Global warming "impossible"

[ksdb]

How about Exxon Mobil (just Exxon, we'll leave out BP, Citgo, Phillips/Connoco) vs. every single Environmental NGO/Non-Profit?

Give us the numbers and show us what you think is happening.

Is there any doubt about the amount of entrenched financial, political and economic leverage in this?

Look at the number of climate research organizations that have popped up in the last 10 or 20 years. This was a nonexistant field at one time.

I have no idea about the science, I'm not a climatologist.

This statement approaches brilliance ... almost like a supernova that will only occur once in our lifetimes.

 

I've never seen Gore's movie, I think Malthusian claims are somewhat excitable/unrealistic, I think that private ownership is an important counter-weight to govt. idea's about what is best use for land.

But to pretend that the vested interests here are not enormously in favor of there being some sort of contrarian research is just plainly dishonest.

There may be vested interests, but it's debatable that it favors the side of contrarian research. Governments can funnel millions or billions of dollars to support the AGW agenda and use that agenda to tax those industries.

[ksdb]

I can't believe how dumb you are.

This can't be emphasised enough

here comes my MJ scolding

I love it. Everytime I post, it elicits a bunch of childish insults. Thanks for letting me control your miserable life. Roll over, Steve. Play dead, Steve. Steve, quit licking yourself.

[ksdb]

I'm not explaining this to you.

Translation: ksdb has pwned me again.

[cireksu]

I can't wait for the day that Global Warming/Not warming is solved through debate on this board.  MJ would you go public with that publicity?

[cyclist]

Proof positive there is Global Warming:

[mjrod]

Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.

Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..

Yeah, that sounds completely irrelevant.

I can't believe how dumb you are.

It is irrelevant.  Unless you can show that such research is worthless simply because of the possibility they might have some political influence, then you're just blowing hot air.

The burden of proof is on those providing the scientific research.  You know, peer review, scientific method, ability to re-create conditions and find similar results.

The source of money is ALWAYS a source of consideration in bias.  It is why you reject anything cited by MediaMatters out of hand.  I'm not even making an argument about global warming, it just reeks of 'doth protest too much' defensive posturing when you won't allow the possibility that the source of funding for scientific experimentation might have substantive effects on the products.  I mean it is possible, right?

And what makes you think any scientific work by Exxon or its subsidiary's is not being published?

I like how you try and make light of the process without ever offering anything of substance to back up your condescending approach.   You think I don't understand the scientific process?

Let me help you.. I know of scientists that DO publish work that shows the opposite of the widely held belief and are labeled as being on the Exxon payroll.   Is that a way to handle the scientific process?  Simply because a corporation such as Exxon funds it, it's somehow not science?

[AzCat]

Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.

Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..

Whereas governmental agencies spent $5,000,000,000 on global warming research last year and the amount is increasing rapidly.  Last time I checked $5,000,000,000 > $35,000,000. 

HTH

[mjrod]

Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.

Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..

Whereas governmental agencies spent $5,000,000,000 on global warming research last year and the amount is increasing rapidly.  Last time I checked $5,000,000,000 > $35,000,000. 

HTH

The argument is that government is neutral.. by the AGW crowd.   So that's OK.

LOL.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.

Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..

Whereas governmental agencies spent $5,000,000,000 on global warming research last year and the amount is increasing rapidly.  Last time I checked $5,000,000,000 > $35,000,000. 

HTH

The argument is that government is neutral.. by the AGW crowd.   So that's OK.

LOL.

Sounds like "The Media is not liberal...by the new york times."

[AzCat]

Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.

Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..

Whereas governmental agencies spent $5,000,000,000 on global warming research last year and the amount is increasing rapidly.  Last time I checked $5,000,000,000 > $35,000,000. 

HTH

The argument is that government is neutral.. by the AGW crowd.   So that's OK.

LOL.

Let's presume that's actually true (by ignoring the overwhelming interest government has in asserting more control over huge swaths of the economy and taxing it to death).  You still need to examine the dynamics of research grants:

Grantee A - Proves hypothesis that man-made global warming is a hoax.  In addition to being hugely unpopular with power/money hungry politicians this researcher has no valid follow-on hypothesis upon which to base further grant requests so she must move on to a new area of study.

Grantee B - Proves hypothesis that a significant portion of global warming is due to human influence.  This grantee gains political clout by telling government what it wants to hear but she also is blessed with dozens if not hundreds of easily identifiable follow-on hypotheses related to the nature and exent of the problem she identified ... all of which are ripe for further funding.

Government research grants are an absolute gravy train but only for those who are willing to cynically perpetuate even demonstrably false findings for their own personal gain.  Sad but that's how politicized "science" works.

[sys]

I can't believe how dumb you are.

This can't be emphasised enough

here comes my MJ scolding

it's very frustrating, because it is kind of difficult to use this issue to show how retardish ksdb is without also calling azcat a retard. 

[ksdb]

it's very frustrating, because it is kind of difficult to use this issue to show how retardish ksdb is without also calling azcat a retard. 

So instead of being objective about the topic, all you care about is chasing me around with a personal vendetta?? C'mon, don't you have better ways to spend your time??

[chum1]

I'm still undecided on global warming.  What should I believe?

[cyclist]

I'm still undecided on global warming.  What should I believe?

Believe my post !

[sam adams]

I'm still undecided on global warming.  What should I believe?

Educate yourself for God's sake!  But know that ksdb is fracking moron, azcat is too snarky to be taken seriously, and mjrod is the worst poster on the internet.

[ChiefCatchacold]

[mjrod]

chum..

The argument is not about whether there is global warming.  It's about catastrophic man made climate change.  Folks like sam adams (who by the way is the most unintelligent if not blatantly stupid posters) want you to believe that you, as a human, can effect significant change in the weather and climate so as to create an atmosphere where all life on the planet will suffer irreparable harm.   

They are telling you the planet is dying.  Yet, they offer ZERO proof.   When asked, they will only tell you that if you don't believe them, then you must be Exxon lapdog.   

They say "It is getting warmer" but when you question them on how they know.. and what they know.. they will tell you that evil corporations are blinding you to the truth.   Then they will attempt to convince you that you need to help them organize a music fest, one where others will descend to sing songs of joy, love, and peace, and to condemn violently the mega corporate monopoly.

Don't let them fool you.  Make sure you question the evidence of global warming.  Ask them things like "Why are Bristlecone Pines temperature proxies?"   "Who is responsible for the Vikings landing on Greenland and establishing large colonies where there is ice now?"   "Why is it that we need to adjust the temperature records COLDER in the past 50 years?"

The answers are out there and beckoning, but a concerted effort by the human haters (a group of liberal humans who believe that mankind is evil and must be wiped out, save for themselves) is being deployed to stop you from knowing the truth.

[ksdb]

Actually, there's plenty of reason to doubt that there is global warming period. The hottest year in the 114 years of fairly reliable instrument records (look up heat island effect and you'll question how reliable these records are) is 1997 which was matched in 2005. IOW, the temperature is not continuing to climb and from January 2007 to January 2008 there's been a huge drop in global temperature. Another question that is never addressed has to do with the optimum global temperature. What should the Earth's average temperature be and why?

[slucat]

As a geologist, I have taken a few paleo climatoloty classes during my graduate work, and I can safely say that the conflict is not if the climate is changing, but how fast it is changing.  If one looks at ice core records from the last 10k+ years, the earth is the warmest now. This conclusion is come to over and over again looking at several different data sets and using several different things to moderate. The climate changes in cycles, the problem most scientist are having is the RATE of the change.  Is the accelerateion of the change man made or not is still up for debate IMO, but the science leans heavily toward yes.  And for every one article that says climate change (aka global warming) is a myth, I can probably find 100 that say its not.  These are written by scientists from all over the world and have been noting this change since the 60's.  What is happening now only supports their work.

Also, if anyone looks at a daily or monthly trend of temperatures, clearly does not understand the scientific method. Another point is increaseing oceanic temperatures will cause changes in weather patterns, some for the better some not, identifing a few positives in your favor; Bagdad saw snow, is clearly an outlyer, lets look at the temperature swings globally and the general trend of increasing land and water temps world wide.

[ksdb]

As a geologist, I have taken a few paleo climatoloty classes during my graduate work, and I can safely say that the conflict is not if the climate is changing, but how fast it is changing.  If one looks at ice core records from the last 10k+ years, the earth is the warmest now.

No, about 4,000 years ago and 7,000 years ago show temperature peaks much higher than today.



 

This conclusion is come to over and over again looking at several different data sets and using several different things to moderate. The climate changes in cycles, the problem most scientist are having is the RATE of the change.  Is the accelerateion of the change man made or not is still up for debate IMO, but the science leans heavily toward yes.  And for every one article that says climate change (aka global warming) is a myth, I can probably find 100 that say its not.  These are written by scientists from all over the world and have been noting this change since the 60's.  What is happening now only supports their work.

Also, if anyone looks at a daily or monthly trend of temperatures, clearly does not understand the scientific method. Another point is increaseing oceanic temperatures will cause changes in weather patterns, some for the better some not, identifing a few positives in your favor; Bagdad saw snow, is clearly an outlyer, lets look at the temperature swings globally and the general trend of increasing land and water temps world wide.

The guesses about rate of change are based on very small amounts of data, especially compared to paleoclimactic records. Looking at the graph I just posted of the last 40,000 years, there are several time periods that have seen dramatic rates and ranges of temperature change that obviously exceed anything we're experiencing now (for example, about a 5 degree increase between 15,000 to 14,000 years ago. This was a few years before man started driving SUVs.

[ksdb]

Heard this one on the radio earlier today and have now found a story online to go with it. It's throwing out a great deal of speculation on the alleged effects of AGW, but notice that we now have concrete reasons (pun intended) to take action, IOW, raise taxes to pay for things that we are told we will need. They claim, for example, that the surface temperature in the United States is going to go up 8 degrees. For this to happen, the temperature would need to start rising about a degree per decade and as of yet, we've seen nothing close to this happen in a previous decade.

Report: Climate change to affect transportation system

Flooded roads and subways, deformed railroad tracks and weakened bridges may be the wave of the future with continuing global warming, a new study says.
Climate change will affect every type of transportation through rising sea levels, increased rainfall and surges from more intense storms, the National Research Council said in a report released Tuesday.

Complicating matters, people continue to move into coastal areas, creating the need for more roads and services in the most vulnerable regions, the report noted.

"We believe that the threats to our transportation system are real," Henry Schwartz Jr. said in a briefing. He is past president and chairman of the engineering firm Sverdrup/Jacobs Civil Inc., and chairman of the committee that wrote the report.

The storm that has been a once-in-a-hundred-years event may become a once-in-50-years, he said, adding, "What is the proper level to design for?"


rest of story at link

[Dirty Sanchez]

http://www.surfacestations.org/

This is a link to a site studying NOAA weather stations and their flawed methodology.  So far, 502 of the nation's 1221 weather stations have been cataloged to see if they meet NOAA specifications and give accurate temperature readings.  As the graph indicates, 69% of all the stations surveyed thus far raise temperatures 4-5 degrees over what is actual.  Another 18% are 3 degrees off.  Among the reasons for this are stupid designs of where the weather stations are located or how they are constructed.  Some have air conditioner exhaust blowing right on them.  Others are sitting right next to a big slab of asphalt or concrete.  Others have hot light bulbs next to them or are painted with sunlight-absorbing paint.  NOAA has rules regarding the placement of these, but often these stations are old and development has come up around them.  And we're using these as "official" climate data.



There is one on campus.  It appears to be somewhere north of Dole Hall.  They are actually looking for people to do official studies of these and submit them to their site. 

[AzCat]

And the surface station issues have led to flaws in the data set as well, something that  no one on the left wants to discuss.  Most of the surface metadata has been "corrected" by varying amounts based on estimates of the over or under-reporting of temperatures at each surface station.  The truly troubling thing is that many corrections have been applied in recent years to decades old data. 

The same is true of satellite temperature data.  The birds don't pass over a given point on the surface of the Earth at the same time of day / year for each measurement so corrections must be applied which yields nothing more than an estimated temperature measurement, "Well, if the satellite had been here this is probably what it would have seen ...."  Some corrections lead to findins cooling trends in recent years, some to findings of no change since the late 70s, some to findings of warming. 

The hard cold truth is that we just don't really know what in the heck is happening with global climate.  By all means, keep researching but let's lay off the sorts of proposals that will roll us back to a pre-industrial revolution manner of living (see e.g., recent bleats from the left of 'only zero carbon emissions worldwide can slow global warming') for a few more years until there really is an undeniable truth which is readily apparent.

[chum1]

You have to admit, it was pretty friggin hot last summer.

[mjrod]

You have to admit, it was pretty friggin hot last summer.

And there have been hotter summers.

[ArchE_Cat]

Thanks... I'll be sure and send the link to the Polar Bears so they know when they are drowning this year that it snowed in Baghdad and China had a cold winter.  Hopefully that will make them feel better about the loss of habitat due to imagined global warming. 

"...As we're sung to sleep by philosophies, That save the trees and kill the children..."
- Wile You Were Sleeping
 Lifesong
 Casting Crowns

[AzCat]

We've seen this movie before but with different players.  Fill in the blank:

And ____________, at times, could sound like a veritable Green utopian, discussing authoritatively and in detail various renewable energy sources (including environmentally appropriate hydropower and producing natural gas from sludge) as alternatives to coal, and declaring "water, winds and tides" as the energy path of the future.

[PCR]

Thanks... I'll be sure and send the link to the Polar Bears so they know when they are drowning this year that it snowed in Baghdad and China had a cold winter.  Hopefully that will make them feel better about the loss of habitat due to imagined global warming. 

"...As we're sung to sleep by philosophies, That save the trees and kill the children..."
- Wile You Were Sleeping
 Lifesong
 Casting Crowns

It's all interconnected.  Besides we've got more than enough children.

[mjrod]

Thanks... I'll be sure and send the link to the Polar Bears so they know when they are drowning this year that it snowed in Baghdad and China had a cold winter.  Hopefully that will make them feel better about the loss of habitat due to imagined global warming. 

"...As we're sung to sleep by philosophies, That save the trees and kill the children..."
- Wile You Were Sleeping
 Lifesong
 Casting Crowns

It's all interconnected.  Besides we've got more than enough children.

Did Polar bears not drown before global warming or is this just interconnected?

[ksdb]

The UN is now warning the world that glaciers are melting at 'record' rates ... of course, this is based on two or three decades worth of data and not this past winter, which has been notably cold. The agenda to scare people is pretty clear. The question I have is what makes the United Nations the expert on glaciers or a clearinghouse for scientific announcements??

UN: World's glaciers melting faster

Glaciers are shrinking at record rates and many could disappear within decades, the U.N. Environment Program said Sunday.

Scientists measuring the health of almost 30 glaciers around the world found that ice loss reached record levels in 2006, the U.N. agency said.

rest of story at link