The New Global Warming Thread

[Lucky Shot]

Your quoting George Bush as basis for proof of Global Warming?

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

Your quoting George Bush as basis for proof of Global Warming?

Lucky Shot

Are you still dodging my simple requests? Why do you keep posting to discuss this with me if you aren't going to discuss anything?

And, yes, I am quoting George Bush as basis for proof of global warming. He is one of the most stubbornly conservative politicians on the planet, and even he NOW openly accepts that global warming is real. I can't even imagine the vast amounts of evidence that it would take for that man to change his mind! This also is evidence to back my claim that GOP policy makers accept the science behind global warming, but are just using it to create another divisive issue to bring people to the polls.

You have yet to show as support of your claims:

- One news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

- Proof that either Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others are disreputable in the eyes of independent watchdog groups, science organizations, major news media, or journalists organizations.

[Lucky Shot]

I must admit, while GlobalWarmin's forum behavior is a bit raucus, these are intriguing questions and shouldn't be dismissed quite so easily. Regardless of the IPCC's stated bias toward the human factor - I've seen no comparable organization - political, media or scientific (and the IPCC most certainly is a independent scientific organization) - that comes close to their level of analysis and conclusion. If someone has come across such a group, of any composition, please submit that information to this thread.

What you are seeing though, Mosely, is an increasing amount of people questioning the validity of the science behind the IPCC findings. Questions that are going unanswered such as why the IPCC only decided to take temperatures from 6 continents this time around not including Antartica? Have they updated their numbers to reflect the changes in US temperatures? Why don't they publish the programs used for their global warming computer models for outside analysis? Are there issues with the stations that are used to gather temperature information that may be artificially driving the numbers higher?

You have weathermen publicly questioning the concept of human induced global warming and they have a solid grasp on the weather. On top of that you have astrologists, climatogists, meteorologists and any number of other scientists coming out questioning some of the reports coming out by the IPCC. I doubt you will see a monster sized government back political group like the IPCC set up on the opposition side until it comes time to claim Global Cooling.

There is an awful lot of scaremongering out there regarding climate change and it's to a point of ridiculousness. I read an article today about potential global warming and increased heat causing more heart attacks and wonder why they don't discuss any of the heart attacks that happen from shoveling snow. Heat related deaths are mentioned, cold related deaths which last I saw outnumbered heat related deaths weren't covered. Did you know Mt. Shasta's glaciers were growing? Probably not, but if they were shrinking it would be all over the media.

Cing, I don't know why the thread is still going. We asked for Global Warmin to back up his position and it took him 170 posts to actually link anything substantial. He was asked at least 6 times to read through the whole thread and has failed to do it. It's a joke.

Lucky Shot

[Lucky Shot]

Are you still dodging my simple requests? Why do you keep posting to discuss this with me if you aren't going to discuss anything?

Start reading through here: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ush-admin.html

Read through this thread here: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ng-thread.html
Plenty of links to browse through that should be able to hit all of your requests.

Your links are in this thread already

[GlobalWarmin]

What you are seeing though, Mosely, is an increasing amount of people questioning the validity of the science behind the IPCC findings. Questions that are going unanswered such as why the IPCC only decided to take temperatures from 6 continents this time around not including Antartica? Have they updated their numbers to reflect the changes in US temperatures? Why don't they publish the programs used for their global warming computer models for outside analysis? Are there issues with the stations that are used to gather temperature information that may be artificially driving the numbers higher?

You have [http://www.clevelandseniors.com/home...htm]weathermen [/url] publicly questioning the concept of human induced global warming and they have a solid grasp on the weather. On top of that you have astrologists, climatogists, meteorologists and any number of other scientists coming out questioning some of the reports coming out by the IPCC. I doubt you will see a monster sized government back political group like the IPCC set up on the opposition side until it comes time to claim Global Cooling.

There is an awful lot of scaremongering out there regarding climate change and it's to a point of ridiculousness. I read an article today about potential global warming and increased heat causing more heart attacks and wonder why they don't discuss any of the heart attacks that happen from shoveling snow. Heat related deaths are mentioned, cold related deaths which last I saw outnumbered heat related deaths weren't covered. Did you know Mt. Shasta's glaciers were growing? Probably not, but if they were shrinking it would be all over the media.

Cing, I don't know why the thread is still going. We asked for Global Warmin to back up his position and it took him 170 posts to actually link anything substantial. He was asked at least 6 times to read through the whole thread and has failed to do it. It's a joke.

Lucky Shot

This is nothing but opinion by you. You seem obsessed with any one person who shares your opinions, which are often taken out of context to give the illusion of controversy, and you are completely ignoring the fact that you can't name one respectable group of scientists who will say the same. Even you said yourself, there are individuals from different professions who are "questioning some of the findings" by the IPCC. Questioning findings is what scientists do. Questioning some of the finding is pretty irrelevant to the issue. To read a story about a scientist questioning some data numbers about global warming by no means even suggests that they do not believe in global warming, or that it is happening right now, or that it will continue in the future. That is not doubt about this issue, that is doubt about a few decimal points.

Your link doesn't work, and is from a Northern Ohio Newspaper for seniors? That by no means is even close to a major source of news and science. How can you seriously post something like that to prove your point? Northern Ohio Seniors... the most trusted name in current science!

I provided evidence for my position quite quickly. I wasn't even here to talk about my opinion, I was here asking others about theirs, since I had no idea that people still debated about global warming. You have been attacking me since I first posted here. I wasn't even talking to you when I first posted. Furthermore, I only had to make a long post detailing everything I had ALREADY mentioned to stop having to hear about how I hadn't provided any information, so that we could move on to seeing you in turn:

- Find one news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

- Proof that either Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others are disreputable in the eyes of independent watchdog groups, science organizations, major news media, or journalists organizations.

You need to do all of those things to back up your own words. I don't see why you have the time to talk about your opinions more, which are already in this thread 100 times I would assume, and not prove what you are saying with evidence like I have requested.

[Greasy Mullet]

Bush is NOT a conservative as an FYI, and the only reason he is taking his current positions on the cult of man made global warming is to appease those people in that cult in Europe. I am just more and more amazed every day at how many otherwise intelligent and rational people get suckered into the lie of man made global warming. But then again... I say the same thing about a lot of liberals in general too.

Man made global warming is the biggest hoax of the last 100+ years since it began.

/me shrugs

[GlobalWarmin]

Man made global warming is the biggest hoax of the last 100+ years since it began.

Then you should have no trouble finding those news stories either It's your fault that I am here anyways. If your posts aren't flame bait for being opinion without evidence I don't know what is.

Come to think of it, you need to provide a whole lot more evidence for your statements than Lucky does.

[Lucky Shot]

You haven't read the threads yet, and by all standards have avoided 90% of the questions asked and have avoided pressing any links. Read through those links and you will find the answers to most of your questions. Let me know when you have that done.

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

You haven't read the threads yet, and by all standards have avoided 90% of the questions asked and have avoided pressing any links. Read through those links and you will find the answers to most of your questions. Let me know when you have that done.

Lucky Shot

I have avoided 90% of the questions you asked me?

What do you want to ask? Ask away....

[Lucky Shot]

Start at page 35 and look through as many different people asked you questions that you flat out ignored. The Cleveland article was original in the Cleveland Plain Dealer but has since been dropped of their website, you can find other sites out there but it won't be on livescience.

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

Start at page 35 and look through as many different people asked you questions that you flat out ignored.

Lucky Shot

So, what did you want to ask me since I ignored 90% of your questions? You don't even know what your own questions were?

Please ask me because I don't want you to think that I am dodging your questions like you are dodging mine.

[Lucky Shot]

So, what did you want to ask me since I ignored 90% of your questions? You don't even know what your own questions were?

Please ask me because I don't want you to think that I am dodging your questions like you are dodging mine.

Ok, let me ask this. In the last 13 pages a number of questions were asked of you by a number of people, what is your answer for them? Also, please tell me what you have learned form reading through those two TG links I gave you previously in regards to your questions you keep demanding of me?

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

Anti-Global Warming Internet Links:
1) http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm (opinion of one scientist, before latest IPCC assessment)

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way.

2) http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...cd20bed2f6&k=0 (Canadian anti-Liberal newspaper, posted by Lucky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post#Origins)
3) http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf (opinion of one person who is a British Neo-Con journalist, US Squid) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo...n_of_Brenchley)
4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml (controversial opinion of one Danish scientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark )
Telegraph:

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

5) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece (Real newspaper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timesonline.co.uk reporting the opinion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark, so this is duplicate information)
6) http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ (website ran by Fox News commentator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkscience.com)
Wikipedia:

Milloy's close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.[2][3][4][5]

7) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html (reputable source, opinion of one scientist head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia)
Counter-Point by same source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html
8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRKApUV-aU
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle
10) http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html (opinion piece by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter)
Wikipedia:

Carter is a prominent global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming.[1][2]
Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [4], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, an organisation set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

11) http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...85924-sun.html (opinion piece by conservative journalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Byfield )
12) http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/am...6-year-america (opinion by Canadian Conservative journalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn )
13) http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less...rticle8641.htm (opinion blog by author with no notoriety that puts a spin on one survey to try and show a lack of consensus about GW http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 )
Science:

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.

Pro-Global Warming Internet Links:
1) www.ipcc.ch
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sc...rssnyt&emc=rss
3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ttribution.png
6) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nbouquet10.xml
7) http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf
8) http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...arge/05.24.jpg
9) http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics.htm
10) http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...TOKEN=76314259
11) http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...23701020070601
12) http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...greenland.html
13) http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env..._glaciers.html
14) http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...ger_point.html
15) http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
16) http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...10482220070606
17) http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
18) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
19) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...8-projections/
20) http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl.../deforest.html
21) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
22) http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20060323a.html
23) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...ghlights2.html
24) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...Review_Process
25) http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0
26) http://online.wsj.com/public/article...html?mod=blogs
27) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
28) http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
29) http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/default.asp
30) http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/qa/
31) http://www.uspirg.org/issues/global-warming-solutions
32) http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate...ness/index.cfm
33) http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/
34) http://nationalacademies.org/Results...a =Search#837
35) http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/...rism3main.html
36) http://www.agu.org/ (supports global warming and North America's largest professional association of Earth and climate scientists)
37) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America... limate_change (their official position on climate change)
38) http://www.ametsoc.org/
39) http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-1480/ (Climate Change Journal)
40) http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/egustatement.pdf (European Geosciences Union responds to attacks by US House Committee on the IPCC)
41) http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf (statement by the Joint science academies of the world confirming global warming)
42) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222
43) http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
44) http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html (exposes GW critics)
45) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...ract/1115602v1
46) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...dtemp2005.html
47) http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Global-...lth20aug00.htm
48) http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/ (sun cannot explain current warming trend)
49) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...gerprints.html (Human fingerprints for GW)
50) http://www.climateark.org/news/
51) http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...t14oct99_1.htm (shows no correlation between sun spots and temperatures)
52) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733060/ (Shell Oil says debate is over)
53) http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/09/14/68960
54) http://timlambert.org/2005/02/clueless-2/ (blog)
55) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sunspots.html (Sunspots not causing GW)
56) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nganimals.html
57) http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-warming_x.htm
58) http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Classr...l_Warming.html
59) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...7C83414B7F0000
60) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=100 (Climate modeling accuracy)
61) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration (disproves the dated notion that there is no consensus on GW)
*sorry for the few bad links

Other Links Provided:
1) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
2) http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7135
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzian_function
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonan...ambiguation%29
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-...e_of_the_Earth
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Chamber
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk
10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_re...of_peer_review
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
12) http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students.../holocene.html
13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_...s_to_authority
14) http://web.mac.com/ryskind/Site/The_...ketchbook.html
15) http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=a6JuMPizIG6o
16) http://www.pointofexistence.com/foru...opic=10659&hl=
17) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ngreen211.xml
18) http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/wp-co...c%20PWNAGE.jpg
19) http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org....aspx?Event=12
20) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL028764.shtml
21) http://www.thedenverchannel.com/weat...s=den&psp=news
22) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
23) http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...ype=RSS&rpc=22
24) http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...CLI3587.1&ct=1



I'm not sorting through anymore. I think I've made my point. It's very clear that everything in favor of global warming is very scientific and reputable. You have nothing scientific from any major news source that backs a word you say. In fact, like I've said many times, everything that has been mentioned to back a skeptical stance on global warming is the opinion of one scientist, likely taken out of context, or the opinion of one person with direct ties to conservative groups or oil companies.

[Lucky Shot]

Ok, let me ask this. In the last 13 pages a number of questions were asked of you by a number of people, what is your answer for them? Also, please tell me what you have learned form reading through those two TG links I gave you previously in regards to your questions you keep demanding of me?

Lucky Shot

^^

[Kerostasis]

Ok, final comment:

Globalwarmin, you realize that the level of proof required to prove "climate change" and the level of proof required to prove "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change" are very different, right? Since our reaction as a society to "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change" must necessarily be very different from our reacion to plain ol' ordinary "climate change", it seems important to clarify the difference. You seem to have a tendency to lump all the evidence for both together though, and just call the whole thing "proven" without bothering to debate the severity.