This is a discussion on With all this global warming going on, where are we to put all the snow? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by tiwee The crime is that an otherwise respectable political party in the USA has allowed these environmental nuts access to political power. ...
31,000 scientists have signed a petition that state they do not believe increased levels of CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming. I am one of the PhD. Physicists who signed this petition.
There exists absolutely no scientific/physical evidence whatsoever that increases in CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming.
Now, if you wish to keep believing this nonsense, thats fine.
And if you wish to pay more than $3000 a year on carbon taxes, thats fine, also.
But don't try to make "me" or any one else pay this useless tax, that will not make one difference to the environment.
Here's the problem when trying to explain data to "true believers". If the data doesn't suit their belief system, they just make something up. This is why a realistic discussion discussion with the fringe is just really not worth the effort. They're going to believe what they want, regardless of evidence. It's like trying to explain to the Brady bunch the statistical evidence for the failure of gun control.
Case in point. The fabricated claim above regarding NASA climate figures.
From NASA.gov. Note the trend:
Sadly, it's pointless to provide real data to the fringe, because the response will be that NASA has been corrupted by the vast environmentalist/left-wing/UN/socialist conspiracy. It's like talking evolution with William Jennings Bryan.
By the way, the OISM claim of "31,000 scientists" refuting global warming evidence doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.
The majority of the respondents are on a mailing list for a publication called "American Men and Women of Science" that is used to create one of those vanity press books in the "Who's Who" genre.
The publisher claims to have 120,000 people listed in the book. The press release does not discuss how many "American Men and Women of Science" refused to sign on to the chain mail petition, but why would the deniers bother to do that? They don't have to- it's PR, not science. It's not a scientific poll. In fact, Arthur B. Robinson (the pollster himself) is referenced as being embarrassed at his own methods.
In fact, another way to couch the results would be:
- 89,928 scientists refuse to sign petition blasting Kyoto
- 75% of scientists believe in global warming
Consider a few of the "noted climatologists" who signed:
•W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.
•Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."
•Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.
You can add yourself and your own self-acclaimed scientific credentials to the list at American Men and Women of Science, and, by all means, sign the petition if you wish. Don't worry, there's no charge to sign up!
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
Up al gores
I talked to a guy who is an environmental analist earlier this year. He said in no uncertian terms that, "the earth doesn't even know we are here yet."
He also said, (edited for the forum) "don't poop where you eat and clean up your poop."
"Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."
Who is John Galt?
Government is out of control
"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- " Sen Orrin G. Hatch
Are you telling me that I am not a legitimate scientist simply because I disagree with AGW proponents?
What are your scientific credentials sir? Oh thats right, you watched AL Gore's Movie and are now a climate expert.
By the way, for those interested in facts,
the "plot" you show contains land temp measurements in which have been proven wrong. (90% of the temperature measurement stations were found to be placed right next to air conditioning units, which pump out heat.) NASA has admitted to it!
In addition, notice how the graph conveniently omits the last "11 years".
The satellite measurements are the most reliable, and are given at the same webpage.
As to the petition, this is the same flat out lie put forth by AGW supporters, over and over again without any merit.
Since you claim the signatures are "bogus"
NAME ONE FAKE NAME!!
Those Doggone Medieval People back in the 10th to the 14th Centuries....riding around on their horses and donkeys that were expelling all of that doggone Greenhouse Gas CO2!!!! And heating their homes and huts with those wood burning fires.
They warmed the Earth up back then!
Oh wait...they must have ENDED "The Little Ice Age" with their horse and donkey breath. So it was a good thing back then I guess.
Too bad they didn't have Medieval SUVs.
They could have warmed the planet up a couple of hundred years sooner.
Oh...Why couldn't Al Gore have been a Medieval Knight in shining armor.
He could have saved the planet way back then also.
Medieval Warm Period
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about the tenth century to about the fourteenth century. It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed as the Little Ice Age. The MWP is often invoked in discussions of global warming. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.
The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around AD 800-1300 during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries". Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century. Crowley and Lowery (2000) note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."
Palaeoclimatologists developing region-specific climate reconstructions of past centuries conventionally label their coldest interval as "LIA" and their warmest interval as the "MWP". Others follow the convention and when a significant climate event is found in the "LIA" or "MWP" time frames, associate their events to the period. Some "MWP" events are thus wet events or cold events rather than strictly warm events, particularly in central Antarctica where climate patterns opposite to the North Atlantic area have been noticed.
A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F) cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1 °C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).
During the MWP wine grapes were grown in Europe as far north as southern Britain.
For comparison: today vine is grown in northern Britain, and as far north as Gotland, a Swedish island in the Baltic Sea.
The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north.
Around 1000AD the climate was sufficiently warm for the north of Newfoundland to support a Viking colony and lead to the descriptor "Vinland". The MWP was followed by the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that lasted until the 19th century, and the Viking settlements eventually died out. In the Chesapeake Bay, researchers found large temperature excursions during the Medieval Warm Period (about 800–1300) and the Little Ice Age (about 1400–1850), possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Sediments in Piermont Marsh of the lower Hudson Valley show a dry Medieval Warm period from AD 800–1300.
Prolonged droughts affected many parts of the western United States and especially eastern California and the western Great Basin. Alaska experienced three time intervals of comparable warmth: A.D. 1–300, 850–1200, and post-1800. Knowledge of the North American Medieval Warm Period has been useful in dating occupancy periods of certain Native American habitation sites, especially in arid parts of the western U.S. Review of more recent archaeological research shows that as the search for signs of unusual cultural changes during the MCA has broadened, some of these early patterns (e.g. violence and health problems) have been found to be more complicated and regionally varied than previously thought while others (e.g., settlement disruption, deterioration of long distance trade, and population movements) have been further corroborated.
The climate in equatorial east Africa has alternated between drier than today, and relatively wet. The drier climate took place during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 1000–1270).
An ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, clearly identifies events of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.
The core shows a distinctly cold period about AD 1000–1100, neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term, and that during the "warm" period there were, regionally, periods of both warmth and cold.
Corals in the tropical Pacific Ocean suggest that relatively cool, dry conditions may have persisted early in the millennium, consistent with a La Niña-like configuration of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation patterns. Although there is an extreme scarcity of data from Australia (for both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age) evidence from wave-built shingle terraces for a permanently full Lake Eyre during the ninth and tenth centuries is consistent with this La Niña-like configuration, though of itself inadequate to show how lake levels varied from year to year or what climatic conditions elsewhere in Australia were like.
Adhikari and Kumon (2001), whilst investigating sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan, verified the existence there of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
"Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period."
The Year Without a Summer
Courtesy of William C. Livingston
(Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory).
by Willie Soon and Steven H. Yaskell
A weak solar maximum, a major volcanic eruption, and possibly even the wobbling of the Sun conspired to make the summer of 1816 one of the most miserable ever recorded.
The year 1816 is still known to scientists and historians as "eighteen hundred and froze to death" or the "year without a summer."
It was the locus of a period of natural ecological destruction not soon to be forgotten.
During that year, the Northern Hemisphere was slammed with the effects of at least two abnormal but natural phenomena.
These events were mysterious at the time, and even today they are not well understood.
First, 1816 marked the midpoint of one of the Sun's extended periods of low magnetic activity, called the Dalton Minimum.
This particular minimum lasted from about 1795 to the 1820s.
It resembled the earlier Maunder Minimum (about 1645-1715) that was responsible for at least 70 years of abnormally cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere.
The Maunder Minimum interval is sandwiched within an even better known cool period known as the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about the 14th through 19th centuries.
But the event that most severely shaped 1816's cold phenomena was the cata-strophic eruption the previous year of Tambora on the island of Sumbawa, in modern-day Indonesia.
The ash clouds and sulfur aerosols spewed by this volcano were widespread, chilling the climate of the Northern Hemisphere by blocking sunlight with gases and particles.
A third factor also could have played a role.
During both the Dalton and the Maunder minima, the Sun shifted its place in the solar system — something it does every 178 to 180 years.
During this cycle, the Sun moves its position around the solar system's center of mass.
This particular trick of gravity is known as "inertial solar motion." Scientists have not yet confirmed whether or not inertial solar motion affects Earth's climate directly, but it remains a possibility.
Gee Willikers....All of that Sulpher and Ash & CO2 spewed into the atmosphere back then & guess what?
The Earth fixed itself all by itself.
How amazing can it get?
Global warming is not a crisis, but it may be creating a crisis of intellectual integrity.
By Jane S. Shaw
March 02, 2009
Last month, college campuses held a “National Teach-in on Global Warming Solutions.” The thrust of the message was that there is a crisis because global temperatures are rising, endangering the world’s future, and humans are to blame.
I agree that there may be a crisis, but I don’t believe that it is a crisis of impending heat; it is, rather, a crisis of intellectual integrity.
First, let me point out something that most people may not realize. Since 1998, there has been no trend in world temperatures, neither up nor down, in spite of population growth, greater resource use, and lots of carbon dioxide production. True, 1998, was the warmest year on record, and we are still in a warm period, but world temperatures are no higher than when today’s college seniors began middle school. The likelihood of the catastrophic effects that gave Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize is weak.
The crisis that concerns me stems from the way that scientists are addressing the issue. Ever since 1988, when James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, alerted a congressional committee to global warming, climate change has been a political issue.
Methods and standards that have stood the test of time since the Enlightenment have been shunted aside in order to promote a political objective. Climate experts are no longer expected to create hypotheses and test them but to assume that global warming threatens the planet and to use their expertise to justify this claim. Scientists who question aspects of the orthodoxy have been silenced or fired.
I have just read a lengthy compilation of many ways in which this compromise is occurring. The author is Richard Lindzen, a highly respected climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
From the early days of the environmental crusade over global warming, Lindzen raised questions about how well scientists understand climate change. At first, he couldn’t be ignored because he was so prominent in the field of climatology. As time went on, however, the science establishment managed to give Lindzen’s work less attention.
Lindzen’s commentary, available here, outlines the forces that have made science, in his words, “vulnerable to corruption.”
Lindzen says that the science establishment gives priority to computer modeling of presumed climate forces and then tweaks the models, trying to make them conform to actual observations. Hand-in-hand with that tweaking is an effort to find and “correct” flaws in the empirical observations to make them conform to the simulations. Although science rightly seeks to make corrections, these are almost always in a single direction—toward conformity. That is outright data corruption.
Compounding this tendency is government funding, which furthers bureaucratic and political goals. Professional societies make lobbying their chief activity. The American Meteorological Society is represented by a former staffer for Al Gore. John Holdren, the new science advisor to the president, is a professor in Harvard’s government department, not a scientific department; his major job was with the Woods Hole Research Center, an environmental advocacy group that is often (and perhaps deliberately) confused with a scientific research center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. He’s not a climate scientist.
Even the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) is political. Its key document, “Summary for Policymakers,” is written by a committee composed mostly of representatives of governments and advocacy groups. Few scientists have a role in crafting that paper, which is all that most policy-makers read.
Lindzen offers page after page of examples illustrating the distortion of scientific inquiry. For example, in 1999, Michael Mann and others revised the historical temperature record to eliminate the existence of a warm period during the Medieval era.
The Mann et al. paper, which relied mostly on tree-ring records, featured a “hockey-stick” graph showing flat temperatures for hundreds of years followed by a dramatic increase in recent years, conveying the message that recent warming is unprecedented. Subsequent papers have challenged the findings, but the “hockey-stick” appears in the most recent IPCC report.
In 2001, Lindzen and two colleagues published a paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society suggesting a strong cooling effect from clouds, which they called the “iris effect.” Shortly after it was published, the journal published a paper challenging its existence. This would have been acceptable if, following the usual procedure, the editor had allowed Lindzen and his colleagues to rebut the criticism in the same issue of the publication. But they were not allowed to do so.
In 2007, Lindzen showed that independent data from satellites and weather balloons did not support the computer-model prediction that the greatest warming should occur in the upper troposphere (a layer of the Earth’s atmosphere). Rather than explore possible reasons why the difference occurred, two papers quickly tried to undermine the findings. One revised the satellite data to bring them closer to the predictions; another paper simply rejected the temperature data, proffering highly uncertain temperature estimates based on wind data.
Lindzen also speaks of a professor who spoke out and lost his job and another who expressed “cautious” support for skepticism—and suffered ad hominem attacks as a result. And the views of scientists such as the prominent physicist William Nierenberg have been posthumously misrepresented.
Lindzen is not the only scientist to chronicle harassment of scientists who oppose current orthodoxy. In the preface to his new book written with Robert C. Balling, Jr., Climate of Extremes, Pat Michaels explains why he is resigning from the University of Virginia, where he serves as the state’s climatologist. Virginia’s governor, backed by the university’s provost, told him that he could not identify himself as the state climatologist when talking about global warming.
Michaels also reports that Oregon’s state climatologist resigned when he was told to stop saying things that undermined the state’s greenhouse-gas policies. Delaware’s state climatologist is not allowed to speak about global warming. And the assistant state climatologist in Washington state was fired for providing snowfall information to journalists and others.
Some of us might look to the presidents of universities—the supposed bastions of free scientific inquiry—to sound an alarm about this kind of treatment of scholars. But that would be expecting too much. Indeed, 614 university and college chancellors and presidents have signed a statement saying that global warming is “largely being caused by humans,” and that they “recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by 80 percent by mid-century at the latest” and to “reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible.”
Having signed so strong a statement, will these presidents welcome—or even allow—scientists to objectively pursue knowledge about the climate? The evidence outlined by Lindzen and Michaels raises serious doubts.
Editor’s note: In addition to heading the Pope Center, Jane S. Shaw is a senior fellow of the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). She coauthored Facts Not Fear: Teaching Children about the Environment with Michael Sanera and is the author of Global Warming (Greenhaven Press).
And do these scientists "actually" believe that humans are causing global warming (did they sign a petition that holds a contrary opinion)?
Here is the NASA data I was referring to:
Quote from rodc13:
"The majority of the respondents are on a mailing list for a publication called "American Men and Women of Science" that is used to create one of those vanity press books in the "Who's Who" genre. ""
What point are you trying to make with this? If a scientist's name is in this book is that suppose to diminish one's credibility?
Also, you make the absurd claim that the Petition Project is suppose to list those who do not sign it. ???
The fact is, many of my colleagues have been afraid to sign the petition fearing backlash. I myself have had reporters contacting me about signing it. (Mainly I feel they were checking the validity of signers).
Nonetheless, the Petition shows, without any doubt, that there is no scientific "consensus" on human caused global warming.
My entire point is that no matter if Global Cooling or Global Warming...the "science" is NOT all in and the debate is not all over.
And BEFORE we punish individual American households with what amounts to an additional yearly $1,700 tax increase per household and further strangle American buisnesses...we had better make damn sure.
Also when American businesses start paying out additional money for Carbon Credits and they are just going to pass the cost of those on to consumers...so we will get hit with higher retail prices on American manufactured goods in the form of a hidden tax.
Cap & Trade would be the final nail in the coffin...Death Sentence for our economy right now.
AKA The Great Depression X 4.
Then...China & India - The two major world polluters have already told the U.S. to go take a hike...so whatever we do in the U.S. will be pretty much meaningless anyway.
China and India don't give a rats behind what we "lead the way" on. They are not halting their respective industrial revolutions for anything.
Then I also don't like the idea of paying third world countries American Dollars in the form of Carbon Credit money so that they will remain third world countries and not ever produce or manufacture anything.
That is (in effect) creating a Welfare Program for the entire world.
And we all know how well our own domestic welfare program is working with four or five generations of people now scamming the system and never having had a job.
So...the entire idea stinks.
Truthfully we are already the cleanest country on the planet (along with Germany) with regard to our manufacturing cleanliness.
My Wife works for a chemical company and they have "0" yearly emmisions...and all of their solid waste gets either recycled, filtered, or reclaimed.
Also...the largest producer of CO2 on the planet is termites...in the rain forests - in case folks were not aware of that fact.
Also...what would our Pepsi, Coca~Cola & Mountain Dew be without CO2 for carbonation? FLAT!
I guess Pepsi, Coke, RC...etc. would all be safe because they pull the Carbon Dioxide out of the air...pump it into the soft drinks and then we "pop" those bottles and cans open...and it just goes back into the air again.
One answer to combat excess CO2 in the atmosphere would be to bottle up 750 Trillion bottles and cans of Pepsi...and then just never open them up until the next Ice Age begins.
I have not read this whole thread as it is getting quite long, but I remember when I went to school in the 60's, they were telling us that we were going to freeze to death, in the dark, if we didn't starve first! All before the year 2000! And you better believe that the government was handing out grants like crazy to universities to "study" it. The nut-jobs came out of the woodwork, Life and Time mag had articles on it, we were going to DIE!
Now they tell us we are going to drown or bake, depending how close to the coast you are. Or maybe we are preventing the next mini ice age because of our "emissions". I do not buy it.
Sorry, this planet has changed many times, and it will continue to do so, without our help.
It's MONEY people! Lots of MONEY, Al Gore owns one and has his fingers in two other companies at are ready to sell you "energy credits".
Lets get real OK?