Why post the fark article without posting the comments?

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/com...?IDLink=2588494

I would contend that the submitter of the thread got his ass thoroughly handed to him. When the world's leading climatologists have 90% confidence with respect to the affects of global warming there's not much room to dance around on.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

2007-02-05 02:09:05 PM Corvus Actually if you read the REAL article he makes a lot of interesting points. Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing However he does not say what the article says he says. Unlike the article he does feel that Man is a major contributor to global warming. And he does believe going off the use of fossil fuels. But this seems to not make the article.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

Thanks Venom, I was actually going to post that before my ISP decided it was a good time for maintenance...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Here...throw this onto the pile.

quote:

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball Monday, February 5, 2007 Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why. What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on? Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976. I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent. I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint. In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment? Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence. I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises. Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention. Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information. I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction. Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [email protected]

Bottom line...as much a we'd like to, there is no way to conclusively prove the "what" and "why" of current global climate change...much less say "it's all our fault." The field of climatology on the long-term scale is just too limited as of now. That being said, should would be as smart as possible with the environment? Hell yeah. But this chicken little bull is ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Here...throw this onto the pile.

Ugh, I was half-way through a long reply to this then I closed the window accidentally.

So fuck it, here's the abridged version.

quote:

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith.

"Scientists have been wrong in the past, so perhaps they're wrong now!"

Global cooling was never really considered a threat by the scientific community, nor was it thought to be caused by humans.

Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...entieth_Century

quote:

Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present.

"There has been non-anthropogenic climate change in the past, therefore current climate change must be non-anthropogenic as well!"

The point is that we know why the "LIA" occurred: unusually low solar activity and unusually high volcanic activity.

Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age#Causes

There are no similar explanations for the current anomalies in global climate. This leads me neatly into my next point:

quote:

These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

"The sun did it!"

I'll just let the graphs do the talking. Can you spot the correlation?





Yeah, didn't think so.

quote:

It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

"I'm just making shit up!"

I would like to see just one credible climate model that predicts a period of cooling over the next century. The fact is that there isn't: all models predict a period of warming in the absense of a reduction of anthropogenic pollution.

quote:

Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

"Scientists generally accept the veracity of undenibale, empirical facts!"

Funny that. Next he'll bemoan the lack of biology professors speaking out against the dogmatic theory of evolution!

quote:

This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

"The government is trying to coerce scientists into promoting its own agenda!"

Well he certainly got that one right:

quote:

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming. Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work. The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/

quote:

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Crichton also believes that you can create living dinosaurs by crushing fossilised bones up with frog DNA and that you can travel back in time if you fly a lead-plated ship into a black hole. Suffice to say, his cherry-picking "science" on the issue of global warming has been widely debunked:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...te-of-fear.html

quote:

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun."

And the research now completely supports the consensus.

QED.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Ugh, I was half-way through a long reply to this then I closed the window accidentally. So fuck it, here's the abridged version. "Scientists have been wrong in the past, so perhaps they're wrong now!" Global cooling was never really considered a threat by the scientific community, nor was it thought to be caused by humans. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...entieth_Century "There has been non-anthropogenic climate change in the past, therefore current climate change must be non-anthropogenic as well!" The point is that we know why the "LIA" occurred: unusually low solar activity and unusually high volcanic activity. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age#Causes There are no similar explanations for the current anomalies in global climate. This leads me neatly into my next point: "The sun did it!" I'll just let the graphs do the talking. Can you spot the correlation? Yeah, didn't think so. "I'm just making shit up!" I would like to see just one credible climate model that predicts a period of cooling over the next century. The fact is that there isn't: all models predict a period of warming in the absense of a reduction of anthropogenic pollution. "Scientists generally accept the veracity of undenibale, empirical facts!" Funny that. Next he'll bemoan the lack of biology professors speaking out against the dogmatic theory of evolution! "The government is trying to coerce scientists into promoting its own agenda!" Well he certainly got that one right: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/ Crichton also believes that you can create living dinosaurs by crushing fossilised bones up with frog DNA and that you can travel back in time if you fly a lead-plated ship into a black hole. Suffice to say, his cherry-picking "science" on the issue of global warming has been widely debunked: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...te-of-fear.html And the research now completely supports the consensus. QED.

Why dont you claim that global cooling periods like the Little Ice Age of medieval times is caused by humans? How about looking into ice core samples, and history? Huh? What about the constant patterns of glaciation, and current trends according to ecological history? Its not just the solar energy that's a factor. Its the spin of the earth - the equinoxes, called the Milankovitch cycles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

And they match the climate change ;-)

Only time will tell, when in the middle of this century people will start whining about global cooling ... LOL

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Well, humans back then werent releasing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere either. Yes there are cycles, and its time for the Earth to get warm again. What the main cause of concern is is the rate of heating up. They're concerned that because of human activities it will heat up much faster than it naturally does. This could lead to many species being unable to adapt and evolve as they usually do during climate changes.

What I don't understand is what is the appearance of the U.N.'s 180° about-face.

Not too long ago (read a couple months ago) they were blaming cows and flatulence in this >THIS U.N. REPORT<

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail This could lead to many species being unable to adapt and evolve as they usually do during climate changes.

Actually, the species of life are actually at a much higher risk of extermination from human destruction of their habitat, by, for example, destruction of rainforests where half of life resides. Global warming will not save them, because destruction will continue if you just concentrate on stopping emissions. Halt of emissions will only give greater excuse for greater deforestation campaign because companies will assume we release less through smokestacks. Why is the environmental protection always secondary?

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

i dont understand why people hold 1 dissenting scientist up as evidence of anything important. there are very few climate experts in the PDD, so quoting some scientist that happens to agree with your point of view when the majority of leading experts do not doesnt sound very logical to me.

___________________

An unnaturally fast rate of climate change would do harm to those species even in the areas we do protect.