quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Oh come on Opus, I can pull out all sorts of other reports from other sources that have NO government affiliations other than your convenient ones.

Sorry to see how a vast majority of scientific consensus of human causes attributing to global warming is somehow connected to a government affiliation and somehow convenient to my argument.

I'll tell you what, I've presented evidence of the obvious bias and downright obfuscation with conflicted interests on your side of the argument, why don't you present evidence that the vast majority consensus of environmental scientists (climatologists, geologists, ecologists, marine biologists, biologists, glaciologists, oceanographers, geographers, etc. etc. etc.) with their "affiliations" with the government agencies are somehow biasing their research as a consequence to their affiliations.

I'm making an assumption that you mean those said scientists begging for grants from governmental agencies for their research, which is hardly a compelling parallel to being paid by oil/coal companies with obvious vested interests in maintaining the status quo and increasing profits. But I'm willing to entertain your attempts nonetheless.

quote:

There's U.N. reports on Cows and methane, how about ones on Volcanoes or Solar activity? The point is, there are lots of reports from all sides that point that man is hardly the only source of global warming regardless of affiliation.

There always are, yet your mere handwave of the gigantic litany of peer-reviewed evidence that's overwhelmingly in support of human involvement with global warming does not lend credence to your argument much.

quote:

I'm not saying we don't have any effect but it's a spit in the overall bucket we can definately control.

Because why again? Should we all tell the vast majority of scientific consensus that they're full o' shit because, well, they just don't know what they're talking about?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Sorry to see how a vast majority of scientific consensus of human causes attributing to global warming is somehow connected to a government affiliation and somehow convenient to my argument. I'll tell you what, I've presented evidence of the obvious bias and downright obfuscation with conflicted interests on your side of the argument, why don't you present evidence that the vast majority consensus of environmental scientists (climatologists, geologists, ecologists, marine biologists, biologists, glaciologists, oceanographers, geographers, etc. etc. etc.) with their "affiliations" with the government agencies are somehow biasing their research as a consequence to their affiliations.

I'll admit I haven't posted much in the way of supportive material, I'll try and fix that when I'm not at work...
(I do have a little time, it's Friday yea know)

quote:

I'm making an assumption that you mean those said scientists begging for grants from governmental agencies for their research, which is hardly a compelling parallel to being paid by oil/coal companies with obvious vested interests in maintaining the status quo and increasing profits. But I'm willing to entertain your attempts nonetheless.

There's billions of dollars in government grants that get blown too so this argument really goes both ways.
I'm willing the bet though that the government grant money has been around a lot longer than the current influx of debunking corporate ones though.

quote:

There always are, yet your mere handwave of the gigantic litany of peer-reviewed evidence that's overwhelmingly in support of human involvement with global warming does not lend credence to your argument much.

Again, yes I'm providing an arguement at the moment that's, at best, whimsical, but believe me, my arguement here is hardly solitary or dismissive.

quote:

Because why again? Should we all tell the vast majority of scientific consensus that they're full o' shit because, well, they just don't know what they're talking about?

Not at all, we should be responsible for the polution we put into the air!
It's the 'link' between what these scientists have found and their lofty correlation - causation arguments that's under fire from other scientists.

___________________
"...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."

Before I leave for the day...how about a National Geographic article?
You can't tell me they are on the oil payroll...

quote:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News February 28, 2007 Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".) Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Solar Cycles Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].) Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." Planets' Wobbles The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].) All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. No Greenhouse Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface. He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin. Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide. Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store. "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

>>Source<<

___________________
"...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 Fir3start3r There's billions of dollars in government grants that get blown too so this argument really goes both ways. I'm willing the bet though that the government grant money has been around a lot longer than the current influx of debunking corporate ones though.

I'm not arguing that government $ gets blown. I'm not sure how that substantiates or refutes anything. However my point stands and is left unanswered:

quote:

I'm making an assumption that you mean those said scientists begging for grants from governmental agencies for their research, which is hardly a compelling parallel to being paid by oil/coal companies with obvious vested interests in maintaining the status quo and increasing profits. But I'm willing to entertain your attempts nonetheless.

There's a major difference between a researcher begging for grant money (i.e. that which funds his research) from a given agency (government) versus a private agency who has a vested interest in the $ they give to a given researcher that supports their business interests (i.e. global warming isn't man-made, keep drilling!). Begging for funds is a wee bit different than being handed funds to support business interests.

quote:

Not at all, we should be responsible for the polution we put into the air! It's the 'link' between what these scientists have found and their lofty correlation - causation arguments that's under fire from other scientists.

To which the majority of those few scientists in the very small minority dissent have shown to be funded by the very same private companies that have a financial interest in keeping the status quo. Just a wee bit too coincidental, don't you think?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

this isn't necessarily in response to the article itself but do you know who else had previously been nominated for (and/or has won) the Nobel Peace Prize?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Henry Kissinger.

However, (as I quote from Wikipedia)

quote:

...since nomination requires only support from one qualified person (e.g., a history professor), these unusual nominations do not represent the opinions of the Nobel committee itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Before I leave for the day...how about a National Geographic article? You can't tell me they are on the oil payroll... >>Source<<

No, but I can tell you that a solar physicist is clearly not in an experienced position to be discussing climate research and here's why:

1. Has his work been published by peer reviewed literature? Sorry, but the National Geographic is not a primary source of peer-reviewed literature. Does one wonder why such research has not been published yet that supposedly supports his ideas of solar radiation being the cause?

Or are we going to speculate on the vast Left Wing Conspiracy of peer-reviewed scientific literature?

This process by Abdussamatov of going to the Nat'l Geographic is eerily similar to performing the old "doing science by press" routine by individuals who cannot get their work published in peer-revied literature. Unfortunately it's more common than you'd think.

2. Solar forcing hasn't changed substantially in the last 30 years from direct observations, and speculated around 50 years from indirect observations of sunspots, cosmic rays, F10.7 radio flux, etc.

3. Explaining climate change via one single variable as Abdussamatov is attempting to do is ridiculous and bad science.

4. Predictions of solar activity are much more uncertain, much more so versus the impacts of greenhouse gases

5. No where does Abdussamatov demonstrate that solar forcing is larger than greenhouse gases. If a valid projection for climate changes is to be made like Abdussamatov is attempting than this would be necessary. Every other comparison done by anything else has aptly demonstrated that variations of the solar cycle are small compared to the greenhouse gas forcing. If you examine the measurements of the solar cycle being directly measured, it makes a blip on the graphs of climate forcings seen here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/F_line.gif

Here's another interesting angle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-cycle-data.png

Notice how there's no increase. Actually there's a slight decrease, and examining the Y-angle you'll see the fluctuations are quite small.

But Abdussamatov claims otherwise. Strange how he hasn't published anything to demonstrate this in peer-reviewed literature.

Abdussamatov has also argued that the upper layers of the ocean have cooled in recent years. Unfortunately for him the evidence doesn't support his assertions.

So while this scientist certainly may not be a paid worker of the oil and gas industry, he's clearly not talking within his field of expertise, and the data within his own field is a bit questionable at best.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The new 'plundering' are those making millions on the new 'global warming' scare. I have nothing against companies wanting to become more environmentally friendly, that's great, however I have issue with this whole carbon neutral business that has sprung up with no accountability or governance whatsoever. At this point, any company/business/entity can say they've invested in becoming carbon neutral but where exactly does that money go? Are we, as rational people supposed to just believe them because that's what their PR people telling us? Gore himself is a great example of this hypocracy after purchasing carbon credits from a company in which he resides as a chair member!

I think the carbon credit people (Carbonfund, etc.) are non-profits, so I don't think Al's financially benefiting as much as you're claiming.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I think the carbon credit people (Carbonfund, etc.) are non-profits, so I don't think Al's financially benefiting as much as you're claiming.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.

The guy seems to be just trying to help out, and everyone is jumping down his throat. It's the natural reaction to dangerous new information:

1. fear and backlash
2. disbelief and apathy
3. acceptance

I really don't see how he could be benefitting from making this shit up. Why would he? There's no oil shares to be made in this. There's nothing to gain except a more secure future for our children.

A much simpler question regarding all of this, how does Gore fit into this criteria anyways?
The prize is supposed to go, "[T]o the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Anyone?

___________________
"...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 Fir3start3r A much simpler question regarding all of this, how does Gore fit into this criteria anyways? The prize is supposed to go, "[T]o the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Anyone?

I guess because every country in the world now realizes that the future is in jeopardy and that we have to work together to solve a potential disaster.

Gore didn't invent global warming; he just translated some data onto a medium that got people thinking and talking on a supermassive scale.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Before I leave for the day...how about a National Geographic article? You can't tell me they are on the oil payroll... >>Source<<

Hmmmm or maybe it could be the carbon dioxide jets that have been erupting from the solar ice caps on Mars ...

quote:

Findings Suggest Jets Bursting From Martian Ice Cap Every spring brings violent eruptions to the south polar ice cap of Mars, according to researchers interpreting new observations by NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter. Jets of carbon dioxide gas erupting from the ice cap as it warms in the spring carry dark sand and dust high aloft. The dark material falls back to the surface, creating dark patches on the ice cap which have long puzzled scientists. Deducing the eruptions of carbon dioxide gas from under the warming ice cap solves the riddle of the spots. It also reveals that this part of Mars is much more dynamically active than had been expected for any part of the planet. "If you were there, you'd be standing on a slab of carbon-dioxide ice," said Phil Christensen of Arizona State University, Tempe, principal investigator for Odyssey's camera. "All around you, roaring jets of carbon dioxide gas are throwing sand and dust a couple hundred feet into the air." You'd also feel vibration through your spacesuit boots, he said. "The ice slab you're standing on is levitated above the ground by the pressure of gas at the base of the ice." The team began its research in an attempt to explain mysterious dark spots, fan-like markings, and spider-shaped features seen in images that cameras on Odyssey and on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor have observed on the ice cap at the Martian south pole. The dark spots, typically 15 to 46 meters (50 to 150 feet) wide and spaced several hundred feet apart, appear every southern spring as the sun rises over the ice cap. They last for several months and then vanish -- only to reappear the next year, after winter's cold has deposited a fresh layer of ice on the cap. Most spots even seem to recur at the same locations. An earlier theory proposed that the spots were patches of warm, bare ground exposed as the ice disappeared. However, the camera on Odyssey, which sees in both infrared and visible-light wavelengths, discovered that the spots are nearly as cold as the carbon dioxide ice, suggesting they were just a thin layer of dark material lying on top of the ice and kept chilled by it. To understand how that layer is produced, Christensen's team used the camera -- the Thermal Emission Imaging System -- to collect more than 200 images of one area of the ice cap from the end of winter through midsummer. Some places remained spot-free for more than 100 days, then developed many spots in a week. Fan-shaped dark markings didn't form until days or weeks after the spots appeared, yet some fans grew to half a mile in length. Even more puzzling was the origin of the "spiders," grooves eroded into the surface under the ice. The grooves converge at points directly beneath a spot. "The key to figuring out the spiders and the spots was thinking through a physical model for what was happening," said Christensen. The process begins in the sunless polar winter when carbon dioxide from the atmosphere freezes into a layer about three feet thick on top of a permanent ice cap of water ice, with a thin layer of dark sand and dust in between. In spring, sunlight passing through the slab of carbon dioxide ice reaches the dark material and warms it enough that the ice touching the ground sublimates -- turns into gas. Before long, the swelling reservoir of trapped gas lifts the slab and eventually breaks through at weak spots that become vents. High-pressure gas roars through at speeds of 161 kilometers per hour (100 miles per hour) or more. Under the slab, the gas erodes ground as it rushes toward the vents, snatching up loose particles of sand and carving the spidery network of grooves. Christensen, Hugh Kieffer (U.S. Geological Survey, retired) and Timothy Titus (USGS) report the new interpretation in the Aug. 17, 2006, issue of the journal Nature. Source: NASA/JPL

It's really quite silly to try to blame solar irradiance as the cause for global warming similarties on Earth and Mars or across the entire solar system as that conveys a lack of understanding of just how different the climate systems of each of the planets are. Warming on Mars has been largely attributed to the Milankovitch cycles and the effect of dust storms. However, if you want to attribute global warming on Earth to the decrease in solar irradiance over the past 3 decades (and thus the reason why ALL planets AND moons are consistently warming ... oh wait they ALL are warming right?), than you have your work cut out for you.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/0...tivity_climate/

___________________
Retro ...