Are you much into cherry picking?

There were two reports on Mann's et al. work. Besides Wegman's there was a NRC report that found, besides some problems with their PCA, other analytical techniques came to the same conclusion as the Mann report.

Quote :

"SUV's On Jupiter? http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm"

Again, with the cherry picking. There are 100+ moons and planets in the solar system. What is the trend for all of them? Do you take into account that some planets, like Jupiter, have atmospheres whose dynamics are governed by it's own internal heat? That some bodies have weird orbits and come into summer every hundred years or so (like pluto & triton)?

[Edited on June 12, 2007 at 1:25 PM. Reason : x]

6/12/2007 1:16:07 PM

Quote :

"Again, with the cherry picking. There are 100+ moons and planets in the solar system."

Typical globalist response

6/12/2007 3:25:56 PM

Indeed.

The silly thing, of course, is that we don't need to look at other solar bodies as a proxy for changes in the solar constant. We can just measure it directly. And this is what solar physicists do who give the information to climate modellers who feed it into their codes and find, woah--changes in the solar constant can't explain the amount of warming seen. This is why the climate-solar magnetic field connection seems to be in vogue now among skeptics. This theory pretty much runs as follows: the flux of cosmic rays into earth's atmosphere appears to be modulated by the solar wind, which is in turn modulated by the sun's magnetic activity (sunspots). More magnetic activity = more sunspots =stronger solar wind = less comic rays = less ionization = fewer low clouds = warmer climate.

6/12/2007 4:25:02 PM

^ Typical globalist view

Global Warming Deception – Part I

http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2007/020607Warming.htm

Quote :

" Are carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions the cause of global warming? In Germany, a scientist may still perform critical analysis to prove or disprove this assumption, though time is probably running out. The desired results have already been determined. Looking Back at Environmental Modeling Until a few decades ago there was no discussion about global warming, on the contrary, 32 years ago in Newsweek magazine (U.S.), an article warned about the imminent danger of an ice age. Most scientists were convinced until the mid-seventies that a new ice age was approaching. In his 1976 book The Cooling, Lowell Ponte, writer and journalist wrote: "This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000." A Hidden Agenda? What is causing the current global warming? CO2 is a word that is constantly repeated. Most politicians and the media leave no doubt about the CO2 problem. However, the problem arises when opposing opinions are suppressed, or even denounced because of a hidden agenda. This occurs when a large manipulative campaign is launched, based on such an agenda. Why are dissenting scientists being threatened and/or losing funding? Gordon Brown, the aspiring future British prime minister, announced recently the importance of establishing a "new world order" to fight global warming. He also declared that the U.N. should make global warming a priority of its international mission (BBC 1/19/2007). Dr. Myles Allen from Oxford University warns: "It is ludicrous to suggest that the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro-managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do." Politicians rarely offer opposing opinions. An exception to the rule is Czech President Klaus who stated to the Hospodárské Noviny on February 14, 2007, regarding the CO2 debate, "This is a wrong myth and I think that every sincere individual and scientist would agree with this … but, it is certain that this environmental activism is the modern reincarnation of communism." Carbon Dioxide and Nature Prominently, CO2 is food for plants and a fertilizer that is stirred up by the air. It is not-toxic. Rising CO2 rates since the beginning of the industrial revolution helped produce, for example, an increase of 61 percent in wheat harvests and increased vegetable production by about 51 percent (Idso et al. in 2003). Likewise, it was found that with rising CO2 rates, plants are more stress-resistant and need less water. Thus, seven billion people can be fed today. Manipulation or Statistical Error—The Hockey Stick Graph The current hypothesis is actually an outcome of the so-called "hockey stick" graph, which is the result of Michael E. Mann's scientific investigation of global warming. This graph appeared for the first time in 1998 in Nature magazine, and was published in 2001 in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. It is suggested that the steep rise in temperature was caused by higher concentrations of CO2 due to industrial development. Other scientists, especially Professor McIntyre of the University of Guelph in Toronto, demonstrated that this graph is based on wrong data assumptions and incorrect selection of statistical procedures. Warming as Factor or Fertilization There is one reason that the bristlecone pines is a questionable indicator of global warming. The above-mentioned carbon dioxide fertilization during the last century caused accelerated growth of the bristlecone pines. Therefore, the main reason for the increase in the number of bristlecone pines is CO2 fertilization and not global warming. In the aforementioned "hockey stick" graph, the medieval global warming between 950 and 1450 was ignored completely. Yet, it still was published without this data in the 1996 U.N. report. In 2006, Mann admitted for the first time that his graph was inaccurate for the period before the year 1400 and that this phase was not represented quite correctly. Nevertheless, politics won't allow further deliberation concerning this issue."

At least hooksaw knows the Truth



[Edited on June 12, 2007 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2007 4:28:28 PM

You guys got me pegged.

My collectivist heart really just wants to destroy the world economy and see everyone living in mud huts and farming with sticks.

6/12/2007 4:44:36 PM

Warming is real - and has benefits
The Deniers -- Part II
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Quote :

"One month ago, the world heard that global warming could lead to a global catastrophe 'on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century.' This assessment, from Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, made banner headlines and led prominent leaders such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair to urge immediate action to stem global warming. It also led some prominent environmentalists to denounce Sir Nicholas for what they deemed an outrageous study bereft of credibility. None of the environmentalists issued a stronger denunciation, or has better environmental credentials, than Richard S.J. Tol."

Quote :

"Tol is a Denier, to use the terminology of the 'science-is-settled' camp in the increasingly polarized global warming debate. Like many other Deniers, Tol doesn't think the evidence is in on global warming and its effects, he doesn't think there's reason to rush to action, and he doesn't think that crash programs to curb global warming are called for. Also like many other Deniers, he doesn't fit the stereotype that those who use the epithet imagine. Anything but. Tol is no fringe outsider to the scientific debate. He is at the centre of the academic investigation of global warming, a central figure in the scientific establishment that has been developing the models and the knowledge to understand the global warming phenomenon. At the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, considered by most the authoritative body in the field, Tol is involved as an author in all three of its Working Groups. He is also an author and editor of the United Nations Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. He is also a mover and shaker in the prestigious European Climate Forum. He takes global warming seriously and has dedicated his professional life to making a contribution for the better in climate policy and related fields."

Quote :

"Yes, global warming is real, he believes, and yes, measures to mitigate it should be taken. But unlike the advocates who believe that the science is settled, and the global warning debate is over, Tol thinks that much research needs to be done before we know how best to respond. 'There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously,' he explains. 'We've got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into "actionism," which then becomes very expensive.'"

THE CV OF A DENIER

Quote :

"Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research, the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. He is an editor of Energy Economics, an associate editor of Environmental and Resource Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy and Integrated Assessment."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0

6/12/2007 11:26:07 PM

And here's Part III from infowars--

http://infowars.net/articles/june2007/110607Deception.htm

Finally, someone who realizes that global warming is just a front for the establishment of a Zionist authoritarian state in America.



[Edited on June 12, 2007 at 11:54 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2007 11:50:52 PM

^ winnar.

6/13/2007 12:16:16 AM

Boone-tard, you are a fucking stupid liar. The National Post, which the Financial Post is a part of, is a legitimate conservative newspaper. I never even fucking heard of "Prison Planet" or "Infowars" until you brought them up. Why don't you try addressing the articles, you fucking wingnut, instead of being an idiot?

Here's the actual Part III:

The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science
The Deniers -- Part III
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Quote :

"You're a respected scientist, one of the best in your field. So respected, in fact, that when the United Nations decided to study the relationship between hurricanes and global warming for the largest scientific endeavour in its history -- its International Panel on Climate Change -- it called upon you and your expertise."

Quote :

"You are Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory. You were a contributing author for the UN's second International Panel on Climate Change in 1995, writing the sections on observed changes in tropical cyclones around the world. Then the IPCC called on you as a contributing author once more, for its 'Third Assessment Report' in 2001. And you were invited to participate yet again, when the IPCC called on you to be an author in the 'Fourth Assessment Report.' This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, your specialty, and be published by the IPCC in 2007. Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: 'Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity.' This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had. As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, you knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin."

Quote :

"To stop the press conference, or at least stop any misunderstandings that might come out of it, you contacted Dr. Trenberth prior to the media event. You prepared a synopsis for him that brought him up to date on the state of knowledge about hurricane formation. To your amazement, he simply dismissed your concerns. The press conference proceeded."

Quote :

"You then asked the IPCC leadership for assurances that your work for the IPCC's 2007 report would be true to science: '[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have already come to the conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity and has publicly stated so. This does not reflect the consensus within the hurricane research community. ... Thus I would like assurance that what will be included in the IPCC report will reflect the best available information and the consensus within the scientific community most expert on the specific topic.' The assurance didn't come. What did come was the realization that the IPCC was corrupting science. This you could not be a party to. You then resigned, in an open letter to the scientific community laying out your reasons."

THE CV OF A DENIER

Quote :

"Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the 'best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.' He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 12:29 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 12:24:01 AM

Quote :

" Yes, global warming is real, he believes, and yes, measures to mitigate it should be taken. "

- http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755&page=26#10456371
/thread

6/13/2007 1:25:36 AM

^ So, this guy is acceptable to you? Dr. Landsea also resigned from the IPCC fiasco, in an open letter to the scientific community.

Polar scientists on thin ice
The Deniers -- Part IV
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Quote :

"Enter Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling. Dr. Wingham has been pursuing this polar puzzle for much of his professional life and, but for an accident in space, he might have had the answer at hand by now. Dr. Wingham is Principal Scientist of the European Space Agency's CryoSat Satellite Mission, a $130-million project designed to map changes in the depth of ice using ultra-precise instrumentation. Sadly for Dr. Wingham and for science as a whole, CryoSat fell into the Arctic Ocean after its launch in October, 2005, when a rocket launcher malfunctioned. Dr Wingham will now need to wait until 2009 before CryoSat-2, CryoSat's even more precise successor, can launch and begin relaying the data that should conclusively determine whether Antarctica's ice sheets are thinning or not. Apart from satellite technology, no known way exists to reliably determine changes in mass over a vast and essentially unexplorable continent covered in ice several kilometres thick. But CryoSat was not the only satellite available to polar scientists. Dr. Wingham has been collecting satellite data for years, and arriving at startling conclusions. Early last year at a European Union Space Conference in Brussels, for example, Dr. Wingham revealed that data from a European Space Agency satellite showed Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening, and concluded that the spectacular collapse of the ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula was much more likely to have followed natural current fluctuations than global warming. 'The Antarctic Peninsula is exceptional because it juts out so far north,' Dr. Wingham told the press at the time. As well, scientists have been drawn to the peninsula because it is relatively accessible and its climate is moderate, allowing it to be more easily studied than the harsh interior of the continent. Because many scientists have been preoccupied with what was, in effect, the tip of the iceberg, they missed the mass of evidence that lay beneath the surface."

Quote :

"Last summer, Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica. By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will 'lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm' per year. If these findings are validated in future by CryoSat-2 and other developments that are able to assess the 28% of Antarctica not yet surveyed, the low-lying areas of the world will have weathered the worst of the global warming predictions: The populations of these areas -- in Bangladesh, in the Maldives, and elsewhere -- will have found that, if anything, they can look forward to a future with more nutrient-rich seacoast, not less."

CV OF A DENIER

Quote :

"Duncan Wingham was educated at Leeds and Bath Universities where he gained a B.Sc. and PhD. in Physics. He was appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth Sciences in October, 2005. Prof. Wingham is a member of the National Environmental Research Council's Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He is a director of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling and principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission, the first ESA Earth Sciences satellite selected through open, scientific competition."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0

You fuckers say quotations are taken out of context, so I give you more. You fuckers ask for scientists that don't support global warming hysteria, so I give them to you. So, when are you going to address these articles? Probably never--because liberals simply can't argue on the issues.

6/13/2007 8:45:33 AM

So to you, it doesn't matter if you feel global warming is real, as long as you also believe the IPCC is wrong?

6/13/2007 1:08:56 PM

Us "fuckers" ask for people who are against the consensus that Global Warming is caused by humans. It is common knowledge that the media sensationalizes the debate because most journalists don't know shit about science.

6/13/2007 1:39:35 PM

Quote :

"Probably never--because liberals simply can't argue on the issues."

Ok, then can you address why you choose to highlight Wegman's report on the Hockey Stick and not the NRC report? Can you give any physical or statistical reasons to think Wegman's report is better other than it agrees with what you want to believe? Isn't is odd that other temperature proxies, like alpine glacier mass-balances & bore hole temperature reconstructions, agree with Mann's reconstruction?

6/13/2007 8:48:38 PM

The original denier: into the cold
The Deniers -- Part V
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Quote :

"Most scientists who are labelled as 'deniers' for their views on global warming don't embrace this role. They cringe at the thought of disagreeing with colleagues who think that the science is settled, they do their best to avoid making waves, and they fear being marginalized as cranks who disagree with the scientific consensus. Dr. Richard Lindzen is an exception. Dr. Lindzen is one of the original deniers -- among the first to criticize the scientific bureaucracy, and scientists themselves, for claims about global warming that he views as unfounded and alarmist. While he does not welcome the role he's acquired, he also does not shrink from it. Dr. Lindzen takes his protests about the abuse of science to the public, to the press, and to government. His detractors can't dismiss him as a crank from the fringe, however, much as they might wish. Dr. Lindzen is a critic from within, one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in a landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the very organization that established global warming as an issue of paramount importance."

Quote :

"Dr. Lindzen is proud of his contribution, and that of his colleagues, to the IPCC chapter they worked on. His pride in this work matches his dismay at seeing it misrepresented. '[Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored,' he told the United States Senate committee on environment and public works in 2001. These unscientific summaries, often written to further political or business agendas, then become the basis of public understanding. As an example, Dr. Lindzen provided the committee with the summary that was created for Chapter 7, which he worked on. 'Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport,' the summary stated, creating the impression that the climate models were reliable. The actual report by the scientists indicated just the opposite. Dr. Lindzen testified that the scientists had 'found numerous problems with model treatments -- including those of clouds and water vapor.' When the IPCC was stung by criticism that the summaries were being written with little or no input by the scientists themselves, the IPCC had a subset of the scientists review a subsequent draft summary -- an improvement in the process. Except that the final version, when later released at a Shanghai press conference, had surprising changes to the draft that scientists had seen."

Quote :

"The summaries' distortion of the IPCC chapters compounds another distortion that occurred in the very writing of the scientific chapters themselves. [b]Dr. Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: 'throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC "coordinators" would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that "motherhood" statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their "green" credentials in defense of their statements.'"

Quote :

"The press's spin on the NAS report? CNN, in language typical of other reportage, stated that it represented 'a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.' Despite such obtuseness Lindzen fights on, defending the science at what is undoubtedly a very considerable personal cost. Those who toe the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them from a funding pot that overflows with US$1.7-billion per year in the U.S. alone. As Lindzen wrote earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, 'there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.'"

THE CV OF A DENIER

Quote :

"Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers and books."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 6:48 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 6:37:47 AM

the worst part is that he has 5 more of these to post

6/14/2007 8:12:16 AM

The sun moves climate change
The Deniers -- Part VI
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Quote :

"Man produces greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases cause global warming, most scientists agree, but how, exactly, do greenhouse gases cause global warming? While theories abound, as do elaborate computer models incorporating a multitude of gases and other climatic factors, none has been conclusive. And if greenhouse gases aren't responsible, what else could be? A clear, verifiable mechanism showing how a greenhouse gas or other physical entity can drive climate change has eluded science. Until now. For more than a decade, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center has been pursuing an explanation for why Earth cools and warms. His findings -- published in October in the Proceedings of the Royal Society -- the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the Royal Society of London -- are now in, and they don't point to us. The sun and the stars could explain most if not all of the warming this century, and he has laboratory results to demonstrate it. Dr. Svensmark's study had its origins in 1996, when he and a colleague presented findings at a scientific conference indicating that changes in the sun's magnetic field -- quite apart from greenhouse gases -- could be related to the recent rise in global temperatures. The chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, the chief agency investigating global warming, then castigated them in the press, saying, 'I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.' Others accused them of denouncing the greenhouse theory, something they had not done."

Quote :

"The Danish scientists put together several well-established scientific phenomena to arrive at their novel 1996 theory. The sun's magnetic field deflects some of the cosmic rays that penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, and in so doing it also limits the immense amounts of ions and free electrons that the cosmic rays produce. But something had changed in the 20th century: The sun's magnetic field more than doubled in strength, deflecting an extraordinary number of rays. Could the diminution of cosmic rays this century have limited the formation of clouds, making the Earth warmer? That was a plausible theory. But exactly how cosmic rays might create clouds was a mystery -- an unprovable theory, many said. Some even claimed that it was inconceivable for cosmic rays to influence cloud cover. To discover a mechanism, a team at the Danish National Space Center assembled by Dr. Svensmark undertook an elaborate laboratory experiment in a reaction chamber the size of a small room. The team duplicated the chemistry of the lower atmosphere by injecting the gases found there in the same proportions, and adding ultraviolet rays to mimic the actions of the sun. What they found left them agape: A vast number of floating microscopic droplets soon filled the reaction chamber. These were ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules -- the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei-- that had been catalyzed by the electrons released by cosmic rays. 'We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work,' Dr. Svensmark remarked. For the first time ever, researchers had experimentally identified a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth's atmosphere. 'This is a completely new result within climate science.' Dr. Svensmark has never disputed the existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect. To the contrary, he believes that an understanding of the sun's role is needed to learn the full story, and thus determine man's role. Not only does no climate model today consider the effect of cosmic particles, but even clouds are too poorly understood to be incorporated into any serious climate model. Because of the work of Dr. Svensmark, other agencies are now building on the Danish findings. CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, has just started a multi-phase project that begins with a rerun of the Danish experiment, only CERN will use an accelerator rather than relying on natural cosmic rays. This multinational project will provide scientists with a permanent facility for studying effects of cosmic rays and charged particles in the Earth's atmosphere. The clouds may be lifting on scientific inquiry into climate change."

THE CV OF A DENIER

Quote :

"Henrik Svensmark is director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI). Previously, Dr. Svensmark was head of the sunclimate group at DSRI. He has held post doctoral positions in physics at University California Berkeley, Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute. In 1997, Dr Svensmark received the Knud Hojgaard Anniversary Research Prize and in 2001 the Energy-E2 Research Prize."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0

6/14/2007 9:23:57 AM

ITS THE GOD DAMN SUN

6/14/2007 5:52:53 PM

The limits of predictability
The Deniers -- Part VIII
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Quote :

"When Frans Nieuwstadt, a distinguished Dutch meteorologist, engineer, editor and professor, died in 2005, his obituary recounted seminal events in his accomplished life. Among the experiences worthy of mention: Nieuwstadt had studied under the celebrated professor, Henk Tennekes, and along with other colleagues had been instrumental in convincing Tennekes to return to Europe in 1978 to become director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and later chairman of the august Scientific Advisory Committee of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Henk Tennekes, in ways both personal and professional, has touched an extraordinary number of lives in his own distinguished career, among academics and laymen alike. He is loved for his popular 1997 book, The Simple Science of Flight From Insects to Jumbo Jets, and for his scholarly 1972 work, A First Course in Turbulence, a classic that logs more than 2,000 citations on Google Scholar. His provocative 1986 speech, 'No Forecast Is Complete Without A Forecast of Forecast Skill,' led to the now-common discipline of 'ensemble forecasting' and spurred 'multi-model forecasting.' Scientists today continue to wrestle with the fundamental critiques that he first presented."

Quote :

"Tennekes became more than an inspiration for his students and a model for other scientists, however. He also became an object lesson in the limits of scientific inquiry. Because his critiques of climate science ran afoul of the orthodoxy required by the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, he was forced to leave. Lesser scientists, seeing that even a man of Tennekes's reputation was not free to voice dissent, learned their lesson. Ever since, most scientists who harbour doubts about climate science bite their tongues and keep their heads down. Tennekes, more than any other individual, challenged the models that climate scientists were constructing, saying models could never replicate the complexity of the real world. What was needed was a different approach to science, one that recognized inherent limits in such scientific tools and aimed less to regulate the environment. In a landmark speech to the American Meteorological Society in 1986, he argued that meteorology was poised to be the first of the post-Newtonian sciences because it was 'at odds with the mainstream of the scientific enterprise of the last 300 years. One goal of science is to control nature, but we know we cannot control the weather. The goal of science is prediction, but we stand in front of the limits of predictability.' Meteorology, in other words, would be the first scientific discipline to hit this brick wall. As Tennekes argued, modern theory 'unequivocally predicts that no amount of improvement in the quality of the observation network or in the power of computers will improve the average useful forecast range by more than a few days.' Since Tennekes' speech, a host of scientists have sought to extend the bounds of modelling. They have seen success, but only on the scale Tennekes predicted. In a paper presented in 2003, a team of European scientists detailed advances in modelling science. 'Since the day, almost 20 years ago, in which Henk Tennekes stated ... that "no forecast is complete without a forecast of the forecast skill," the demand for numerical forecasting tools ... has been ever increasing,' they said, explaining efforts to make modelling reliable beyond a three- to four-day period. Thanks to the intense efforts of a new generation of climate modellers, modelling capability has advanced in some instances by 12 to 36 hours, in others by several days. To extend the bounds further, the paper announced a major new research initiative, designed to bring the forecasting discipline to the 120-hour range. Climate modelling is the basis of forecasts of climate change. Yet this modelling, Tennekes believes, has little utility, and 'there is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change.' Moreover, he states: 'There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies.' Not surprisingly, Tennekes abhors the dogma that he feels characterizes the climate-change establishment, and the untoward role of climate science in public-policy making. 'We only understand 10% of the climate issue. That is not enough to wreck the world economy with Kyoto-like measures.'"

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0

6/14/2007 10:11:43 PM

Quote :

"we are already "over-represented" with reports that attempt to deny the scientific reality. and by giving them so much time on the debate floor, we distort their scientific credibility"

do what now? who says we are "over-represented?" if the reports are scientifically valid, then what the fuck is the problem with them? oh, that's right, they don't agree with your agenda, so even one of them is "over-representing," right?

you fail to see the fact that Al Gore basically said that it was ok to fucking LIE about global warming in order to spur people on to solve the problem. you know, the problem that might not even exist, since he had to LIE ABOUT IT in order to even make people care about it. It seems to me that if it were really a problem, there would be no need to lie about it.

Quote :

"Isn't is odd that other temperature proxies, like alpine glacier mass-balances & bore hole temperature reconstructions, agree with Mann's reconstruction?"

It isn't hard to find evidence that agrees with your conclusion when you are searching exclusively for it and ignoring any to the contrary

6/14/2007 11:01:20 PM

^
Well, I agree completely. Then I hope you or Hooksaw would care to take a shot at my questions--what is it about the Wegman report makes it better science than the NRC report?

6/15/2007 1:12:25 AM

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
The Deniers -- Part IX
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Quote :

"Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries. 'One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age,' NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. 'In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated.' With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets."

Quote :

"'Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians,' he told me. 'These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance.' The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions. 'It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.' Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. 'Ascribing "greenhouse" effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated,' he maintains. 'Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.'"

Quote :

"Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun. With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age. 'There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from now,' Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. 'A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions.'"

THE CV OF A DENIER

Quote :

"Habibullo Abdussamatov, born in Samarkand in Uzbekistan in 1940, graduated from Samarkand University in 1962 as a physicist and a mathematician. He earned his doctorate at Pulkovo Observatory and the University of Leningrad. He is the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences' Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometry project, a long-term joint scientific research project of the Russian and Ukranian space agencies."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

6/15/2007 12:18:24 PM

Quote :

"Then I hope you or Hooksaw would care to take a shot at my questions--what is it about the Wegman report makes it better science than the NRC report?"

well, to be honest, you are simply claiming that this report exists. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but it would be interesting to know what report you are talking about.

However, I think there is merit in the phrase "better science," at the very least. The NRC report, should it exist, set out with the intention of upholding the results of a study with enormously flawed methods. Maybe Wegman set out to disprove GW with his report, maybe not. Thus, in the worst case scenario, neither report would be an example of "good science."

But, how about we debate the actual merits of the reports. Do you have anything from a scientific perspective with which you can disagree from the Wegman report?

6/15/2007 8:13:56 PM

^
Yes--but briefly since I"m heading to Yosemite in a few minutes--look at figure 4.1 of Wegman's report. Notice its similiarity to Mann's time series. Damning, no? Then look at the y-axis. No wonder he didn't plot them on the same plot! If his point is that you can come up with random time series that look like the 'Hockey Stick' time series then this isn't very suprising. If you filter through random data you can often find structures in the data that look like something non-random. Or these guys may have took a random time series with similiar statistical attributes as the Hockey Stick data and then did the PCA analsys you find their random data completely fails to reproduce the 'Hockey Stick' data b/c it can't reproduce the amplitude of the series. In anycase, from my quick reading of it, they either made an irrelevant point or one that undermines their argument.

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 9:15 PM. Reason : x]

6/15/2007 9:14:52 PM

clearly you didn't read section 4 of that report, then. Wegman's point was that, given an improper choice of a certain set of data for use as a "centering" set, you could dramatically affect your results, effectively favoring certain shapes, even with random data points.

The y-scale doesn't matter in this case. This isn't a simple matter of plotting temperature versus time. It's a matter of plotting estimated temperature vs time. Mann used a method of eliminating some uncertainty in the estimations that required centering sets that fit certain conditions. He then used as a centering set data that didn't fit those conditions. The end result is that his results would always be prone to the hockey-stick shape. This is an absolutely valid argument, and the use of truly random data sets, with the slight exception of of one section, is apt, because it perfectly describes what happened with Mann's analysis.

6/15/2007 10:06:16 PM

Limited role for C02
The Deniers -- Part X
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Quote :

"Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming. Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect. Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities. Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause."

Quote :

"Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: 'Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.' 'In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.' Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.[/b] All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is 'incriminating circumstantial evidence,' which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding 'evidence of fingerprints.' Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, 'without other "suspects."' However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible 'other suspects,' he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming. 'Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,' he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that 'it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.' The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate. [b]Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, 'will not dramatically increase the global temperature,' Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: 'Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.' The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate. In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity. CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution. 'I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue.' His conclusion: 'I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go.'"

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 12:00 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2007 11:56:13 PM

Quote :

"Helping along global warming By Bill Steigerwald, TRIBUNE-REVIEW, Sunday, June 17, 2007 Remember in January when the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its good friends in media trumpeted that 2006 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States? NOAA based that finding - which allegedly capped a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" - on the daily temperature data that its National Climatic Data Center gathers from about 1,221 mostly rural weather observation stations around the country. Few people have ever seen or even heard of these small, simple-but-reliable weather stations, which quietly make up what NOAA calls its United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). But the stations play an important role in detecting and analyzing regional climate change. More ominously, they provide the official baseline historical temperature data that politically motivated global-warming alarmists like James Hansen of NASA plug into their computer climate models to predict various apocalypses. NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations -- which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers -- because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900. But Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they're cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly. To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts' site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it's on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it's next to a drum where trash is burned. Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports. "I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment." Meanwhile, you probably missed the latest about 2006. As NOAA reported on May 1 - with minimum mainstream-media fanfare - 2006 actually was the second- warmest year ever recorded in America, not the first. At an annual average of 54.9 degrees F, it was a whopping 0.08 degrees cooler than 1998, still the hottest year. NOAA explained that it had updated its 2006 report "to reflect revised statistics" and "better address uncertainties in the instrumental record." This tinkering is standard procedure. NOAA always scientifically tweaks temperature readings for various reasons -- weather stations are moved to different locations, modernized, affected by increased urbanization, etc. NOAA didn't say whether it had adjusted for uncertainties caused by nearby burn barrels. "

So climate models are using highly questionable input data. Once again the facts get in the way of those heart-wrenching scenes of polar bears.

6/18/2007 11:02:34 AM

well you speak of bias, that report screams of bias. the tone is mocking. that is not how a science article should be written. it certainly doesn't lend any credibility to the author that he himself might have actually listened to more than one source for his information.

6/18/2007 1:30:04 PM

^ Exactly.

Quote :

"Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports. "

There are 1200 something of these stations, a few bad ones won't meaningfully skew the data, and if they did, just throw them out. It would only be a problem if a significant amount of the sensors were bad/in bad locations.

6/18/2007 1:33:23 PM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, you probably missed the latest about 2006. As NOAA reported on May 1 - with minimum mainstream-media fanfare - 2006 actually was the second- warmest year ever recorded in America, not the first. At an annual average of 54.9 degrees F, it was a whopping 0.08 degrees cooler than 1998, still the hottest year."

so the fact that we had the second hottest year ever (2nd to a year in the past ten) is supposed to assuage our fears of global warming somehow?

6/18/2007 1:44:20 PM

i dont think anything will ever calm your fears

btw 2nd hottest year in the last ~100, not "ever"

and that of course assumes we had accurate thermometers 100 years ago

6/18/2007 2:46:50 PM

i figure that one can read the quote that i posted. obviously it's not ever.

6/18/2007 2:52:40 PM

but ever sounds a lot scarier than "in the last 100 years, probably"

6/18/2007 2:53:22 PM

i meant to type "ever recorded".

6/18/2007 2:56:07 PM

Global warming tour heads from Charlotte to Wilmington

Quote :

"'Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, has attracted a lot of attention in theaters, in public schools, even in showings at people’s homes,' said Dr. Roy Cordato, JLF Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar. 'The fact is there is a lot of misinformation in the movie. Much of it is hyperbole, exaggeration, or just statements that are flat-out wrong. The record needs to be corrected, and we hope that will happen on this tour.' American Enterprise Institute scientist and environmental consultant Joel Schwartz will lead the tour. Schwartz has prepared a citizen's guide to help North Carolina sort facts from fiction in the global warming debate, Cordato said. 'It's important to do this because North Carolina is looking at adopting a whole series of policies, regulations, and taxes to force the state's citizens to use less energy,' he said. 'We want to look at how sensible that is. Joel's tour will draw attention to that and ask the question: Does it make sense for North Carolina to go in this direction?'"

http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/display_story.html?id=266

Schwartz's credentials:

http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all,scholarID.80/scholar.asp

6/18/2007 3:25:58 PM

hey look! another scientist paid by a think-tank!

6/18/2007 3:30:52 PM

The end is near!

6/18/2007 3:34:57 PM

i really don't know why you're painting me as some doomsday guy. but science sponsored by the likes of american enterprise institute or the john locke foundation is pretty lame.

and for the record: i've seen inconvenient truth and there are certainly some red herrings there. i think some of it was put there in good faith. i think some of it was probably put there to make the problem a little more simplistic than it actually is.

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2007 3:37:40 PM

^ From that press release, there's no indication of any actual science.

6/18/2007 3:40:14 PM

^^i think some of it was put there to pad al gore's pockets with his doomsday scenarios, plays on emotion, and carbon credit company

6/18/2007 3:44:39 PM

and you think the american enterprise institute isn't even more concerned about their bottom line than science?

6/18/2007 3:48:37 PM

you think Al Gore gives a shit about anything but his pockets? Maybe if he really cared about science he wouldn't put lies and exaggerations in his movie simply to scare people

6/18/2007 3:49:55 PM

Quote :

"A scientist and environmental consultant, Joel Schwartz has spent much of his professional life working in California on environmental issues. He headed the California state agency tasked with evaluating the state's vehicle emissions inspection program and has also worked at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, RAND, and the Coalition for Clean Air. At AEI, Schwartz continues to work on environmental issues and is the author of the forthcoming book Air Quality in America. He also writes for AEI’s Environmental Policy Outlook. Professional Experience -Environmental consultant, 2002-present -Senior scientist and director, Air Quality Project, Reason Public Policy Institute, 2000-2002 -California Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee, executive officer, 1997-2000; special consultant, 1994-1995 -Senior policy analyst, California Legislature's Analyst's Office, 1995-1997 -Environmental consultant, Division of Social Policy, RAND Corporation and South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1994 -Staff scientist, Coalition for Clean Air, 1991-1994 Education German Marshall Fund Fellow (research into European solutions to transportation-related air pollution problems), 1993 M.S., planetary science, California Institute of Technology B.A., chemistry, Cornell University"

Yeah, but a couple of A-holes on TWW probably know more than this guy does. BTW, getting paid for one's work is not unethical--I mean, everybody can't work for Greenpeace and Sierra Club.

6/18/2007 3:51:23 PM

^^honestly i don't think he particularly cares about science. i think he does care about the environment. and unfortunately, he spreads his message sometimes at the expense of complete disclosure of the entire subject at hand. as you know, the true intricacies of the science aren't understood by anyone, nor could the current state of the science be explained in a feature-length documentary.

6/18/2007 3:58:57 PM

so dont you think the movie is extremely misleading to the general public based on those intricacies?

6/18/2007 4:04:36 PM

i think some of the movie is misleading, sure. the majority of the movie i didn't have much of a problem with. my main issues with the movie were the fact that they tried to imply that hurricane katrina was a direct result of global warming and that the science was more sure than it actually is.

6/18/2007 4:11:33 PM

sounds pretty misleading to me

6/18/2007 4:15:38 PM

okay? your point? this is what i've been saying for months and months

6/18/2007 4:16:49 PM

^x5 I, too, care deeply about the environment--I live in it. But I simply do not think that hysteria-driven policies are what is needed.

We are not in immediate danger--if any danger--from climate change, so a reasoned, measured approach needs to be taken concerning any policy changes. I do not see reason in the so-called consensus--I see a lot of pot-banging, bug-eyed loons trying to turn even more of my liberty over to centralized governmental and quasi-governmental entities.

I cannot and will not support the IPCC blather. Can you understand my position?

Quote :

"as you know, the true intricacies of the science aren't understood by anyone, nor could the current state of the science be explained in a feature-length documentary."

sarijoul

Really? 'Cause these IPCC folks sure as hell are trying to sound like they understand the "true intricacies of the science":

Quote :

"The report found it was 'likely' -- 'more likely than not' in some cases -- that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed to hotter days and nights, and more of them, more killer heat waves than before, heavier rainfall more often, major droughts in more regions, stronger and more frequent cyclones and 'increased incidence' of extremely high sea levels. The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12 warmest years on record with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. Add in the melt-off of glaciers and sea ice and sea levels are rising."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2007 4:23:28 PM

^^so you're saying that yes, the movie is misleading, but no, you didnt have much of a problem with the majority of the movie?

6/18/2007 4:59:09 PM