Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Resonance

Yet again, Global Warming...

68 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Resonance
I love how some are criticizing one person for not providing any 'evidence' when you have provided none yourself. Aquatus made a great point and its the same point I tried to make in the other Global Warming thread. This is a science forum. Provide evidence for your claim. No one has been able to do it to a suitable degree.

Why start a thread now, then come up with an excuse as to why you didn't put support for your claim in the original introductory post? Why not wait until you were done with work and had a robust and strong thread going?

Post scholarly research, not backwash from other biased sites.

You're right, i should've provided more evidence to support my opinion.

As for doing so after work, i would, but have no computer at home, therefore, that would be something i couldn't do. So, that would explain the reason why i have yet to. I go on break again at 2:20, i will provide substantial proof if i have the time to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley

here is an example of the oil industry and it's grip on government -

February 10, 2009

NOAA Sea Grant seeks to de-fund Alaska marine scientist Rick Steiner

From a Public Employees for Enviromental Responsibility press release:

Washington, DC — A well-respected University of Alaska marine scientist will have his federal funding cut after a top National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration official complained about his "advocacy" on behalf of marine conservation, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). NOAA's pressure has led university officials to seek elimination of any further NOAA Sea Grant funding for the scientist's work.....

.... Prof. Steiner, a tenured professor, had been publicly protesting that the Sea Grant program was violating its own principle of neutrality by stacking a program to favor offshore oil development and improperly minimizing potential resource damage to Bristol Bay fisheries and marine life.

"Under Bush, NOAA programs, including Sea Grant, were ordered to lubricate oil company initiatives," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch whose organization is urging incoming NOAA Administrator-designate Jane Lubchenco to strengthen the Sea Grant role in ocean protection. "The Sea Grant program needs a thorough housecleaning starting with its leadership."

cont ....

http://alaskareport.com/news19/x61950_rick_steiner.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Not sure where you got that number, but you're wrong. There's tens of thousands of scientists that openly dispute the AGW theory, and who knows how many more that can't speak up in fear of being fired over it.

tens of thousands ? not sure where you got that number , but your wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resonance
here is an example of the oil industry and it's grip on government -

February 10, 2009

NOAA Sea Grant seeks to de-fund Alaska marine scientist Rick Steiner

From a Public Employees for Enviromental Responsibility press release:

Washington, DC — A well-respected University of Alaska marine scientist will have his federal funding cut after a top National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration official complained about his "advocacy" on behalf of marine conservation, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). NOAA's pressure has led university officials to seek elimination of any further NOAA Sea Grant funding for the scientist's work.....

.... Prof. Steiner, a tenured professor, had been publicly protesting that the Sea Grant program was violating its own principle of neutrality by stacking a program to favor offshore oil development and improperly minimizing potential resource damage to Bristol Bay fisheries and marine life.

"Under Bush, NOAA programs, including Sea Grant, were ordered to lubricate oil company initiatives," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch whose organization is urging incoming NOAA Administrator-designate Jane Lubchenco to strengthen the Sea Grant role in ocean protection. "The Sea Grant program needs a thorough housecleaning starting with its leadership."

cont ....

http://alaskareport.com/news19/x61950_rick_steiner.htm

If they can do this, what makes people think they don't control the funding of scientists 'for' ACGW?

tens of thousands ? not sure where you got that number , but your wrong.

Probably from the petition of 37,000 different scientists voting against ACGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
I love how some are criticizing one person for not providing any 'evidence' when you have provided none yourself. Aquatus made a great point and its the same point I tried to make in the other Global Warming thread. This is a science forum. Provide evidence for your claim. No one has been able to do it to a suitable degree.

Why start a thread now, then come up with an excuse as to why you didn't put support for your claim in the original introductory post? Why not wait until you were done with work and had a robust and strong thread going?

Post scholarly research, not backwash from other biased sites.

For someone with your background i find it funny that you find it's Okay for the "followers" not to provide Evidence to show climate change is down to Man made C02.

It's Almost like the spoken word is gospel, and climate change is down to man C02 regardless of the FACT no irrefutable Evidence yet exists.

Its about time the "followers" put this issue to bed once and for all by Putting their cards on the table and show their hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

* Ian Sample, science correspondent

* The Guardian, Friday 2 February 2007

* Article history

A polar bear

The Arctic habitat of polar bears is under threat as climate change causes ice to melt. Photograph: Joseph Napaaqtuq Sage/AP

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...s.climatechange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Yet again, you should probably calm down.

Anyway, if you could please, 'prove to me' that these 'details' are correct..

Hey Res. regarding that senate minority report unfortunately instead of getting evidence, they went for quotes and names. The whole thing isa political and media vehicle rather than a scientific one. It is in terms of a debate with out merit.

I'm sure you know my thoughts on this and I'm sure you all know by now where the papers I have posted are. Feel free to browse them if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn

What are you going on about Ripley. I thought we was talking about the causes. Not backhanders.

I'm sure you know my thoughts on this and I'm sure you all know by now where the papers I have posted are. Feel free to browse them if you wish.

Repost them links mate, bring them upto date by posting them here. if you leave them where they are they'll sink to the doldrums.

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
I love how some are criticizing one person for not providing any 'evidence' when you have provided none yourself. Aquatus made a great point and its the same point I tried to make in the other Global Warming thread. This is a science forum. Provide evidence for your claim. No one has been able to do it to a suitable degree.

Why start a thread now, then come up with an excuse as to why you didn't put support for your claim in the original introductory post? Why not wait until you were done with work and had a robust and strong thread going?

Post scholarly research, not backwash from other biased sites.

I guess because of the same reason you don't provide any evidence and only give your opinion. Sometimes that is all we have.

I've seen thread after thread of this over the years and have seen site after site that has had valid theories. People claim some of them are biased and dismiss them off hand and only a few people are more open minded and at least read them. But, all in all, people have made up their minds and no amount of evidence is going to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
For someone with your background i find it funny that you find it's Okay for the "followers" not to provide Evidence to show climate change is down to Man made C02.

It's Almost like the spoken word is gospel, and climate change is down to man C02 regardless of the FACT no irrefutable Evidence yet exists.

Its about time the "followers" put this issue to bed once and for all by Putting their cards on the table and show their hand.

I never said it was okay for 'followers' not to provide evidence. If you paid attention to what I said in the previous topic we were in, and this one, I said...

This is a science forum. Provide evidence for your claim. No one has been able to do it to a suitable degree.

That means not a single person and that includes both sides of the issue in the two recent threads that are on this forum.

Its about time the "followers" put this issue to bed once and for all by Putting their cards on the table and show their hand.

Professors already do this on a university level, but laypeople don't bother to attend these lectures, even when open to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
What are you going on about Ripley. I thought we was talking about the causes. Not backhanders.

Repost them links mate, bring them upto date by posting them here. if you leave them where they are they'll sink to the doldrums.

NP

2008 joint 8th warmest year on record

From Dec 2007: Top 11 warmest years on record all within last 13 years.

Arctic 2008

NSIDC: Anarctic ice shelf degradation

British Antarctic Survey: Temperature trends. You see there is a lot more anomalous warming than cooling (again you would not expect uniform warming, but a variation, but there is a very clear trend there.

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Ecological responses to recent climate change

Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming

Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model

NSIDC:2008 Year-in-Review for the Arctic

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature

Antarctic ice shelf 'hanging by a thread'

Even Antarctica is now feeling the heat of climate change

Europe to feel the heat of climate change

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
I guess because of the same reason you don't provide any evidence and only give your opinion. Sometimes that is all we have.

I've seen thread after thread of this over the years and have seen site after site that has had valid theories. People claim some of them are biased and dismiss them off hand and only a few people are more open minded and at least read them. But, all in all, people have made up their minds and no amount of evidence is going to change it.

What do you mean I 'only give my opinion'. I haven't stated my opinion in either of these two latest threads. What I have done was criticize the way in which people on both sides have gone about debating this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
What do you mean I 'only give my opinion'. I haven't stated my opinion in either of these two latest threads. What I have done was criticize the way in which people on both sides have gone about debating this issue.

Excuse me, then you have no opinion except on how people are expressing their opinions while you have contibuted none. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
Excuse me, then you have no opinion except on how people are expressing their opinions while you have contibuted none. :huh:

Exactly right. It's my duty as a member of the scientific community to engage laypeople in scholarly debate. I have to do it on a daily basis at my current research university.

I never said I never had an opinion, I said I haven't stated mine in these last two topics.

If you have a problem with scientists who criticize how those outside the scientific community express their opinions on science then I suggest you tell professors and fellow graduate students the same thing. They also do it every day on the university level. It's how scientific education is done.

Edited by Cimber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
NP

2008 joint 8th warmest year on record

From Dec 2007: Top 11 warmest years on record all within last 13 years.

Arctic 2008

NSIDC: Anarctic ice shelf degradation

British Antarctic Survey: Temperature trends. You see there is a lot more anomalous warming than cooling (again you would not expect uniform warming, but a variation, but there is a very clear trend there.

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Ecological responses to recent climate change

Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming

Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model

NSIDC:2008 Year-in-Review for the Arctic

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature

Antarctic ice shelf 'hanging by a thread'

Even Antarctica is now feeling the heat of climate change

Europe to feel the heat of climate change

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

matt, well done. So What's causing the rise in Temperature. is it Man made C02. !! I want the facts here. not if's but's and maybes.

Cimber. Even you have to agree has we stand here now the causes for fluctuation in temperature is not full understood and the cause is far from clear more research is needed. until that time were just going to go around in circles after all this is the "science" section of the forum and we want to be dealing with FACTS has we know them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
matt, well done. So What's causing the rise in Temperature. is it Man made C02. !! I want the facts here. not if's but's and maybes.

Cimber. Even you have to agree has we stand here now the causes for fluctuation in temperature is not full understood and the cause is far from clear more research is needed. until that time were just going to go around in circles after all this is the "science" section of the forum and we want to be dealing with FACTS has we know them.

Of course more research needs to be done. Its the scientist's and researcher's duty who write the scientific articles to place that very statement at the end of their paper.

Edited by Cimber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
Exactly right. It's my duty as a member of the scientific community to engage laypeople in scholarly debate. I have to do it on a daily basis at my current research university.

I never said I never had an opinion, I said I haven't stated mine in these last two topics.

If you have a problem with scientists who criticize how those outside the scientific community express their opinions on science then I suggest you tell professors and fellow graduate students the same thing. They also do it every day on the university level. It's how scientific education is done.

Nooo, not at all...I have a little bit of a problem with someone criticizing the way people are expressing their opinions while the person doing the criticizing is not being a better example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
Of course more research needs to be done. Its the scientist's and researcher's duty who write the scientific articles to place that very statement at the end of their paper.

For the layman here. when do you think the links between climate change and man made C02 will be conclusive. Do you reckon were about ten or more years away. or could it possibly be sooner?

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian
tens of thousands ? not sure where you got that number , but your wrong.

No I'm not.

This is the list of petition signers. I can't remember the URL to the list with a quote from each individual scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
matt, well done. So What's causing the rise in Temperature. is it Man made C02. !! I want the facts here. not if's but's and maybes.

I personally believe that it is. Science is always a lot of maybes though, there is always more research needed.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
Nooo, not at all...I have a little bit of a problem with someone criticizing the way people are expressing their opinions while the person doing the criticizing is not being a better example.

I am criticizing the way in which people are debating the man made global warming issue. That is, people are not providing scholarly research to support their claims.

You say, that i am not being a 'better example'. What do you want me to do, provide scholarly research that supports my statement that people are not providing...scholarly research... for their claims regarding global warming?

I see no correlation between my statements and how I could be considered an example to those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resonance
I am criticizing the way in which people are debating the man made global warming issue. That is, people are not providing scholarly research to support their claims.

You say, that i am not being a 'better example'. What do you want me to do, provide scholarly research that supports my statement that people are not providing...scholarly research... for their claims regarding global warming?

I see no correlation between my statements and how I could be considered an example to those people.

Okay you would like 'scholarly research'.

Well, I have been researching this subject quite a lot lately. I also have been studying atmospheric gases and such for a long time.

This would have to be my opinion.

When it was first proposed, it wasn't exactly backed up by 'scientific evidence' as it was. The small amount of evidence they 'did' provide proved completely innacurate.

When you try to establish a link between anthropogenic additives into our atmosphere and normal everyday 'greenhouse gases' you 'need' to factor in WATER VAPOR...

If you would like a percentage on how much 'humans' are affecting greenhouse gases, here it is.

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Here, i would like to show you how the DOE did 'not' shwo water vapor as a 'greenhouse gas'.

all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000 68,520 1 1,880 368,400 99.438%

Methane (CH4) 848 577 320 1,745 0.471%

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285 12 15 312 0.084%

Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 25 0 2 27 0.007%

As you can see, they did not show Wator Vapor as a greenhouse gas. This, is a very large mistake on their part.

The chart below summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.

linked-image

But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.

linked-image

....

I will continue later.

Feed your brains please. ;)

Edited by Resonance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
I am criticizing the way in which people are debating the man made global warming issue. That is, people are not providing scholarly research to support their claims.

You say, that i am not being a 'better example'. What do you want me to do, provide scholarly research that supports my statement that people are not providing...scholarly research... for their claims regarding global warming?

I see no correlation between my statements and how I could be considered an example to those people.

*sigh* If you aren't contibuting to the discussion and only criticizing the people that are activley participating then, yes, you become worthless to the conversation. If you wish to become a part of the conversation then provide scholarly research, of which you are so fond, that supports a stand, one way or the other.

Those are your standards, not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
*sigh* If you aren't contibuting to the discussion and only criticizing the people that are activley participating then, yes, you become worthless to the conversation. If you wish to become a part of the conversation then provide scholarly research, of which you are so fond, that supports a stand, one way or the other.

Those are your standards, not mine.

I am allowed to comment on the futility of debate in the science forum when people fail to provide sufficient evidence to warrant their position. I have already become part of the conversation by trying to lead the debate into a more productive path.

In fact Aquatus commented on this in very issue on the first page of this topic. I did it in the older topic, but I am not sure if he posted there as well. Do you feel his post his worthless as well?

As I said, if you feel it is worthless for people to provide criticism on the way people debate science, then perhaps you should criticize professors and graduate students who do this very thing in discussions and lectures in university classrooms across the world. I am using the knowledge on how to debate science and helping inject that knowledge into a forum where I can help those who didn't have the chance to experience scientific discussion on the university level.

If you wish to discuss this with me further, I suggest you pm me and I would be glad to talk with you. Us two bickering back in forth is serving to derail the topic.

Edited by Cimber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resonance
I am allowed to comment on the futility of debate in the science forum when people fail to provide sufficient evidence to warrant their position. I have already become part of the conversation by trying to lead the debate into a more productive path.

In fact Aquatus commented on this in very issue on the first page of this topic. I did it in the older topic, but I am not sure if he posted there as well. Do you feel his post his worthless as well?

As I said, if you feel it is worthless for people to provide criticism on the way people debate science, then perhaps you should criticize professors and graduate students who do this very thing in discussions and lectures in university classrooms across the world. I am using the knowledge on how to debate science and helping inject that knowledge into a forum where I can help those who didn't have the chance to experience scientific discussion on the university level.

If you wish to discuss this with me further, I suggest you pm me and I would be glad to talk with you. Us two bickering back in forth is serving to derail the topic.

Yes, thank you Cimber for suggesting the 'pm'ing to start. ;)

And also, thank you for helping push this discussion into more of a scientific discussion, instead of a back and forth match between unsubstantiated opinions. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.