Sun activity and global tempertures

[franko]

Global warming. Climate change. Ebb and flow of the earth's life or man-enhanced? If htere is indeed a problem that we can find a solution for, let's find one (admittedly on the fence but come at the problem from a prespective of mankind having respoinsibilities for the earth).

Kyoto's solution for Canada is paying 5 billion dollars a year to other world areas for carbon credits. How, may I ask, is this going to solve the problem?

The thing that gets me is the fact that the ones yelling the loudest are inconsistent (GOre, Suzuki). How about walking the walk, guys?

[Cranky]

ropoflu said:

HA, I respect you, but I think our opinions are way too far apart on that topic to make a constructive debate (plus, sparring in a second language might not be a good idea for me). I just wanted to add another perspective on what I feel is a highly important issue.

I have no horns Ropoflu and spit no acid (unless the Hab's lose). I am 53 and I have been through many of these "Apocalypse" yelping. In the 70's, we were the cause of the impending new ice age. The pollution was going to cover the sky and blot out the sun until we cause a 10 degree drop in temperature and global ice age. It was as prominent then as it is now. The media was not as pervasive in all our lives but you got newspaper articles by prominent scientist that we were only 20 years away from catastrophe.

Then it was the acid rain that would destroy all our eco system. Acid rain was going to poisen our ecosystem and destroy the soil. World hunger was right around the corner. Humans would fight each other like dogs over the last ear of corn.

Three years ago, the avian flu was just a bird flap away from human destruction.

Now, the world will end as we know it and be under 200 feet of water because we are causing global warming. And how can you argue with them? Every flood is caused global warming, every hurricane is caused by global warming, every dry spell is caused by global warming. I am surprised that erectile dysfunction isn't blamed on global warming....yet. And who is responsible for this? YOU AND ME! If we only we change our lifestyle, if we only simply adapted to the land, if only we atoned for our profligate ways by giving money to third world countries to "develop properly", if only you and me could save the world from ourselves.

This "cause" is has deeper roots in social agendas. Kyoto "solved" some of the problem by making the "developed" world pay for it. Think about it, you can pollute as much as you want, as long as you gave money to underdeveloped countries as "pollution credit". Kyoto gave a free pass to China and India as underdeveloped countries and they are both climbing to be number one in pollution. Do you know that China will pass the US in pollution in TWO years. Not decades, TWO years. How transparent can a policy of agendas be? How can anyone take Kyoto seriously? And yet, we now have a ground swell of sheep bleeping at the top of their lungs.

Here is what I want to see.....

Prove that there are no causes other then human causes for global warming. Send satellites out to measure the solar radiation and it's variation. If there is CONCLUSIVE proof that WE are the cause, then by all means, lets start becomming Bolivian farmesrs. But until then....

What I don't care to see....

Is hype and scare tactics by certain groups. It is of no suprise when they took polls of people who supported the "global warming cause" also supported left and far left leaning agendas. The most radical groups that came out against "anti-globolization" are also as radical about global warming? Is it any suprise that China and India are proponents and supporting governments of global wamring? Why not. Think about this, we shut down OUR factories and depend on THEM for all our manufactured goods. if that is not an agenda, then I don't know what is. They are basically supporting the destruction of our economies and we have people in the streets who are nidding with approval. Have they gone nuts? All of the underdeveloped countiries is supporting the "global warming cause" because of simple self interest. They want äll industiralized countries to "PAY" for their development through" Kyoto like deals.

I could go on but if someone does not care to see the root support of this latest fear mongering, then no amount of examples or will sufice. What we have is an effect and no clear understanding of it's cause. Any attempt to find or support alternative cuases is drowned by screams of "oil company collabarators". The reason I call it a new religion is the fact that some people have taken it into the realm of faith. Think about it, the world will end (Apocolypse) and we must change our ways (atone for our sins and repent our evil ways).

ropoflu said:

There will be 3 other volumes released this year. While the first one was an assessment of current scientific knowledge on climate change, the others will be assessments of the future impacts and adaptation by theme (water, food, human health, etc.) and by regions, and the possible responses to these impacts. For those interested the next volume will be available in the beginning of May.

Think about what this says. The IPCC is no longer interested in ANY review of thei conclusions OTHER then how to go forth with social agendas.

You really believe that ANYBODY who disagrees with them will get anything but laughter? This smacks of the middle ages and the church burning anyone at the stake if they did not believe.

As for the 2,500 scientist, well, there is more then a MILLION scientist on the planet and at any given time and any given place, they will have a thousand different beliefs. This is not a force of numbers as much as it is a social agenda wrapped in a cause looking for justification.




Please Note:
The above post was bought and paid for by the Consortium Of Oil Company Interests.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

Now you are expecting the high priests of the new religion, the same scientist who made their reputation on "human caused global warming" to be objective? Seriously?

As opposed to the so-called scientists who are being paid by oil companies and right-wing organizations to say whatever they have to to create doubts that global warming is real?

I confess....

It's more sinister than that. The oil Companies were looking for collaberators and one day, they came across this forum and saw my avatar. Right there and then they decided to put me on the payroll. How could I resist? Orgies till dawn, mounds of cash, gold, silver, sex slaves. WHY would anyone resist?

As for global warming, the issue is not if it is real, the issue is the cause. That is where agendas and interests come in. That is where the IPCC and it's kind have stonewalled and ridiculed anyone who doesn't believe in their cause.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

As for global warming, the issue is not if it is real, the issue is the cause.

The fact is, there are people being paid to say that it is not real, not because they believe that, but because it's good for business, and there are a lot of people who believe them.

As for alternate points of view, it's hard to take seriously an argument that equates mainstream science with Naziism (BTW, this trend where people throw the words "Nazi" and "Hitler" around like candy to criticise anyone they disagree with is not only offensive, it also diminishes what happened in WWII).

It is of no suprise when they took polls of people who supported the "global warming cause" also supported left and far left leaning agendas.

It's no surprise that people who deny it also mostly support right and far right leaning agendas.

[ropoflu]

Published in Science magazine a few years ago (2004):

***

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes

1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.


The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: [e-mail]

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

***

Now here's another paper on the media balanced reporting on climate changes:

www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

The discrepancies of what's published in the scientific communities and what is seen in the mass media might explain a bit why people seems so divided on that issue.

[PTH]

machabby said:

As for alternate points of view, it's hard to take seriously an argument that equates mainstream science with Naziism (BTW, this trend where people throw the words "Nazi" and "Hitler" around like candy to criticise anyone they disagree with is not only offensive, it also diminishes what happened in WWII).

Well, MCH, on the plus side, simply calling them out as eco-nazis automatically makes them lose the argument (before even bringing up their points), according to a long-standing "law" about internet discussions....

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[2] that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
.....

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves to impose an upper bound on thread length in general.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Cranky]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

As for global warming, the issue is not if it is real, the issue is the cause.

The fact is, there are people being paid to say that it is not real, not because they believe that, but because it's good for business, and there are a lot of people who believe them..
.

The fact is that in order to diniminish any other dissenting voices, to strangle anyone who does not conform to "humans cause global warming", these people attack anyone with "he is in the pocket of oil companies". You want to know the truth? Oil is part of our society and oil companies would like nothing more then to have a $200 a barrel oil. Look at what is happening in Ontario, they are making BILLIONS out of just one shortage.

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

As for alternate points of view, it's hard to take seriously an argument that equates mainstream science with Naziism (BTW, this trend where people throw the words "Nazi" and "Hitler" around like candy to criticise anyone they disagree with is not only offensive, it also diminishes what happened in WWII)..

As for offesnive, I'm offended by wool cap global warming priests telling my children that their parents are destroying the earth and it's THEIR job to stop them. Turning children against their parents is far beyond "offensive". 1930's the Gestapo also made sure that they got into childrens minds and encourage any child to report their parents.

Global warming advocates blame the media for lack of "action". Their argument is that the media is too use to "free speech" thus giving "both sides" an equal voice thus preventing the "crisis" to act immidiatly. What do you call that tactic?

The global warming advocates use the Holocaust to their own means by associating anyone who does not conform to their views, or worse, challenges their views as "deniers'. What do you call that tactic?

The global warming fartenity is going after children minds, suppressing any dissenting arguments, attacking anyone who does not believe in their cause with "deniers" baggage. Short of physical attacks, all that speaks of Gestapo tactics rather then open discussions.

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

It is of no suprise when they took polls of people who supported the "global warming cause" also supported left and far left leaning agendas.

It's no surprise that people who deny it also mostly support right and far right leaning agendas.

There you go. Then lets call it what it truly is, an attempt to bring "crisis" to control social agendas.

[MC Habber]

You know what else children are learning these days? Things like "math" and "history" and "good citizenship." Oh, the humanity.

[ropoflu]

IMO It's not about us vs. them. In fact, there is no "them", it's just us. We can argue over directions but it's just us, alone and all stuck together in our giant space vessel.

[Cranky]

pth said:

machabby said:

As for alternate points of view, it's hard to take seriously an argument that equates mainstream science with Naziism (BTW, this trend where people throw the words "Nazi" and "Hitler" around like candy to criticise anyone they disagree with is not only offensive, it also diminishes what happened in WWII).

Well, MCH, on the plus side, simply calling them out as eco-nazis automatically makes them lose the argument (before even bringing up their points), according to a long-standing "law" about internet discussions....

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[2] that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
.....

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves to impose an upper bound on thread length in general.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

If one side labels anyone who does not conform or worse yet, disagree, as "deniers", then they are fair game.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

pth said:

Well, MCH, on the plus side, simply calling them out as eco-nazis automatically makes them lose the argument (before even bringing up their points), according to a long-standing "law" about internet discussions....




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

If one side labels anyone who does not conform or worse yet, disagree, as "deniers", then they are fair game.

I guess you have a problem with the phrase "holocaust denier" then.

[franko]

machabby said:

You know what else children are learning these days? Things like "math" and "history" and "good citizenship." Oh, the humanity.

Not really. OK, somehwat. [Anecdotal "evidence" here because I can't remember where I've read it -- many times, though;} Many high school students entering university cannot pass a basic english exam. Many high school and university students believe that there is nothing wrong with crediting second hand knowledge as original (used to be known as "plagarism").

Around and around we could go. I'm a righty-lefty -- depends on the issue. Like I said, gotta do something, but let's not blame the problems of the world on western culture (though I do say that we are over-materialistic and big-time wasters).

[Cranky]

ropoflu said:

IMO It's not about us vs. them. In fact, there is no "them", it's just us. We can argue over directions but it's just us, alone and all stuck together in our giant space vessel.

Fine....read all my posts....actually, you probably get bored.

I said it before and I will say it again. Let's TRULY find out what is causing global warming, how much of it is real and if human are indeed the "cause". Then and only THEN we can act intelligantly and forcefully. Let's study the sun and it's cycles. Let's study global tectonis and their effect. Let's study deep ocean currents. Let's study EVERYTHING related to the cause.

Right now, right this minute, there is a climate of "crisis" been created in order to circumvent ANY discussion. Who is doing that and why? Why the screaming insistence on immidate and radical social change? What if all this amounts to a hill of beans like the "ice age" from ONLY THIRTY YEARS AGO.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

If one side labels anyone who does not conform or worse yet, disagree, as "deniers", then they are fair game.

I guess you have a problem with the phrase "holocaust denier" then.

It's a pretty sad attempt at twisting my words. C'mon MC, you are better debater then that.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

You know what else children are learning these days? Things like "math" and "history" and "good citizenship." Oh, the humanity.

Please don't go to the "good citenzinship" route. When I was twelve, the Greek school system taught me that "good citizenship" was God, country and parents, in that order. Five years later I was rioting in the streets trying to overthrow the government (junta). I guess I failed my classes.....and I have the scars to prove it.

much like the separation of church and state, children should not be used as a pawns to political and religious agendas.