Global hot air, Part III

By Thomas Sowell

If you take the mainstream media seriously, you might think that every important scientist believes that "global warming" poses a great threat, and that we need to make drastic changes in the way we live, in order to avoid catastrophes to the environment, to various species, and to ourselves.


The media play a key role in perpetuating such beliefs. Often they seize upon every heat wave to hype global warming, but see no implications in record-setting cold weather, such as many places have been experiencing lately.


Remember how the unusually large number of hurricanes a couple of years ago was hyped in the media as being a result of global warming, with more such hurricanes being predicted to return the following year and the years thereafter?


But, when not one hurricane struck the United States all last year, the media had little or nothing to say about the false predictions they had hyped. It's heads I win and tails you lose.


Are there serious scientists who specialize in weather and climate who have serious doubts about the doomsday scenarios being pushed by global warming advocates? Yes, there are.


There is Dr. S. Fred Singer, who set up the American weather satellite system, and who published some years ago a book titled "Hot Talk, Cold Science." More recently, he has co-authored another book on the subject, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years."


There have been periods of global warming that lasted for centuries — and periods of global cooling that also lasted for centuries. So the issue is not whether the world is warmer now than at some time in the past but how much of that warming is due to human beings and how much can we reduce future warming, even if we drastically reduce our standard of living in the attempt.


Other serious scientists who are not on the global warming bandwagon include a professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen.


His name was big enough for the National Academy of Sciences to list it among the names of other experts on its 2001 report that was supposed to end the debate by declaring the dangers of global warming proven scientifically.


Professor Lindzen then objected and pointed out that neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published. It was in fact written by government bureaucrats — as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion.


You want more experts who think otherwise? Try a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Patrick J. Michaels, who refers to the much ballyhooed 2001 IPCC summary as having "misstatements and errors" that he calls "egregious."


A professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, David R. Legates, likewise referred to the 2001 IPCC summary as being "often in direct contrast with the scientific report that accompanies it." It is the summaries that the media hype. The full 2007 report has not even been published yet.


Skeptical experts in other countries around the world include Duncan Wingham, a professor of climate physics at the University College, London, and Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University.


The very attempt to silence all who disagree about global warming ought to raise red flags.


Anyone who remembers the 1970s should remember the Club of Rome report that was supposed to be the last word on economic growth grinding to a halt, "overpopulation" and a rapidly approaching era of mass starvation in the 1980s.

In reality, the 1980s saw increased economic growth around the world and, far from mass starvation, an increase in obesity and agricultural surpluses in many countries. But much of the media went for the Club of Rome report and hyped the hysteria.


Many in the media resent any suggestion that they are either shilling for an ideological agenda or hyping whatever will sell newspapers or get higher ratings on TV.



http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021507.php3

It's not a popularity contest. I'd reply more to reasoning as to why global warming isn't occuring than to a article saying that there is opposition to it.

I think you missed the point. All of the experts mentioned in Frogger's post agree that global warming is occurring. They just don't agree with the concept that it is necessarily caused by greenhouse gases. In particular, they, and others, are concerned that the published IPCC reports are NOT a reflection of what the scientists wrote.

It's not a popularity contest. I'd reply more to reasoning as to why global warming isn't occuring than to a article saying that there is opposition to it.
Is that really what the article's insinuating?

I think you missed the point. All of the experts mentioned in Frogger's post agree that global warming is occurring. They just don't agree with the concept that it is necessarily caused by greenhouse gases. In particular, they, and others, are concerned that the published IPCC reports are NOT a reflection of what the scientists wrote.
it is? how much longer is this freakin winter going to last? it hasn't been this cold since the year before last!...and that's only since i stayed inside all last winter.

it is? how much longer is this freakin winter going to last? it hasn't been this cold since the year before last!...and that's only since i stayed inside all last winter.
Global warming could easily cause an ice age because melting of the polar ice caps would disrupt warm air carrying ocean currents with an influx of fresh water. Just because it's called global warming doesn't mean the result is going to be warm.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db070114.gif

Global warming could easily cause an ice age because melting of the polar ice caps would disrupt warm air carrying ocean currents with an influx of fresh water. Just because it's called global warming doesn't mean the result is going to be warm.
if it gets warmer or cooler, it's proof of climate change, and man's fault?

except the Earth's climate has been changing since day one.

There was a line in Jesus Camp of a radio personality saying on air: "Don't worry about the enviroment, we won't be here much longer."

By the time Jesus returns, He will choke on the noxious gases that Chinese factories churn out, and die.

Then atheists can have a party on Mars, because Earth won't be inhabitable anymore.

There was a line in Jesus Camp of a radio personality saying on air: "Don't worry about the enviroment, we won't be here much longer."

By the time Jesus returns, He will choke on the noxious gases that Chinese factories churn out, and die.

Then atheists can have a party on Mars, because Earth won't be inhabitable anymore.
it's not that i'm not concerned about the enviroment, i just don't believe the hype.

save the polar bears! build them a Burger King!

Global hot air, Part III

Remember how the unusually large number of hurricanes a couple of years ago was hyped in the media as being a result of global warming, with more such hurricanes being predicted to return the following year and the years thereafter?



I remember that year. I was in Florida at that time, we had three come across the same part of the state within a month lol. That sucked. Granted there was one storm that sat offshore for about a week, Ophellia. And well she made for the greatest hurricane swell in the history of Floridas east coast, at least in the 12 years I lived there. 6-10 foot and glassy for an entire week, I took vacation from work to surf it everyday, all day lol.

Anyways yeah, the media is kinda biased to the whole global warming thing by covering heat waves and such as signs of it. But thats what the media does, it feeds on peoples fears. Im not saying it isnt real, but maybe it includes more than just warming. Maybe just a intesifying of global weather patterns in general. Whether it be hot or cold.

Edit: and as I go back to actually read what people posted, they seem to agree. heh.

...Then atheists can have a party on Mars, because Earth won't be inhabitable anymore.

Earth wont be habitable anymore.

Global warming caused by human activity is real enough, and although the models may exaggerate it, they may also understate it.

However, there really is nothing to be done, and the cheap politics that floats around this subject always manages to avoid mentioning that fact. Even if Kobe were globally enforced (and third-world nations like China and India escape untouched), the problem would only be slightly mitigated. Canada and now Europe are backing out from their committments after only a couple years, anyway.

To avoid global warming, America would have to make itself a third-world nation, and all the coal-fired plants that China has would have to be closed, causing mass starvation there.

It is also to be noted that the effects will be both positive and negative. The Russians, for example, have got to be quietly happy about it, as they lay their plans for year-round arctic shipping and a central Asian bread-basket. Much the same applies in Canada.

I think the polar bear in the wild will become extinct and owners of coastal property will have to properly rebuild their homes or do so inland, and sea levels will rise (although slowly enough to permit adjustments in most places). At the same time forests and crops will grow more luxiuriantly (becase of the CO2) and winters will be milder.

Of course a good super-volcano could put the schedule back several decades.

Earth wont be habitable anymore.
There but for the grace of God go you and I.

Of course a good super-volcano could put the schedule back several decades.A fair-sized nuclear exchange could do the same.

It was 25 degrees BELOW normal in Dallas, Texas yesterday, hopefully capping off what's been one of the coldest winters we've had in over 50 years. (A local columnist said this morning she was burning a tub of crude oil on her patio, but so far, it hasn't helped raise our 19 degrees!)

Maybe somebody could send some of that GW down this way, eh?

:)
SMW

I think you missed the point. All of the experts mentioned in Frogger's post agree that global warming is occurring. They just don't agree with the concept that it is necessarily caused by greenhouse gases. In particular, they, and others, are concerned that the published IPCC reports are NOT a reflection of what the scientists wrote.

The majority of the post was about scientists who disagree with either the extent of global warming or who disagree with the doomsday scenario. In any case, I don't care how many of them think a certain way if they aren't bringing any evidence to the table.

Man-made global warming has almost become a religion.

There are those that believe. Any that disbelieve must provide evidence that man is NOT causing the problem. Of course, any evidence presented is immediately dis-counted because it cannot be proven.

There are those that dis-believe. Nothing can be proven therefore it doesn't exist.

There are those searching for the truth. A messy job, but someone has to do it.:)

Man-made global warming has almost become a religion.
So has the IPod. Do believers in the IPod, or global warming conquer elaborate, world-wide empires and slaughter non-believers?

I'm sick of people comparing every odd little idea that has short-lived popularity to religion.

I'm sick of people comparing every odd little idea that has short-lived popularity to religion.
So, you compare iPod with religion. I find that interesting.

Man-made global warming has almost become a religion.

That is sure true.

The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died

By Alan Caruba on Sep 02, 07

When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to pinpoint 2007. It will take another decade to insure it cannot be revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point.

It took some forty years to unmask the Piltdown Man hoax that began in 1912 alleging that the skull of an ancient ancestor of man had been found in England. Any number of British anthropologists unwittingly contributed to the hoax by confirming the authenticity of the skull until it was found that the jaw of an orangutan had been cunningly attached. The unmasking of “global warming” has taken less than half that time.

The hoax has mainly been a creation of the United Nations Environmental Program and took off in earnest with the 1992 Earth Summit. It culminated in 1997 with the Kyoto Climate Control Protocol, an agreement to reduce the generation of carbon dioxide, a “greenhouse” gas (CO2) said to be the cause of an accelerated warming of the earth. By 2005, 140 nations had ratified the pact, agreeing to reduce CO2 emissions. Notably exempt from the pact were nations such as China and India. Few, if any, nations have ever met the limits that require reductions in CO2 production, attributed to the use of so-called “fossil fuels” such as oil, natural gas, and coal.

The United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and, at one point, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution rejecting it. This has not kept the U.S. from spending billions on so-called “climate research” intended to address climate change with the aim of reducing or capturing CO2 emissions. Had that money been devoted to maintenance of the nation’s infrastructure, tragic events such as the collapse of the Minnesota bridge over the Mississippi might have been averted.

In August, it was revealed that NASA scientists had corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S. Repeatedly the data put forth to justify the global warming hoax has been debunked.

As Dr. David Wojick recently noted, “The real significance is that such a small correction can make such a big difference. The reason is that the much touted warming of the last three decades is merely a return to earlier warm times, after an equally long period of cooling…There is no way this pattern constitutes a warming trend…In short, there is no evidence for human-induced global warming in the U.S. temperature record.”

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research authored by a Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. A former Harvard physicist, Dr. Lubos Motl, said the new study has reduced global warming fear-mongers to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.”

The new research concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as a series of reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has asserted for years. The IPCC reports have been increasingly dismissed as deliberate distortions of data that amount to little more than propaganda to advance the “global warming” hoax.

Having testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, paleoclimate scientist, Bob Carter, noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped. There has been little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 17 percent. Thus, the connection between CO2 and “global warming”, the key to the claims that it is occurring and will increase has been proven wrong.

Dr. Roy Spencer, another critic of the global warming hoax, has noted that “At least 80 percent of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems.” The computer models used by advocates of global warming have been unable to include the actions and impact of clouds, thus rendering them seriously flawed.

Prior to and during 2007, one research study after another revealed that the central premise of “global warming” lacks any scientific merit. One by Dr. Tim Patterson concluded that, “The earth temperature does respond to the solar cycle as confirmed by numerous studies.” The solar cycle is known to be about eleven years in length and reflects increased or decreased sunspot (magnetic storms) activity. It is the Sun that largely determines the Earth’s temperature, which is never the same throughout the planet, given seasonal and solar changes.

In 2007, meteorologist Anthony Watts who led a team of researchers revealed that, “The U.S. National Climate Data Center is in the middle of a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul of surface weather measurement, is a disaster.” It had been discovered that many of the measuring stations were placed in locations such as on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, and even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills!

Determining the Earth’s temperature, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Borh Institute, University of Copenhagen, collaborated with two other professors to write an article in Science Daily, saying, “It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of the Earth.” Indeed, “differences in temperature drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.”

In May 2007, Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin dismissed fears of increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. He called the “global warming” argument “absurd.” As to any increase in the Earth’s temperature, he said, “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting carbon dioxide in the air.”

On August 15, 2007, meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, said, “If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.”

There will be dying gasps to this hoax, not the least of which is a planned $100 million media blitz by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, but the public is already far more concerned about instability in the Middle East, the forthcoming national elections, and shocks to the U.S. economy to accord such an effort much credibility.

Hoaxes have a life of their own and “global warming” is now coming to an end. Mark 2007 as the year it began to seriously bleed to death.

© Alan Caruba, September 2007

An interesting and well written speech about the troublesome mix of politics and science by Michael Crichton.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

An interesting and well written speech about the troublesome mix of politics and science by Michael Crichton.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

Obviously I agree with Crichton. I'd like to see somebody try to refute his points.

Thanks for the URL, Vilepagan. The article is probably too long for some to bother reading but it is a good article and they should try to take the time to get through it.

Michael Crichton is not simply an author who happens to not belive all the hype about global warming. He graduated Summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He has taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.

I think the following quote from the article says quite a lot.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

Thanks for the URL, Vilepagan. The article is probably too long for some to bother reading but it is a good article and they should try to take the time to get through it.


You're welcome, Frogger. I thought he made some great points.

To avoid global warming, America would have to make itself a third-world nation, and all the coal-fired plants that China has would have to be closed, causing mass starvation there.

What an absurd set of predictions. I lived on electricity from renewable sources for quite some time. My electric bill was higher, but wow, I was definitely not living a "third-world" lifestyle. And God-forbid, if I had an electric car instead of a gas-powered car, I just don't know what I'd do.:rolleyes:

It is also to be noted that the effects will be both positive and negative. The Russians, for example, have got to be quietly happy about it, as they lay their plans for year-round arctic shipping and a central Asian bread-basket. Much the same applies in Canada.


Yes, some places would benefit. That does not discount the concern.

To understand why this point is as silly as it really is, let's look at a more extreme scenario...

Imagine you could reverse the entire planetary landscape in one hundred years. i.e. Deserts become precipitation havens and forests receive the least precipitation, the equator becomes the coldest area on earth and the poles become the warmest areas, etc. This would be a great scenario for the Canadians and Saharan Africans. Why would this still be problematic? When you answer that question, you have the answers to your current concern.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

Well, if Carl Sagan says that, then it must be true!

In the meantime, I will continue to trust science based on a broad consensus which covers.....oh, just about all science there is!

Well, if Carl Sagan says that, then it must be true!

Carl Sagan's dead. The quote was from the speech I posted by Michael Crichton.


In the meantime, I will continue to trust science based on a broad consensus which covers.....oh, just about all science there is!

Science should never be based on anything other than scientifically gathered evidence. Consensus doesn't enter into it.

As he said in his speech:

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

In short Leper, you don't arrive at a scientific truth by counting how many scientists agree with you, you do it by practicing good science.

The quote was from the speech I posted by Michael Crichton.Crichton has a vested interest in being contrary in this matter.

The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.Until they were supported by enoughh others, then theirs was the consenses position. Then, after long enough, no one had to say "consensus".
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.Wrong, and stupid. It ignores the processes involved in paradigm shift.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples.Up to and including this concern for the macro-environment, ie Global Warming. What we are seeing now is just the same-old-thingers resisting change. Notice in all the examples Crichton cites, it is the new idea that is fought against. Not a "consensus" idea, but one that requires a new view of an old problem.


In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.Same as above. This argument is simply stepping in at the midpoint of change. There has been no longstanging, entrenched Global Warming school of thought. This is the new way of viewing the evidence, now gaining significant acceptance, and the hardheads who always fight against change in paradigm are crying again. First is was: That's wacko, nobody'll believe that, so it must be wrong. Now it's: oh, hell, if everybody says they agree, it must be wrong.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."Not know, but they did at one time.

In short Leper, you don't arrive at a scientific truth by counting how many scientists agree with you, you do it by practicing good science.Yeah, like the consensus of scientists who agree!

Crichton has a vested interest in being contrary in this matter.

Which is?


Until they were supported by enoughh others, then theirs was the consenses position. Then, after long enough, no one had to say "consensus".
Wrong, and stupid. It ignores the processes involved in paradigm shift.

I don't think he's ignoring the process of paradigm shift at all, rather he's discussing it. Consensus is the result of such a shift, but it shouldn't power the shift, nor should it be the goal of scientists.


Up to and including this concern for the macro-environment, ie Global Warming. What we are seeing now is just the same-old-thingers resisting change. Notice in all the examples Crichton cites, it is the new idea that is fought against. Not a "consensus" idea, but one that requires a new view of an old problem.

His examples were to show that using the "consensus" as a measure of good science is a mistake.


First is was: That's wacko, nobody'll believe that, so it must be wrong. Now it's: oh, hell, if everybody says they agree, it must be wrong.

Neither of those views has any scientific merit.


Yeah, like the consensus of scientists who agree!

The idea that man has induced climate change is, in my opinion, a good idea that hasn't got enough hard science to back it up...yet. The only point I'm trying to make is that saying "lots of scientists agree" isn't, in itself, a good scientific argument for man-made climate change.

Yes, predictions are absurd. You believe that global warming is anthropogenic, therefore humans can cure it. Of course you can also believe it's relatively easy to do. Other believers may think that it is much more expensive and will result in reduced standards of living. It's a case of risk versus cost.
However, there is no proof that global warming is anthropogenic. Indeed, the CO2 hypothesis is becoming more suspect with each passing year.

Well, if Carl Sagan says that, then it must be true!

In the meantime, I will continue to trust science based on a broad consensus which covers.....oh, just about all science there is!

I think you epitomize exactly what Crichton is worried about. Science is based upon testable hypotheses leading to additional investigations and then proof or dis-proof.

Vilepagan, I see you have already responded, no need for me to add anything. I agree.with what you posted.

I think you epitomize exactly what Crichton is worried about. Science is based upon testable hypotheses leading to additional investigations and then proof or dis-proof.

Good lord, it's laughable you say this to me; I've posted scientific evidence on this board at least a dozen times. The responses I get (including yours) are rarely based on any science at all.

Carl Sagan's dead. The quote was from the speech I posted by Michael Crichton.

Right. Must've had Carl Sagan on the brain.



Science should never be based on anything other than scientifically gathered evidence. Consensus doesn't enter into it.

So what do you do when there is a consensus of scientifically-gathered evidence?

In short Leper, you don't arrive at a scientific truth by counting how many scientists agree with you, you do it by practicing good science.

So what do you do when every scientist who is practicing good science agrees? Say, well "That's a consensus!" and blithely ignore them?

The probleml is not that certain scientists and government officials feel there is a general concensus, even though there is not. It is with the fact that they think this should close debate, that the matter is settled, that those who don't agree with them are heritics and deniers, akin to holocaust deniers.

Science is not about quashing dissent but about free investigation. When one side tries to stop that free investigation or the reporting of it they are acting more like proponents of a religion than scientists.

The probleml is not that certain scientists and government officials feel there is a general concensus, even though there is not. It is with the fact that they think this should close debate, that the matter is settled, that those who don't agree with them are heritics and deniers, akin to holocaust deniers.Or Creation Scientists?

Science is not about quashing dissent but about free investigation. When one side tries to stop that free investigation or the reporting of it they are acting more like proponents of a religion than scientists.Or people who think one should be responsible for what they report under the name of "science."

Which is?
STATE OF FEAR

Hardcover
Published in December, 2004
by Harper Collins Paperback
Published in 2005
by Harper Collins


In Paris, a physicist dies after performing
a laboratory experiment for a beautiful visitor.

In the jungles of Malaysia, a mysterious buyer
purchases deadly cavitation technology, built to
his specifications.

In Vancouver, a small research submarine is leased
for use in the waters off New Guinea.

And in Tokyo, an intelligence agent tries to
understand what it all means.

Thus begins Michael Crichton's exciting and provocative techno-thriller State of Fear. Only Crichton's unique ability to blend scientific fact with pulse-pounding fiction could bring such disparate elements to a heart-stopping conclusion.

This is Crichton's most wide-ranging thriller. State of Fear takes the reader from the glaciers of Iceland to the volcanoes of Antarctica, from the Arizona desert to the deadly jungles of the Solomon Islands, from the streets of Paris to the beaches of Los Angeles. The novel races forward on a roller-coaster thrill ride, all the while keeping the brain in high gear. Gripping and thought provoking, State of Fear is Michael Crichton at his very best.

(Pulled from Crichton's web site link.)

Science is not about quashing dissent but about free investigation. When one side tries to stop that free investigation or the reporting of it they are acting more like proponents of a religion than scientists.

Nobody's stopping anyone from doing their own studies. On the contrary, oil companies are very happy to fund studies that refute global warming.

The problem is that the best evidence on your side of the debate is that Neptune has become brighter. In other words, global warming deniers (for lack of a better term) take a stance that does not have the evidence to support it.

STATE OF FEAR

Hardcover
Published in December, 2004
by Harper Collins Paperback
Published in 2005
by Harper Collins


In Paris, a physicist dies after performing
a laboratory experiment for a beautiful visitor.

In the jungles of Malaysia, a mysterious buyer
purchases deadly cavitation technology, built to
his specifications.

In Vancouver, a small research submarine is leased
for use in the waters off New Guinea.

And in Tokyo, an intelligence agent tries to
understand what it all means.

Thus begins Michael Crichton's exciting and provocative techno-thriller State of Fear. Only Crichton's unique ability to blend scientific fact with pulse-pounding fiction could bring such disparate elements to a heart-stopping conclusion.

This is Crichton's most wide-ranging thriller. State of Fear takes the reader from the glaciers of Iceland to the volcanoes of Antarctica, from the Arizona desert to the deadly jungles of the Solomon Islands, from the streets of Paris to the beaches of Los Angeles. The novel races forward on a roller-coaster thrill ride, all the while keeping the brain in high gear. Gripping and thought provoking, State of Fear is Michael Crichton at his very best.

(Pulled from Crichton's web site link.)
Good book. Although it's fiction, pointing out the many ways different entities can PROFIT from GW hysteria is, IMO, the main point of the book.

Certain groups' entire existance is based on the hype continuing. Where money is involved, science tends to 'prove' what funders want to hear.

SMW

Nobody's stopping anyone from doing their own studies. On the contrary, oil companies are very happy to fund studies that refute global warming.

The problem is that the best evidence on your side of the debate is that Neptune has become brighter. In other words, global warming deniers (for lack of a better term) take a stance that does not have the evidence to support it.


When people who have doubts about anthroprogenic global warming are called heritics and deniers, when they are subjected to harrassment on campuses by fellow academics, when they are called shills, when they are refused government funding, that is stopping them from doing their own studies. You complain about oil companies funding studies as if this is pervasive but you say nothing about all the other vested interest that fund the studies of anthroprogenic global warming proponents.

The best evidence is far more than the brightening of Neptune. There is the increase in temperatures on other planets in the Solar System, the finding of other causes that are far more pervasive than man's actions, the discovery of the inadequacies and downright false statistics put out by the other side, the fact that the Earth has gone through similar rises in temperature in the past long before man could have been the cause.

The problem is, anthroprogenic global warming proponents like fanatics of any religion refuse to allow debate of the issue. They have decided that they are right and that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid, misguided or in the thrall of Satan (big oil). In their minds there is no need for further discussion as the issue is already decided.

Where money is involved, science tends to 'prove' what funders want to hear.

SMWYou mean like the people who continue to profit from the existing status quo? (What were Exxon's profits last quarter?)

...the Earth has gone through similar rises in temperature in the past long before man could have been the cause.This does not negate our current contributions to the problem, nor absolve us from having to live with the net effect.

The problem is, anthroprogenic global warming proponents like fanatics of any religion refuse to allow debate of the issue.It's not a religion, friend. It's a position based on the best good-will interpretation of the observable facts, ie scientific evidence leading to a conclusion leading to a call for responsible action.

You mean like the people who continue to profit from the existing status quo? (What were Exxon's profits last quarter?)
Yes. As well as those who profit from coming up with so-called solutions to a situation that is totally out of mankind's control.

Not to mention the big bucks made by those who write articles and books pointing the finger at everyone on the planet and those who are so gullible, they not only buy them, but clamor for more.

Nothing mankind likes better than disaster movies... unless it's spreading rumors they may come true.

...a situation that is totally out of mankind's control.This is perhaps the fundimental disagreement. You may choose to so no action as meaningful. I don't see it that way.

Not to mention the big bucks made by those who write articles and books pointing the finger at everyone on the planet and those who are so gullible, they not only buy them, but clamor for more.Or maybe they believe in their data and care about the issue.
Nothing mankind likes better than disaster movies... unless it's spreading rumors they may come true.Books, movies...sounds like a wrap for your boy Crichton.

Not sure why you chose to slam Crichton... after all, he admits his work is FICTION. I suggest you never watch the movie Snakes on a Plane. You might be too scared to ever fly again.

It's not a religion, friend. It's a position based on the best good-will interpretation of the observable facts, ie scientific evidence leading to a conclusion leading to a call for responsible action.

Religion is a belief based on faith. Anthroprogenic global warming is a belief based on faith. With each passing week there is more and more evidence that man is NOT a significant factor in global warming. Those who believe in AGW refuse to listen to anything that does not fit their belief system. They know man is causing global warming even though there is no real evidence showing this to be the case.

If that isn't religion it is too damned close for comfort.


ps: I like you, Shilohproject despite the fact that you are wrong on this issue as you are wrong on a few other issues.:lolhit:

The best evidence is far more than the brightening of Neptune. There is the increase in temperatures on other planets in the Solar System, the finding of other causes that are far more pervasive than man's actions, the discovery of the inadequacies and downright false statistics put out by the other side, the fact that the Earth has gone through similar rises in temperature in the past long before man could have been the cause.


All of this talk. Where is your evidence? I've seen your Neptune study (for which the author freely admitted that his study was inconclusive, yet you relied on it). Show me what else you have. I love to learn new things. Teach me the area of climate change I have not learned about!

Religion is a belief based on faith. Anthroprogenic global warming is a belief based on faith.

Your responses on this topic are so bizarre. You say this like I've never linked any of the evidence to you.

You've seen my links, right? Are you saying the IPCC is a faith-based organization? The EPA - faith-based? The Union of Concerned Scientists - faith-based?

Your responses on this topic are so bizarre. You say this like I've never linked any of the evidence to you.

You've seen my links, right? Are you saying the IPCC is a faith-based organization? The EPA - faith-based? The Union of Concerned Scientists - faith-based?
Here's the way I see it... for every fact one can come up with to PROVE GW is due to man's negligence, there is another fact to PROVE it's not.

In other words, much like religion, there is NO proof.

Simply choosing to believe one way or the other is not proof of anything except your own personal opinion.

Religion is a belief based on faith.

Yep.


Anthroprogenic global warming is a belief based on faith.

It's also a scientific hypothesis, and one that has been studied quite extensively to the best of our scientific abilities. The problem is that there is conflicting data, and contradictory conclusions drawn from the various studies.


With each passing week there is more and more evidence that man is NOT a significant factor in global warming.

Perhaps, but a very difficult statement to prove.


Those who believe in AGW refuse to listen to anything that does not fit their belief system. They know man is causing global warming even though there is no real evidence showing this to be the case.

Now you're just attacking the people you disagree with rather than the idea you disagree with.


If that isn't religion it is too damned close for comfort.

I must say it's interesting to see you denigrate an idea by comparing it to a religion. :)

I must say it's interesting to see you denigrate an idea by comparing it to a religion. :)
Seriously...

Not sure why you chose to slam Crichton... after all, he admits his work is FICTION. I suggest you never watch the movie Snakes on a Plane. You might be too scared to ever fly again.Oh, I recognize fiction, dear. I also understand a backwards argument. That's why Crichton would not be the person I'd choose as spoksman for my cause.

STATE OF FEAR

Hardcover
Published in December, 2004
by Harper Collins Paperback
Published in 2005
by Harper Collins


In Paris, a physicist dies after performing
a laboratory experiment for a beautiful visitor.

In the jungles of Malaysia, a mysterious buyer
purchases deadly cavitation technology, built to
his specifications.

In Vancouver, a small research submarine is leased
for use in the waters off New Guinea.

And in Tokyo, an intelligence agent tries to
understand what it all means.

Thus begins Michael Crichton's exciting and provocative techno-thriller State of Fear. Only Crichton's unique ability to blend scientific fact with pulse-pounding fiction could bring such disparate elements to a heart-stopping conclusion.

This is Crichton's most wide-ranging thriller. State of Fear takes the reader from the glaciers of Iceland to the volcanoes of Antarctica, from the Arizona desert to the deadly jungles of the Solomon Islands, from the streets of Paris to the beaches of Los Angeles. The novel races forward on a roller-coaster thrill ride, all the while keeping the brain in high gear. Gripping and thought provoking, State of Fear is Michael Crichton at his very best.

(Pulled from Crichton's web site link.)

I bought it and read it in hardcover. Have you read it?

Not his best effort to be sure, and rather "preachy" IMO. Highly doubtful it'll ever be made into a movie, and if it does get tranferred to the silver screen it'll be a flop.

If you're trying to suggest that he made the speech to in some way sell paperbacks, I think you have that rather backwards. I think he wrote the book because of his opinions regarding the science behind the claims of man-made global warming. In the back of the book he has an extensive bibliography which refers to NOAA studies.

I bought it and read it in hardcover. Have you read it?Yeah, I've read all of Crichten, even his non-fiction. I'm a big fan.
Not his best effort to be sure, and rather "preachy" IMO. Highly doubtful it'll ever be made into a movie, and if it does get tranferred to the silver screen it'll be a flop.Agreed.
If you're trying to suggest that he made the speech to in some way sell paperbacks, I think you have that rather backwards. I think he wrote the book because of his opinions regarding the science behind the claims of man-made global warming. In the back of the book he has an extensive bibliography which refers to NOAA studies.I don't disagree with your reasoning, and found his biblography interesting and tried to agree with his conclusions, but found them ultimately overwhelmed by the other position. I do think, however, that he now has a reason to be contrary, or else go back and retract the book's central ideas. Crichton's stock-in-trade is scientific what-if's, he's well educated and well intentioned I believe. But we all can be moved be self-interest, even without knowing it.

Yeah, I've read all of Crichten, even his non-fiction. I'm a big fan.

As am I. I don't often buy hardcovers. :)


I don't disagree with your reasoning, and found his biblography interesting and tried to agree with his conclusions, but found them ultimately overwhelmed by the other position. I do think, however, that he now has a reason to be contrary, or else go back and retract the book's central ideas. Crichton's stock-in-trade is scientific what-if's, he's well educated and well intentioned I believe. But we all can be moved be self-interest, even without knowing it.

Well said. I don't disagree with your assessment, but as you allude, it applies to both sides in this argument. There's plenty of "vested interests" who would be upset either way this plays out.

There's plenty of "vested interests" who would be upset either way this plays out.Paradigm shift is usually resisted by the old guard. That's all we're seeing today. And real change in view points takes a long time. Just look at the Creation Science crowd. The Beagle sailed a long time ago...

Shilohproject,

Temperture monitors have been found placed near blacktop, by heating ducts, over barbecues. Monitors that were once in rural areas are now in far more urban areas. Data has been misstated, ie, the hottest years on record. Other causes have been ignored or said to not be significant enough to matter, eg, activity of the sun, ruminants. Things have been attributed to global warming that were not caused by global warming, example, the diminishing snow cover on Mt. Kilaminjaro.

Whenever something doesn't fit the antroprogenic global warming model lit is ignored or discounted.

Whenever something doesn't fit the antroprogenic global warming model lit is ignored or discounted.Not by the folks I've talked to. Data that present problems for a given theory are carefully considered. It does not seem, to me, that the ignoring/discounting of data is a general characteristic those who express grave concerns over "global warming," but rather by those who ignore, discount and mock them. It is a politically motivated discounting of what is a very real problem, probably driven by economic powerhouses. It is no suprise that all the beef is coming from the Right.

(btw, was that a typo? Did you mean anthropogenic? I'm a terrible speller/typist, myself, but began to wonder if a new word has been coined that I missed out on!)

Paradigm shift is usually resisted by the old guard. That's all we're seeing today. And real change in view points takes a long time. Just look at the Creation Science crowd. The Beagle sailed a long time ago...

Yet it still remains that the best way to determine the truth is by scientific inquiry, unencumbered by any preconceived ideas for or against the idea. We may be seeing what you describe, but the best way to find out is politically neutral science.

Not by the folks I've talked to. Data that present problems for a given theory are carefully considered. It does not seem, to me, that the ignoring/discounting of data is a general characteristic those who express grave concerns over "global warming," but rather by those who ignore, discount and mock them. It is a politically motivated discounting of what is a very real problem, probably driven by economic powerhouses. It is no suprise that all the beef is coming from the Right.

(btw, was that a typo? Did you mean anthropogenic? I'm a terrible speller/typist, myself, but began to wonder if a new word has been coined that I missed out on!)


They(AGW advocates) are ignoring other causes for global warming and concentrating only on what they have already decided is the cause. I do not see mocking coming from those who disagree with the AGW crowd. I do see a lot of it from the other side though, or don't you think lumping them in with holocaust deniers is derisive. Every scientist who disagrees with them is called a shill of big oil or industry. You are right, it is politically motivated. The politics is coming from the AGW crowd. As far as economics is concerned, where is all the grant money going? It is going to the AGW people.

I meant anthroprogenic. If I typed something else it was a typo.

Evidence yes, proof no. Laugh away, but it seems as if you still don't understand the concept of science, compared with consensus.

You can never have total proof. I can't even prove that my dog doesn't speak French. But here's some more evidence...I guess cartographers practice the global warming religion, too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070906/sc_livescience/climatechangeredrawsworldmaps

I meant anthroprogenic. If I typed something else it was a typo.

It's "anthropogenic." Dictionary.com is your friend. Of course, if you really read much about this issue, you would have no trouble spelling that word.

It is either anthropogenic or anthroprogenic, Leper.

There is a lot of literature on "natural" vs. "anthroprogenic" climate
change and pollution.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01824.htm

Anthroprogenic Nonsense On Global Warming

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/anthroprogenic_nonsense_on_global_warming/

Anthroprogenic Sources:

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter18/natural_human.html

So, is the recent warming due to anthroprogenic causes

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter16/recent_trend.html

http://www.ral.ucar.edu/projects/UAE/downloads/bruintjes_wmo_wxmod_03.pdf



Anakao fringing reef system: biodiversity and anthroprogenic impacts http://www.ifremer.fr/avano/notices/00000/797.htm

It is either anthropogenic or anthroprogenic, Leper.


They're called typos. I'm pretty sure I understand why you draw such bizarre conclusions through your research....you rely on unreliable sources to justify your claims. It's like you want to talk to doctors to learn about masonry and bricklayers to learn about medicine.

Merriam-webster online
http://www.m-w.com/

http://www.dictionary.com/

Leper,

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. Anthroprogenic is found all over the internet. I didn't just look at sources that are anti-man caused global warming. In fact some of the sites don't even address global warming. I was trying to show you that anthroprogenic is a common spelling of the name. If you want to think so many people gooded and had typos, fine. Think it.

I was trying to show you that anthroprogenic is a common misspelling of the name.
Here, I corrected it for you.

Leper,

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. Anthroprogenic is found all over the internet. I didn't just look at sources that are anti-man caused global warming. In fact some of the sites don't even address global warming. I was trying to show you that anthroprogenic is a common spelling of the name. If you want to think so many people gooded and had typos, fine. Think it.
anthropogenic
One entry found for anthropogenic.


Main Entry: an·thro·po·gen·ic
Pronunciation: -p&-'je-nik
Function: adjective
: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants>
- an·thro·po·gen·ic·al·ly /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb

The beauty of global warming is that any "irregular" weather can be attributed to it. To hot? Global warming. Too cold? Global warming. Too windy? Global warming. The fact that weather can never be "normal" to begin with is quietly shuffled aside.

The beauty of global warming is that any "irregular" weather can be attributed to it. To hot? Global warming. Too cold? It's the differance between macro and micro that matters.

yes, but that's the thing with climate, you can not predict it. We cant even prdict the weather 2 weeks from now.

yes, but that's the thing with climate, you can not predict it. We cant even prdict the weather 2 weeks from now.

So if a meteorologist tells you that the U.S. is going to be colder two weeks from now, you wouldn't believe him?

It will be colder because we will be farther away from the sun due to the earths orbit around the sun and the tilt of the earth. It is called the changing of the seasons. I would not dispute that. However, if a meteorologist told me that 50 years from now our summers will be 2 degrees hotter then they are now I would be a bit skeptical. When they say humans are the cause of that I am more skeptical.

It will be colder because we will be farther away from the sun due to the earths orbit around the sun and the tilt of the earth. It is called the changing of the seasons. I would not dispute that.

Good job of contradicting your last post :thumbs:

We cant even prdict the weather 2 weeks from now.I'm somewhat confused as to your position Trav.

Good job of contradicting your last post :thumbs:

I did not contradict myself. Correct me if I am wrong, but not once has a man made global warming advocate (on this board)even acknowledged the position of the earth in relation to the sun as having anything to do with our climate. to them its all about CO2.

So if a meteorologist tells you that the U.S. is going to be colder two weeks from now, you wouldn't believe him?
Uh, no. In So Cal, our summers dont cool off till the middle of January

So, here's evidence that should be also be considered, some contradicts the data in the link you posted. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5C%5CCulture%5C%5Carchive%5C %5C200512%5C%5CCUL20051207a.html

So, here's evidence that should be also be considered, some contradicts the data in the link you posted. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5C%5CCulture%5C%5Carchive%5C %5C200512%5C%5CCUL20051207a.htmlDo you consider this a credible source?

Do you consider this a credible source?

"Michaels, who believes claims of catastrophic human-caused "global warming" are scientifically unfounded, is an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute."

How credible does a source have to be? Yes, I think his credentials entitle him to be called qualified.

How credible does a source have to be? Yes, I think his credentials entitle him to be called qualified.Mark Morano and CNS News is the source.

Any source that doubts man mande global warming is not credible. Its like the old soviet union all over again.

Uh, no. In So Cal, our summers dont cool off till the middle of January


Did I say "So Cal" or "the U.S."?

I did not contradict myself.

You said people couldn't predict the weather two weeks in advance, and then you proceeded to explain, with zero meteorology expertise, why the weather in the U.S. will be colder in two weeks.



Correct me if I am wrong, but not once has a man made global warming advocate (on this board)even acknowledged the position of the earth in relation to the sun as having anything to do with our climate. to them its all about CO2.

You're wrong, as usual. I personally have on several occasions acknowledged that the Earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles based on the Earth's position in relation to the Sun. I've also noted that such cycles are very predictable since the movement of the Earth around the Sun is easily calculated, as well as the fact that meteorologists are certainly as aware of this fact as you and I are.

"Michaels, who believes claims of catastrophic human-caused "global warming" are scientifically unfounded, is an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute."

How credible does a source have to be? Yes, I think his credentials entitle him to be called qualified.

Here's why Morano is a terrible source for news:

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."

Morano is not a credible source for accurate or unbiased news.


As for Patrick J. Michaels, the "climatologist."

Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."

Michaels referred to himself as the State Climatologist for Virginia, in August 2006 the Governor clarified that the appointment was one by the University for its accredited climatology office but not an appointment by the state administration.

Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Dr. Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists, was quoted in the book "The Heat is On" (Gelbspan, 1998, Perseus Publishing): "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."

You said people couldn't predict the weather two weeks in advance, and then you proceeded to explain, with zero meteorology expertise, why the weather in the U.S. will be colder in two weeks.





You're wrong, as usual. I personally have on several occasions acknowledged that the Earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles based on the Earth's position in relation to the Sun. I've also noted that such cycles are very predictable since the movement of the Earth around the Sun is easily calculated, as well as the fact that meteorologists are certainly as aware of this fact as you and I are.

I apologize, I have never once seen an advocate of man made global warming on this board even nod to the fact that the earths position in realtion to the sun can have an effect on our climate. In fact if you listen to them CO@ is the only thing that can change earths climate.

I apologize, I have never once seen an advocate of man made global warming on this board even nod to the fact that the earths position in realtion to the sun can have an effect on our climate. In fact if you listen to them CO@ is the only thing that can change earths climate.

Assuming I'm what you would call a global warming "advocate," I'm right now acknowledging that other factors, including the Earth's relation to the sun, affect the Earth's climate. Of course, none of those factors really matter since they are not within humanity's control.

I know I've said this before to you, but you have a selective memory that way.

Assuming I'm what you would call a global warming "advocate," I'm right now acknowledging that other factors, including the Earth's relation to the sun, affect the Earth's climate. Of course, none of those factors really matter since they are not within humanity's control.

I know I've said this before to you, but you have a selective memory that way.

Yes, right now, in the past few post sof this thread is the first time in 5 years and "advocate" has even mention forces outside the earth as having an effect on its climate.

Yes, right now, in the past few post sof this thread is the first time in 5 years and "advocate" has even mention forces outside the earth as having an effect on its climate.Maybe it seems so obvious as to not deserve a mention. Hell, of course it's colder in winter than summer!

not for long! soon it will be hot 24/7 365!

not for long! soon it will be hot 24/7 365!
Heavy sigh...

Heavy sigh... And another one here!:@@:

not for long! soon it will be hot 24/7 365!
Buy stock in Trane.

I should with all the hot air flying around.

I love it. Yet another scientist that questions global warming caused by CO2 is denigrated. Don't research what he says, research his background to prove him wrong.

research his background to try and discredit him so you dont have to prove his ideas wrong. Good post old timer.

A Canadian newspaper "National Post" has been running a series of articles refuting the concept is anthropogenic. I thought some links may be interesting to some of you.
The series

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0)
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0)
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0)
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0)
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0)
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0)
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=17fad0e2-6f6b-41f3-bdd8-8e9eeb015777&k=0)
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0)
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0)
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0)

I love it. Yet another scientist that questions global warming caused by CO2 is denigrated. Don't research what he says, research his background to prove him wrong.

Why is it that people who don't agree with man made global warming are always either fools or the tools of big oil but those who believe in it are always erudite and work for the simple betterment of mankind. The funding they receive is never questioned. How can anyone denigrate any scientist and not denigrate Paul Erlich who first predicted a coming Ice Age, then mass starvation and now that those two things didn't pan out, global warming. Every Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks man is the prime cause of global warming is a brilliant scientists who knows what he is talking about even if his degree is in chemistry and every doubter is a buffoon even if his degree is in climatology.