The New Global Warming Thread

[leejo]

Open mouth:

Haha. The "new data" from NASA, eh? What a trustworthy source they have turned out to be for climate data...

Insert foot:

Jim Hansen, director of NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies(aka GIS from the link you mocked before, AKA the guy who published then revised DOWNward the data I posted - leejo), in an email interview:

"The argument about whether there is global warming is over. It is now clear that, for thirty years, we have been in a strong global warming trend at a rate of about 0.2 Celsius per decade for the past 30 years, [meaning] there has been 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius) global warming in the past 30 years. The Earth is now at its warmest level in the period of instrumental data, that is, since the late 1800s."

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time, you silly person.

[GlobalWarmin]

Right. But the articles linked there are often from major news sources. You're putting your head in the sand if you refuse to read an article just because a blog you don't like has a link to it. Also, review the scientists listed there. Decent bona fides, etc. Aren't you in the slightest curious to see the data?

Did you even check out those sources before you made that claim?! All of those except one are from articles that appeared in the ultra-conservative Canadian rag known as the National Post!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

Please show me an article from those GOP bloggers that is actually from a real newspaper.

Over and over again, all I am presented with are politically bias blogs.

[GlobalWarmin]

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time, you silly person.

Hardly.

This is why informed people are skeptical of NASA now, not Hansen (he's one of the good ones):

NASA Reaches for Muzzle as Renowned Climate Scientist Speaks Out
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...es-hansen.html

Dr. Hansen pointed out that Bush administration attempts to control scientific information on climate change were not limited to NASA, and that colleagues at NOAA have told him that conditions there are, in general, much worse.10 Said Hansen, "In my thirty-some years of experience in government, I've never seen control to the degree that it's occurring now. I think that it's very harmful to the way that a democracy works. We need to inform the public if they are to make the right decisions and influence policy makers."

[leejo]

OK. I'm going down to the bus station now to shove my thumb up my butt and start singing.

[Kerostasis]

Did you even check out those sources before you made that claim?! All of those except one are from articles that appeared in the ultra-conservative Canadian rag known as the National Post!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

Please show me an article from those GOP bloggers that is actually from a real newspaper.

Over and over again, all I am presented with are politically bias blogs.

Er...slightly misstated there. "One" of the articles is from the National post. Not "all but one". Did you even bother to scan the links? There's links to credible news stories from a dozen different news agencies, as well as published scientific studies.

But all you can see is the "GOP" label sitting at the top of the blog, making the whole thing worthless to you. Because after all, Global warming is a republican political issue, and only republicans could ever lie about it. Democrats clearly don't consider it to be a political issue at all, and would certainly never lie about it or exploit it for political gain. (hint hint, Al Gore).

[GlobalWarmin]

Yeah, I read the whole thing. Are going to comment on the wikipedia link?

edit:
And so you are saying that there are credible scientists that disagree right? I mean it was in Livescience and everything.

I know that there are real people who are accomplished scientists that disagree with mainstream science about global warming. When does everyone ever agree on anything, especially about something as complicated as the climate? The problem for them is that few inside the scientific community find their claims to be convincing, and too many of those dissenting voices are coming from the wrong places. Until those few opinions can budge mainstream science on the issue, why should I believe them with any certainty? People think the Earth is flat, but every time there is news about space or the planet, the media doesn't put some crack-pot on to talk about the "other side to the issue" -- and for good reason! The same goes for a thousand other issues that people dispute, but mainstream science does not.

The central issue feeding this whole thing is that those few scientist who disagree with the IPCC assessments often get equal mainstream media time in the interest of fairness. However, there are seemingly efforts by not only the GOP, but also by scientific associations and publications to mask the evidence that counters their arguments (until it is proven at least). This really clouds things for the public who doesn't follow science very closely. Lets be real, none of us are probably in a position to launch their own comprehensive study on the clime. Then add in all the noise from the Right, and this issue seems a lot more confusing than it is. The science is real, the verdict is in: global warming is real and partially fueled by human activity.

[USN_Squid]

The science is real, the verdict is in: global warming is real and partially fueled by human activity.

I just don't see how you can continue to say that and honestly believe it.

"It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC) chapter " on the detection of greenhouse warming. "I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue (the argument that global warming is caused by human industrial activity) was a done deal." Dr. Benjamin Santer, climate expert and contributor to the UN- sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

[CingularDuality]

I just don't see how you can continue to say that and honestly believe it.

"It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC) chapter " on the detection of greenhouse warming. "I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue (the argument that global warming is caused by human industrial activity) was a done deal." Dr. Benjamin Santer, climate expert and contributor to the UN- sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Haha! That's from the ONLY place that he really believes, too!

[deathknight]

Get over your own bitterness. Sorry you don't like the president, but he got elected. Whatever you may think, he cannot simply ignore the constitution. It's not like he went to war in Iraq without the approval of congress(Or the U.N. for that matter, though we don't need their permission to do anything ) . Can you cite an example of the current administration ignoring the constitution and getting away with it?

Feel free to elect the next Jimmy Carter come '08. And I'll be big enough to accept it rather than cry revolution for eight years.

1. The wiretapping which violated the law.
2. Signing statements which violate the constitution.
3. The arresting of people and denying them their right to see an attorney or be charged with a crime? This one is debatable as he could claim it was a time of public danger but that only allows him to avoid the grand jury requirement not the ability to deny them due process nor the writ of habeus corpus.
4. Violating the terms of the Geneva Convention which the US is a willing participant and he is bound by his oath to the constitution to uphold.

On the subject of the solar radiation theory, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml, I find it dubious at best to put faith in a test that has not been done yet. This is still in the experimental stages. The scientist has yet to do the test with the particle accelerator and even if successful it will still not prove/disprove that the warming of the earth is due to solar radiation.

[GlobalWarmin]

I just don't see how you can continue to say that and honestly believe it.

"It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC) chapter " on the detection of greenhouse warming. "I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue (the argument that global warming is caused by human industrial activity) was a done deal." Dr. Benjamin Santer, climate expert and contributor to the UN- sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

That quote is from when/where? We need a link. I think that quote is probably from around 1996, when he was in trouble for editing the chapter he wrote when he was part of the IPCC, at least that is what it sounds like, which would make it another bad example to try and show that current mainstream science does not accept global warming.

Regardless, what one person says about climate isn't nearly as important as what the largest scientific associations in the world say (like the AAAS) and the world's leading authority (like it or not) on climate change, the IPCC, claim. There are 'armies' of scientists to support the position I am defending, and all the critics can do is talk about their 'insurgents', shouting their names out loud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer

[GlobalWarmin]

... I'm merely believing more and more that they are chasing a ghost. I seem to have a knack for being misunderstood, so I'll say it again - yes, I believe humans are and have been changing the Earth's climate, weather, oceans, soil and various species of plants and animals - mostly for the worse. I am only stating that I'm beginning to realize that we may never hold the solid 'proof' that skeptics require. It's unfortunate. I wish the proof were, but it just isn't. There's proof of ongoing climate change - everywhere, but aside from coincidence, we lack the fingerprints of man.

We have the fingerprints of man. We have the proof. There's being skeptical and there is just refusing to accept what is true. It's more like a state of global warming denial than skepticism. Every single person doesn't agree, but everything I have read in the past few years -- and especially over the past couple days -- has made it quite clear that the scientists that matter are as certain as scientists are allowed to be about global warming.

[USN_Squid]

That quote is from when/where? We need a link. I think that quote is probably from around 1996, when he was in trouble for editing the chapter he wrote when he was part of the IPCC, at least that is what it sounds like, which would make it another bad example to try and show that current mainstream science does not accept global warming.

Regardless, what one person says about climate isn't nearly as important as what the largest scientific associations in the world say (like the AAAS) and the world's leading authority (like it or not) on climate change, the IPCC, claim. There are 'armies' of scientists to support the position I am defending, and all the critics can do is talk about their 'insurgents', shouting their names out loud. {Squid~finally something I agree with}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer

Dude, you're unbelievable. Whatever you can do to avoid any assault on your preconcieved notions eh?

Dr. Santer was "in trouble" (are we in timeout?) for editing a portion of the IPCC report for which he was responsible. Sounds reasonable, and oh what's this? He changed it to support evidence of man made global warming. edit: I think he still supports this position.

I'll quote your wiki source since I don't think you read it:

"The Science & Environmental Policy Project in 1996 accused Dr. Santer of altering Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report on the science of climate change, deleting phrases that suggested scientific doubts about human influences on climate to make the report conform to the IPCC Policymakers Summary, a political document.

The charge was repeated by Frederick Seitz in a June 12, 1996 editorial-page piece "A Major Deception on 'Global Warming'" in the Wall Street Journal. Dr. Seitz claimed that the alterations made to Chapter 8, after a November 1995 IPCC meeting held in Madrid, were in violation of IPCC rules of procedure, and that their effect is to "deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming." Similar claims of procedural improprieties were made by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a consortium of industry interests.

Santer and 40 other scientists responded to the Wall Street Journal that all IPCC procedural rules were followed, and that IPCC procedures required changes to the draft in response to comments from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations. They stated that the pre- and post-Madrid versions of Chapter 8 were equally cautious in their statements; that roughly 20% of Chapter 8 is devoted to the discussion of uncertainties in estimates of natural climate variability and the expected "signal" due to human activities; and that both versions of the chapter reached the same conclusion: "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on climate."

[Kerostasis]

[@AMosely]
We have the fingerprints of man. We have the proof. There's being skeptical and there is just refusing to accept what is true. It's more like a state of global warming denial than skepticism. Every single person doesn't agree, but everything I have read in the past few years -- and especially over the past couple days -- has made it quite clear that the scientists that matter are as certain as scientists are allowed to be about global warming.

Dude, AMosely is probably your biggest ally in this thread. Why are you attacking him? Do you want to end the discussion with even less support than you started with?

[GlobalWarmin]

Dude, you're unbelievable. Whatever you can do to avoid any assault on your preconcieved notions eh?

Dr. Santer was "in trouble" (are we in timeout?) for editing a portion of the IPCC report for which he was responsible. Sounds reasonable, and oh what's this? He changed it to support evidence of man made global warming. edit: I think he still supports this position.

I'll quote your wiki source since I don't think you read it:

"The Science & Environmental Policy Project in 1996 accused Dr. Santer of altering Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report on the science of climate change, deleting phrases that suggested scientific doubts about human influences on climate to make the report conform to the IPCC Policymakers Summary, a political document.

The charge was repeated by Frederick Seitz in a June 12, 1996 editorial-page piece "A Major Deception on 'Global Warming'" in the Wall Street Journal. Dr. Seitz claimed that the alterations made to Chapter 8, after a November 1995 IPCC meeting held in Madrid, were in violation of IPCC rules of procedure, and that their effect is to "deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming." Similar claims of procedural improprieties were made by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a consortium of industry interests.

Santer and 40 other scientists responded to the Wall Street Journal that all IPCC procedural rules were followed, and that IPCC procedures required changes to the draft in response to comments from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations. They stated that the pre- and post-Madrid versions of Chapter 8 were equally cautious in their statements; that roughly 20% of Chapter 8 is devoted to the discussion of uncertainties in estimates of natural climate variability and the expected "signal" due to human activities; and that both versions of the chapter reached the same conclusion: "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on climate."

What exactly is the point you are trying to prove about that wikipidia article? The only reason I linked it was to back my claim that the quote used by him was probably from around 1996. Anyways, Santer supposedly says both version of his chapter concluded that the results point towards a human influence on climate. He doesn't sound like much of anti-global warming activist who proves mainstream science isn't behind the IPCC.

[GlobalWarmin]

In case anyone wants to read an interesting global warming thread:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3150

These people do a better job a squashing the arguments of global warming skeptics. Very thorough indeed. Just read through the first page of posts... they eat the uninformed and bias for breakfast on that forum! Read through it and see that even self-proclaimed skeptics are virtually unanimous in favor of the current mainstream global warming predictions.

I am trying so hard to find good, non bias anti-global warming information. It's not easy... only more and more about how the GOP is attacking science, Americans are confused, and the science behind global warming is overwhelming. Sounds about right.

edit