual: the Unabomber was motivated by concern over man-made global warming to do the terrible crimes he committed." He went on to describe climate scientist Michael Mann and activist Bill McKibben as "madmen". The public unravelling of Heartland began last February when the scientist Peter Gleick lied to obtain highly sensitive materials, including a list of donors. The publicity around the donors' list made it difficult for companies with public commitment to sustainability, such as the General Motors Foundation, to continue funding Heartland. The GM Foundation soon announced it was ending its support of $15,000 a year. But what had been a gradual collapse gathered pace when Heartland advertised its climate conference with a billboard on a Chicago expressway comparing believers in climate science to the Unabomber. The slow trickle of departing corporate donors turned into a gusher. Even Heartland insiders, such as Eli Lehrer, who headed the organisation's Washington group, found the billboard too extreme. Lehrer, who headed the biggest project within Heartland, on insurance, immediately announced his departure along with six other staff. "The ad was ill advised," he said. "I'm a free-market conservative with a long rightwing resumé and most, if not all, of my team fits the same description and of us found it very problematic. Staying with Heartland was simply not workable in the wake of this billboard." Heartland took down the billboard within 24 hours, but by then the ad had gone viral. Lehrer, who maintains the split was amicable, said the billboard had undermined Heartland's claims to be a serious conservative thinktank. "It didn't reflect the seriousness which I want to bring to public policy," Lehrer said in the telephone interview. "As somebody who deals mostly with insurance I believe all risk have to be taken seriously and there certainly are some important climate and global warming related risks that must be taken account of in the insurance market. Trivialising them is not consistent with free-market thought. Suggesting they are only thought about by people who are crazy is not good for the free market." Other Heartland allies came to a similar conclusion. In a letter to Heartland announcing he was backing out from the conference, Ross McKitrick, a Canadian economist wrote: "You can not simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers." A number of other experts meanwhile began cutting their ties with Heartland, according to a tally kept by a Canadian blogger BigCityLiberal. Meanwhile, there was growing anger that Bast failed to consult with colleagues before ordering up the Kaczynski attack ads. Four board members told the Guardian they had not been consulted in advance about the ad. "I did not have prior approval of the billboard and was in favor of discontinuing the billboard when I was made aware of it," Jeff Judson, a Texas lobbyist and board member wrote in an email. Could the turmoil and discontent at Heartland eventually prove its undoing? Campaigners would certainly hope so. "We are watching the consequences of organisation that acts quite randomly and that is actually an extremist organisation in the end," said Davies. "They are not built to be at the hump of the climate denial movement." But while more mainstream corporate entities are deserting Heartland, others are stepping into the breach, including the coal lobby and conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation. Both the Illinois Coal Association and Heritage stepped in to fund this week's conference, after other corporate donors began backing out in protest at the offensive Kaczynski ad. Meanwhile, a Greenpeace analysis of the other smaller conference sponsors suggests they have collectively received $5m in funds from Exxon and other oil companies. The Coal Association and Heritage were not listed on the original conference sponsor list, but appeared to come in about a week or so after the appearance of the offending Kaczynski ad. Phil Gonet, the chief lobbyist for the 20 coal companies in the association, said he had no qualms about stepping in to fund the Heartland conference. "We support the work they are doing and so we thought we would finally make a contribution to the organisation," he said, calling criticism of the ad "moot", "pointless" and "absurd". Gonet went on: "I made a contribution mainly in support of a conference that is designed to make balanced information available to the public on the issue of global warming … In general, the message of the Heartland Institute is something the Illinois Coal Association supports."
@redroad You can't huff and puff all you want, the fact is that there is not clear evidence to say man is causing warming of the Earth. Something else for you to chew on, might I point out that the guy making the statements is not a political hack but a real scientist, one of the best in his field. Father of Climatology Calls Manmade Global Warming Absurd May 7, 2007 Posted by Dave S. under Global Warming, Off Topic Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd. Excerpts from The Faithful Heretic Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorologyâ€â€now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciencesâ€â€in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honorâ€â€created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.†He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,†Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.†Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?†We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly. “A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,†he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.†Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list? A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay? Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor… A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide. PROF REID BRYSON, DEAN OF US CLIMATOLOGISTS, DISCOURSES ON GLOBAL WARMING 2. Global Warming? by Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.1 The Built-in Nonsense Detector: Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone’s opinion about “Global Warming”. A quick search of the Internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about “Global Warming”. Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually meaning “Global Warming” or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details. Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title? I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense detector. Some Common Fallacies 1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for at least a million years. 2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone. 3. The most important gas with a “greenhouse” effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide. 4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gasses”. Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent. 5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific. 6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth. So What Can We Say about Global Warming? We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of “greenhouse gases” until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!
There is no huffing and puffing going on here, the guy who wrote the article is an Economy guy http://blogs.forbes.com/peterferrara/ "I cover public policy, particularly concerning economics." writing for Forbes magazine who spoke at the Heartland Institutes convention.. If you haven't read the 2nd article I posted it clearly exposes the rhetoric of the Heartland institute and the articles author .. resurrecting an article that was published in 2007 as though it had some impact on the current climatology debate makes it hard for me to take you seriously on this topic R29k. I am not denying the speakers have credentials however their willingness to speak at a coal lobby financed, Heartland institutes convention , for me makes their facts highly suspect .. Your comment about "there is not clear evidence to say man is causing warming of the Earth." I agree with you somewhat on that point however in order to prove that one way or another as acrsn has pointed out none of us will be around .. As a son , husband, father, grand father, brother, uncle, elder, and inhabitant of the planet it is my responsibility to raise the question for the next seven generations at the very least .. I really can't take many of you here to seriously on this issue because you dismiss the opposing view almost entirely without fail.. I have plenty to do besides comment on the deniers thread so cya
The weather like the Sun ,the Earth are/have Variables which is why nothing stays the same " The only constant is change "