Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus - Page 9

clackers · 12-12-2007, 00:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

And true to predictions

You do exactly that, direct from the cult propaganda team at the Sierra Club ... I think you'll find a better source for the claims is the original character assassination where these claims were first made way back in 1995by Ross Gelbspan ...

You clearly haven't understood the link I gave you, Parihaka.

The link is to a Harper's Magazine article, not a Sierra Club one, it is to 1995, and it is written by Ross Gelbspan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Lindzen himself of course denies the claims .... I mean goodness me $2,500 for consultation ...

No he doesn't, Pari, he told Gelbspan himself:

Lateline - 07/03/2005: Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight

He also leaps to the defence of his paymasters:

BBC NEWS | Business | Science climate conflict warms up

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

James Hansen, your high priest of the global warming cult....

How can he, who's attacked the IPCC for being too conservative, be my "high priest"? I haven't even mentioned him ... your post about Lindzen, a compromised dissenter from his discipline, started this thread!

clackers · 12-12-2007, 00:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

So a study of equal detail following the original Oreseke study, which demonstrates that since the Oreseke study scientific opinion has, despite your claims, moved away from consensus on AGW, you take to mean the opposite.

You asked:

"Show me a survey that demonstrates a majority of Lindzens scientific peers advocate AGW theory"

And then you were shown that perhaps four out of 1467 peer-reviewed, published papers between 1993 and 2007 challenge AGW theory ... it's time for you to accept - Lindzen is in a tiny minority!

dalem · 12-12-2007, 00:49 AM

You guys are getting lost in the weeds here.

Simple question Clackers: How does Anthro Global Warming work?

Don't post a link please, just outline it for me, from human industrial emissions to rising global temperature, in a few sentences.

-dale

clackers · 12-12-2007, 00:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

As I have already stated twice, the link to the Harvard article is in the original wiki link I provided, AND, as I have also already stated it was not a position summary but science

Incorrect. In response to the questions:

"What scientific bodies of national or international standing can you find to match those above? [who have position statements]" 12-04-2007, 10:38 AM

and

"Pari, these are individuals ... " 12-04-2007, 10:38 AM

you replied with:

"National Center for Policy Analysis
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Marshall Institute
Heartland Institute
NCPA
Harvard University
CATO Institute

I'd hardly call these 'individuals'" 12-04-2007, 03:31 PM

The link you gave to Harvard is the one I went to, and couldn't believe it ... that's why I asked again ... it's actually to a promotional magazine talking about the research work of individuals, and even they stop short of the conclusion you hope for:

" ... Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of [manmade] carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? [Professor Willie Soon] won't go that far ..."

clackers · 12-12-2007, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Chomsky is only controversial as regards his politics. As I understand it he is highly respected in his field of expertise, linguistics.

Even in linguistics, ArmchairGeneral, where Chomsky is the modern master of his field, we're not entitled to say his views represent those of his University. A university may even have rivals publishing conflicting papers, all with the uni logo on them.

The views of an institution and its members can be quite different ... look at the controversial Lindzen and the National Academy of Sciences ...

clackers · 12-12-2007, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

You guys are getting lost in the weeds here.

Very possibly, Dale!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

How does Anthro Global Warming work? ... just outline it for me, from human industrial emissions to rising global temperature, in a few sentences.

Even better, let's go for just one, reworded from the combined views of 2000 scientists from 100 countries:

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [ > 90% ] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."

But why don't you read the summaries for yourself?

Such as:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

and

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/..._Print_SPM.pdf

**Parihaka** · 12-12-2007, 06:09 AM

Bugger me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Incorrect. In response to the questions:

"What scientific bodies of national or international standing can you find to match those above? [who have position statements]" 12-04-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Pari, these are individuals ... you can find individual scientists who believe in silliness like Area 51, Creationism and ESP!

What scientific bodies of national or international standing can you find to match those above? (And not that petition you quoted earlier, or that "Cool Blue Blog" either! Good grief!)

Do we find [who have position statements] there? no we don't. Resorting to outright lying now quackers? Do you think people on this forum including myself are so stupid we can't even read back through the thread and link to it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

and

"Pari, these are individuals ... " 12-04-2007, 10:38 AM

Yep, it's not and, it's part of the same post

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

you replied with:

"National Center for Policy Analysis
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Marshall Institute
Heartland Institute
NCPA
Harvard University
CATO Institute

I'd hardly call these 'individuals'" 12-04-2007, 03:31 PM

I did indeed, to which you replied

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

But with one exception, Pari, they're right-wing think tanks or lobbyists! We can't include any of those (and you've put the NCPA in twice - I assume you don't mean the National Collegiate Paintball Association

), or we'd have to include similar organisations from 'the other side' like Greenpeace or Al Gore's Save Our Selves outfit. And we don't want to do that.

By comparison, the science academies of all eight nations of the G8 group have reached a broad consensus on this issue.

The odd one out on your list? Harvard University - I'm intrigued. Can you show us that institution's position statement?

To which I didn't reply, thinking "look it up yourself".
However, like a wee scotch terrier you came back again

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Oh, and Pari ... still waiting on Harvard University's position statement from you ...

to which I then replied

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

LOL, that's the thing clackers, you keep talking and linking to politics and I keep providing science. The science from Harvard is in the wiki link I provided, look it up yourself.

As I had already stated

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

My point is that none of these organisations statements bear any significance unless those statements are backed up with scientific research, which allows us to move away from the 'I've got more scientists than you' or 'those scientists are moonbats' or 'most scientists agree' type arguments, because those are political statements, and the debate is in fact is still continuing, even within the GSA.

I didn't think it much of a stretch that when I said you were posting politics while I was posting science would make sense to you, but no.

Then you said I hadn't provided a link which kept us amused for another two posts while I had to explain to you where to find the link
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
until finally

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Yes, you're right, Pari, it was mistaken identity ... sorry ...

On a related matter, I am still waiting for that position statement by Harvard University, that you said was not simply the views of individuals.

It is not in the Wikipedia link you produced.

Do you have a direct URL instead?

To which my reply was

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

As I have already stated twice, the link to the Harvard article is in the original wiki link I provided, AND, as I have also already stated it was not a position summary but science

I also of course demonstrated that the Harvard link was there, by use of visual means to make it simple and provided the direct link to make it simpler still.

Science. Not "Position Statement". Science.

Which brings us back to this

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Incorrect.

What about the statement
"As I have already stated twice, the link to the Harvard article is in the original wiki link I provided, AND, as I have also already stated it was not a position summary but science"
is incorrect quackers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

The link you gave to Harvard is the one I went to, and couldn't believe it ...

Really? Even though until this point you denied there was a link to Harvard at all? More lies quackers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

that's why I asked again ... it's actually to a promotional magazine talking about the research work of individuals,

Riiiiiight. Harvard University Gazette publishes an article copyrighted to Harvard college covering work by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), and your only description of it is as a promotional magazine. Riiiiight.

by the way, you have this funny thing for the term 'individuals' quackers. They're researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

and even they stop short of the conclusion you hope for:

" ... Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of [manmade] carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? [Professor Willie Soon] won't go that far ..."

I'm not hoping for conclusions quackers, I'm interested in science, but since you seemed to have missed the bulk of the article, I'll post in in full.

**Parihaka** · 12-12-2007, 06:18 AM

Global warming is not so hot:

Quote:

1003 was worse, researchers find
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?

To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.

This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D.

From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age.

To come to this coclusion, CfA researchers, along with colleagues from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., and the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, reviewed more than 200 studies of climate done over the past 10 years. "Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."

Nature still rules

Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? Soon won't go that far. But he does say "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. [The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001.] In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

Soon and colleagues believe their findings will contribute to computer models that simulate natural and human influences on climate more accurately. That should lead to better climate forecasts, including those on local and regional levels. Such forecasts, in turn, could help make it easier to reach international agreements on treaties to control emissions of industrial gases that contribute to global warming. One reason the administration of President Bush gives for not signing the international 1997 Kyoto Protocol to limit carbon dioxide emissions is that sufficient scientific information about the cause of global warming is lacking.

Vikings enjoy Greenland beaches

Plenty of anecdotal evidence exists for warmer times and decades of more frigid and extreme weather than we are now experiencing.

Extended television and government forecasts didn't exist during the 16th to 18th centuries, but many Flemish and Dutch artists, like Pieter Brueghel and Hendrick Avercamp, depicted severe Little Ice Age winters in their paintings.

CfA's Sallie Baliunas, a co-author of the study, refers to the medieval Viking sagas as examples of unusual warming around 1003 A.D. "The Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium, but they died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder," she notes. "And good evidence exists that vineyards flourished in Scotland and England during the medieval warmth."

The evidence also shows that the warmer and colder times occurred not just in Europe, but in places all over the world. Entered into computer simulations that can send us backward and forward hundreds of years in a matter of days, the new information should make forecasts and hindcasts of climate much more accurate.

dalem · 12-12-2007, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Very possibly, Dale!

Even better, let's go for just one, reworded from the combined views of 2000 scientists from 100 countries:

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [ > 90% ] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."

But why don't you read the summaries for yourself?

Such as:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

and

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/..._Print_SPM.pdf

That's exactly the opposite of what I asked you for.

Explain it for me. Step by step. In your own words.

-dale

gunnut · 12-12-2007, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Even better, let's go for just one, reworded from the combined views of 2000 scientists from 100 countries:

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [ > 90% ] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."

So it's not possible that maybe the sun is burning slightly hotter? Maybe the ocean currents are shifting periodically? Maybe the solar system is going through a specific part of the galaxy that's slightly different than 100 years ago?

And we know for a fact that the extra CO2 came form us? You know the ocean absorbs quite a bit of CO2 and releases it when the temperature gets a bit warmer. So it's actually the other way around. Temperature goes up first then we see increase in CO2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

But why don't you read the summaries for yourself?

Such as:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

and

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/..._Print_SPM.pdf

IPCC is a left wing socialist hippie think tank and lobby group.

**Parihaka** · 12-12-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

You clearly haven't understood the link I gave you, Parihaka.

I clearly have understood the link you gave me clackers, it links to
http:/www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/articles/harpers.asp
that's why it has the Sierra Club logo and web address

Taken from the same site

Quote:

The Sierra Club's members and supporters are more than 1.3 million of your friends and neighbors. Inspired by nature, we work together to protect our communities and the planet. The Club is America's oldest, largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization.

It does purport to be a copy of the Harpers article and provides a link to Harpers home page, but not the article. A subsequent search of the Harpers site reveals Gelbspan did write an article for them in 1995, but it's pay per view, meaning your Sierra club is breaking copyright. Oh well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

The link is to a Harper's Magazine article, not a Sierra Club one,

No, see above

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

it is to 1995, and it is written by Ross Gelbspan.

Sure, I'll take your word for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

No he doesn't, Pari, he told Gelbspan himself:

Lateline - 07/03/2005: Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight

Riiiight. Your proof of Gelbspan is Gelbspan saying it's true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

He also leaps to the defence of his paymasters:

BBC NEWS | Business | Science climate conflict warms up

Quote:

And Exxon Mobil has been accused of backing groups that support the minority opinion, against what is seen as the main consensus. It confirms it backs the Heartland Institute, for example, which describes global warming science as a "fraud."

In 2005 Exxon Mobil's chairman and chief executive, Rex Tillerson defended funding such groups.

"We're going to continue to support groups that we think have good scientists involved," he said.

"The fact that they take a contrary view I don't view to be bad."

This attitude has strong backing from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

"They have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense," he adds.

Professor Lindzen wants the debate on global warming kept alive. He also describes the Royal Society letter as a "disgrace," adding "they don't know what they're talking about."

Your problem being? That he might be taking or have taken money from Exxon? See below

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

How can he, who's attacked the IPCC for being too conservative, be my "high priest"? I haven't even mentioned him ... your post about Lindzen, a compromised dissenter from his discipline, started this thread!

I raise the issue of Hansen, and perhaps I should have called him the high priest rather than your high priest though I very much suspect he is, because of the insinuations of corrupt behaviour by skeptics you have so often raised on this thread.
If we're going to talk of corrupt practice, Hansens apparent acceptance of $720,000 from Soros, and another $250,000 from Teresa Heinz Kerry must make him the devil incarnate compared to Lindzens $2,500, no? Or is it only the skeptics that can be viewed as corrupt? Or what's your buzzword du jour? Compromised? $1million US and counting for Hansen kind of compromises him really, hmmmm?

**Parihaka** · 12-12-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Explain it for me. Step by step. In your own words.

-dale

He can't because he hasn't read anything but the politics. He is fun to keep around as a living breathing example of the original article however, worth repeating here

Quote:

The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at least three years earlier. That was an especially warm summer in some regions, particularly in the United States. The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth increase in carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in testimony before Sen. Al Gore's Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was 99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made no statement concerning the relation between the two.

Despite the fact that those remarks were virtually meaningless, they led the environmental advocacy movement to adopt the issue immediately. The growth of environmental advocacy since the 1970s has been phenomenal. In Europe the movement centered on the formation of Green parties; in the United States the movement centered on the development of large public interest advocacy groups. Those lobbying groups have budgets of several hundred million dollars and employ about 50,000 people; their support is highly valued by many political figures. As with any large groups, self-perpetuation becomes a crucial concern. "Global warming'' has become one of the major battle cries in their fundraising efforts. At the same time, the media unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of those groups as objective truth.

dalem · 12-12-2007, 17:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

He can't because he hasn't read anything but the politics. He is fun to keep around as a living breathing example of the original article however, worth repeating here

Oh, come on, Clacky, you gonna take that?

Seriously sir, all you need to do is outline the mechanism and process of anthro global warming in a few sentences. Then we can talk about the different steps. And don't use links or quotes. Just your own words.

-dale

12-12-2007, 00:49 AM	#123 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,566 Country:	You guys are getting lost in the weeds here. Simple question Clackers: How does Anthro Global Warming work? Don't post a link please, just outline it for me, from human industrial emissions to rising global temperature, in a few sentences. -dale