For anyone out there still delusional enough to be clinging to the idea that Global Warming is an entirely natural phenomena, unaffected by the vast amounts of CO2 etc. that we have pumped into the atmosphere:

"HUMANS have fuelled a one degree Celsius rise in British temperatures in just 45 years, a disturbing new study shows.

Records dating back 350 years reveal that burning fossil fuels is 'almost certainly' behind the rise across Central England.
The documents cover 103,600 square kilometres from East Anglia to the Midlands.
Because they are so specific, natural global fluctuations in climate can be discounted to create a picture of rising temperatures brought about largely by human activity.
The findings come from a Met Office study of a unique and detailed set of records from 1659, when the average temperature in Central England was 8.83 degrees C. By the 1950s, it had climbed to 9.42 degrees C and last year hit 10.44 degrees C.

Researcher Dr Peter Stott said: 'This is a remarkable signal. Sharpe spikes in warming have been recorded in regions across the world.'
'But, because we in the UK hold this unique temperature record stretching back nearly 350 years, we are able to say that background climate noise can't reasonably be held responsible.'

Jason Torrance, from the Climate Clinic, an event being held at a major party conference later this year, said the findings were 'deeply worrying'.
He added: 'A large slice of our country has warmed by a degree in the short period of time since man went into space, and it's down to what we as humans are doing.'
'If the current trend continues, the climate of our own country will face profound changes in the lifetime of our children.'"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all those sceptics out there who can't see the link between humanity's output and rising temperatures, just keep repeating the mantra, 'IT'S JUST COINCIDENCE'.
Our children and their children will know who to thank for the ruined planet they inherit.

Blacknad.

the temperature has risen 1 degree and man had caused an increase of one degree. that means that no other cause can have caused it.

this means one of two things

1) all the hundreds of temperature changes in the last 5 billion years have been flukes.

or

2) man has somehow managed to find a way to prevent any of them from having any effect on the world without even knowing it.

in addition, Global mean the entire world, not just in places. England has a lot of road, homes etc. that cause a local increase in temperature. how many roads do you think there were paved pre 1950 how many concrete buildings and ground coverings were around then. population around the world has more than doubled, how much of it in England. People raise the local temperature too.

the solar activity (just to name 1) is on a high note on at least two of its cycles. one is a 11 year cycle, which would come and go. another is an 88 year cycle which is near the top. 50 years ago, it would have been near the bottom. another is a 200 + cycle (last time i discussed this, i did not know of this one) which has not yet peaked but is suppose to soon. that would mean that 50 years ago it was quite a bit cooler. Claiming that man is the only cause is nothing but trying to get attension. Man has had much effect, but there is indications that his very presence has done the majority of it, not his output of co2. That might be doing some, but there is no proof yet that it is, and certainly not that its the entire culprit.

The earth has survived having much higher levels of co2 and temperatures before, with most living things adjusting. By claiming that we are ruining the planet, you claiming that we are doing something to the planet it cant survive or that the human race is not as adaptable as other creatures.

Let's hear it once more:

'IT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE'.

and for the chorus:

'WE'RE NOT TO BLAME.'

and for our children:

'YOU CAN ADAPT.'

Blacknad.

How about this one.

facts dont matter, only the truth of our words

Hi Radnad,

Since I've just completed a study on the manipulation of weather station records, I figure I can buy into this argument without problem.

1. This is a very small area.
2. It is substantially cooling in the eastern part of the US and has been doing so for more than 30 years, yet I have not seen this being used to tout that global cooling is a reality. That area is many times larger than Central England.
3. I'm preparing a paper in relation to the Medieval Warm Period and found this interesting bit of data. Written records show they grew grapes in the Southern part of England. They cannot do that now without genetics and modern techniques to combat the cold. That suggests that Southern England was warmer then than now. The response in the studies that includes this evidence? It is a regional variation and there is nothing to suggest it was global.
4. Urban effect. That area would have significant urban effects where the weather stations are located. The smallest urban effect that should be expected is 2 degrees celcius (and it could go as high as 4 or even 5 degrees in very large urban centres but I would suggest not in this region). That's more than the total difference the study is quoting. Of course not all weather stations will have as great an urban effect and that could explain the difference.
4. And the No 1 reason why the temperature has risen. The method of recording temperatures has changed dramatically.

I'd like to see what the average was in 1830, then in 1880 at the end of the Little Ice Age, then 1910 etc (not yearly but for the decade surrounding).

Try this. Get any location you wish. Create an "average" temperature for one day using only maximums and minimums. Now repeat as for a typical 1950 record that included a couple of time specific temperatures as well. Now repeat for the 21st century that has the temperatures every two or three hours at least during the day and evening.

The very worst is a tropical location. I did this for Darwin. 20 min, 35 max. Avg: 27.5. A total of seven temperatures, 9am, 12, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm, max, min (Australia does three hourly). Average: 31.1.

So Global Warming in Darwin since 1930 when they had only min and max to today where they have multi day temperatures is a massive 3.6 degrees. If repeated around the world it would be enough to raise the sea level more than 8 metres. Except the only thing that has changed is that the recording of temperatures has increased. The real temperature average, if taken on a minute to minute basis or always using the same daily data, whether it be max min or multi times per day has not changed one iota (and don't get me started on daylight savings).

You are quoting an extract. Go back and look at the raw data or at least the method used to obtain the monthly or yearly averages. Unless this is a truly exceptional study, you will be surprised just how unscientific the calculation of average is.

By the way, this works for pretty much all weather station data. The current data sets used by pretty much everyone is the GHCN. It stores only monthly averages, with absolutely no standard for what an average, be it daily or monthly, is. It includes up to six different records for the same location where different methods have been used producing very different temperatures but it does not include what method was used for any of these variations or for any of the data.

Without exception all weather stations that I have reviewed which are not subject to major urban effect and where the averages have been calculated the same way over the entire period of the record comparison have a temperature trending DOWN. Hmm. Does that mean I'm going to get abused because this isn't what everyone wants to here or maybe I've manipulated the data?

Well try this. Compare the weather balloon records to the satellite records (1979 on because that's all there is). They match almost perfectly although the amplitude is a bit different. Now match those records to any data set of the average for weather station records. They are not even remotely alike. Indeed satellite records show a cooling trend from 1979 except for 1998, a very strong El Nino year and 2005, a big solar radiation year while the weather station data shows 14 record years.

Of course Global Warming has to be right because you have studies like the one you have quoted published almost every day. Trouble is it takes only minutes generally to find methodology flaws that would not even get you published in pretty much any other scientific field and may actually lay the authors open to a charge of scientific fraud.

But here is the really big issue I have with the study quoted. How do the authors show that fossil fuels are "almost certainly" behind the rise? Where is the nexus? What about the region's climate has changed. How about other human activities such as agriculture? It looks like the study is just on temperature records. No matter how the temperature changes, this does not prove anything about WHY it changed.

What really, really annoys me is that the "average" world temperature relies on data that is so dubious just because no one has had the guts to come out with a decent way of averaging temperature that fits the historic and current data records and then either created a data set or ensured that current data sets have records that match the definition.

This is not a minor issue. The "average" calculation deviation is actually more times greater than the entire rise in temperature from 1880 on, thus rendering all comparisons nothing more than wild guesses. And if you think it is random, and that there would be as many sites where the average would decrease rather than increase because of increase in frequency you have not thought through the distribution of the 7,000 odd weather stations that have data that can be used in respect to surface air temperatures and the fact that almost all of these has an average above zero.

Try it with even in a cold location. Say the min is -10 and the max is 10. The average is zero. Unless the distribution through the DAY is exactly a linear progression from -10 to 10 you will end up with a higher average with multiple daily temperatures. In very cold locations it is only when the multiple readings are evenly distributed throughout the 24 hours that the average may be lower with multiple readings per day than from a max/min.

Go to the Goddard Institute's site and look at the map of weather station locations, then wonder just how big an error this one factor has made to the temperatures. Go to the GHCN data and pull up any location that has multiple records. Look at just how much the average varies.

Then tell me that the study quoted or ANY study relying on surface air temperature data that has not been undertaken using the raw daily temperatures always averaged the same way, is perfectly valid and can be used to prove anything at all. Garbage in, Garbage Out. This just happens to be about as bad as you can get in scientific methodologies.


Richard

Hi Blacknad,

Sorry, I mispelt your monikor in the last reply. Profound apologies.

To dehammer. Get a copy of New Scientist 16 September 2006. "Saved by the Sun". Solar activities and its effect on the climate is the subject of a study that this article is all about.

In the next two weeks there is probably going to be a bit of publicity about another study that I have a copy of. Its predictions in relation to solar activity are very detailed and based on science that is well founded and has been verified from several independant sources. It would seem that the cycles of the sun, while there are a lot of them, allow for accurate predictions of what the sun is going to do for the next few years.

This study states that solar activity (and consequently the total energy reaching the earth) has been quite high for the last 50 years. Since that 50 years includes a global cooling period, that starts to be a bit of a worry.

Worse, its predictions of the sun is that the sun has just stopped being active and is going to go into a nice quiet slumber for the next half century or so. Assume for a moment that the incredibly flawed surface air temperatures are sort of accurate until 1979 and then use the satellite data from then on. That's not a bad compromise for the moment. You get an overall trend of pretty much nothing if you do that. Add the sun has gone beddy byes starting pretty much now and just how cold do you reckon it will get?

I'm not a fan of the doomsday scenarios whether they be global warming or cooling but it will get cooler sometime soon (soon being 0 to 3,000 years). Even trippling CO2 isn't going to stop that since it has been six times the current CO2 and the earth has still managed to go into an Ice Age before.

The figures in both New Scientist and the next study suggest Little Ice Age temperatures. Not the greatest but livable. Nothing wrong with walking across the Thames or walking to work from New Jersey a few times a year. But what if all the studies on the .08 degree C increase in the last 100 years is nothing more than an error in adjusting for urban effect and because of "average" changes? Me, I'd buy stocks in companies that made thermal underwear and heavy parkas. Help me out here. What else? Anti-freeze manufacturers. Companies that convert jetskis to jetskis with actual skis under them?

This is sort of fun thinking of who would benefit.


Richard

ric

hear here [sic]!

that bit of reason was much needed and is much appreciated

glad to see you back RicS. Ill see if i can get that magazine. thanks for in heads up.

Worldwide, "humans burn anywhere from 750,000 to 8.2 million ?km^2 of forest and grassland around the world," ?(The very conservative average is then ?4.475 million km^2.)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Posit wildfires average a paltry one gram of fuel/cm^2, the weight of ?of a dry unmown blade of grass. That is ?a gross underestimate (consider trees) and we will calculate its immodest implications.

Plants are 44.4% carbon by ?weight (net C6(H2O)5 for polyglucose cellulose; carbon-rich ?lignin balances moisture). Multiply that fraction by 44.01/12.01 ?for carbon to CO2. Worldwide fires annually average emit 72.81 billion metric tonnes of CO2.

A gallon of gasoline burns to 8800 grams of CO2, ?
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm

Worldwide wildfires ?are very conservatively equivalent to burning 8.27 trillion ?gallons of gasoline annually for CO2 emissions.

The Earth's total petroleum consumption averaged 1.6 million ?bbl/d in 2006. We will allow carbon sumps like asphalt remaining ?after refining to appear as burned fuel, ?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

(42 gallons/bbl)(1.60x10^6 bbl/d)(365 days) is 24.5 billion ?gallons for the year 2006. Each year global wildfires equal the ?whole world burning 100% of recovered petroleum for 337 years. ?If petroleum burning were reduced to ZERO, overall CO2 emissions as above would decrease less than 0.3%

Kyoto is not insanity, it is purposeful criminality. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU.

Quote:

"Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth?s temperature is rising due to human activity. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions. And the EPA has said that the recent warming trend ?is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years?due mostly to human activities.?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But forget all that because we have:

Dehammer who, despite having no scientific credentials as far as I can tell, has decided that Gloabal Warming is not due to human activity.

RicS who appears to be having a little X-Files moment and has discovered that every peice of statistical analysis scientists have ever performed regarding Global Warming has been faulty.

Uncle Al who has done the math (and focused entirely on CO2, as if it is the only issue) and found that this human activity induced Global Warming is all a load of crock.

I hope you will all forgive me for having a doubt or two about your assertions.

RicS, if you're looking for funding you may want to approach Exxon Mobil Corp. You are exactly what they're looking for.

Blacknad.

you really should learn to read for content. the people that you say dont dispute that are the same ones that you claim work for the oil companies. it because of this that i stop giving links. your religion will not allow you to accept anything but the written word as gospel told by GWA.

first off if you would bother to look at what i said, i did say that man has cause some of the warming with his homes, roads, breathing, and things like agriculture. GWA's dont want to even consider these as possiblities because the only solution is to kill off 90 percent of the human race. Instead they want to claim that the whole problem is co2, yet there is no evidence that it is even slightly causing the problem.

secondly, i have said that a lot of the cause of global warming is caused by natural cycles. GWA bible teaches that these do not exist. If they once existed they dont have any effect any more.

straight out of the GWA bible. If you cant argue the science, then claim its strickly the greedy oil companies that are doing it. The fact that it came from someone who distrust them as much as you does not even get noticed.

Uncle Al,

Your Wildfire math doesn't show the whole story.

"Fire can countermand certain greenhouse effects, and may, in the future, be a thermostat for global climate. If free-burning fires release greenhouse gases, they also deposit elemental carbon as a residue. The biota recapture the gases, while the carbon persists, in partial compensation for the exhumation of ancient hydrocarbons burned as fossil fuels. Proper burning in forest and shrubland can improve long-term productivity and net carbon storage. Aerosols and sulphur emissions reflect incident radiation, thus enhancing cooling. Fire effluents often serve as nuclei for clouds, further altering the radiation balance."


And from the 'United Nations Environment Programme - World Meteorological Organization'

This is how they see greenhouse gases added to atmosphere as a result of human activity:

CO2 RELEASE

"Carbon dioxide is produced when coal, oil, and natural gas (fossil fuels) are burned to produce energy used for transportation, manufacturing, heating, cooling, electricity generation, and other applications. The use of fossil fuel currently accounts for 80 to 85% of the carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere."

(I presume the 80-85% figure is a result of their understanding that wildfires probably produce no net CO2 increase over a period).

LAND USE CHANGES

"Land use changes, e.g., clearing land for logging, ranching, and agriculture, also lead to carbon dioxide emissions. Vegetation contains carbon that is released as carbon dioxide when the vegetation decays or burns. Normally, lost vegetation would be replaced by re-growth with little or no net emission of carbon dioxide. However, over the past several hundred years, deforestation and other land use changes in many countries have contributed substantially to atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. Although deforestation is still occurring in some parts of the northern hemisphere, on the whole, re-growth of vegetation in the north appears to be taking some carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Most of the net carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation are currently occurring in tropical regions. Land use changes are responsible for 15 to 20% of current carbon dioxide emissions."

METHANE

"Methane (natural gas) is the second most important of the greenhouse gases resulting from human activities. It is produced by rice cultivation, cattle and sheep ranching, and by decaying material in landfills. Methane is also emitted during coal mining and oil drilling, and by leaky gas pipelines. Human activities have increased the concentration of methane in the atmosphere by about 145% above what would be present naturally."

(And if human activity has caused this current warming cycle then we can add all of the Clathrates that are being released from permafrosts etc.)

NITROUS OXIDE

"Nitrous oxide is produced by various agricultural and industrial practices. Human activities have increased the concentration of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere by about 15% above what would be present naturally."

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

"Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have been used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and as solvents. However, the production of these gases is being eliminated under existing international agreements because they deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. Other fluorocarbons that are also greenhouse gases are being used as substitutes for CFCs in some applications, for example in refrigeration and air conditioning. Although currently very small, their contributions to climate change are expected to rise."

OZONE

"Ozone in the troposphere, that is, in the lower part of the atmosphere, is another important greenhouse gas resulting from industrial activities. It is created naturally and also by reactions in the atmosphere involving gases resulting from human activities, including nitrogen oxides from motor vehicles and power plants. Based on current data, tropospheric ozone is an important contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect. However, in part because ozone is also produced naturally, and because of its relatively short atmospheric lifetime, the magnitude of this contribution is uncertain."

----------------------------------------------------------------

The only thing left for the Flat Earthers - oops I meant 'Anti Human Induced Global Warming Advocates' to show is that none of the above extra greenhouse gases are actually behaving like greenhouse gases.

Maybe if RicS can show us how all of the scientists should be analysing their data he might be able to demonstrate that the greenhouse gases are actually cooling the planet.

Blacknad.

Hi Blacknad,

This is a general forum. Scientific credentials is not a pre-requisite for joining in. To make such comments is patently offensive since very few of those on this forum disclose their qualifications. Oh, and the very best professor I ever had never attended university as a student. He was a noted author in his field and his knowledge in that field was astonishing. When he was quite elderly they gave him an honory degree. Big deal! Einstein was a patent clerk when he came up with the theory of relativity and was a hopeless student. I really would like to see you saying his views were somehow of lesser value because he had no scientific credentials at the time.

Please take great care in making such statements. Should dehammer be a professor in some field or other that he has chosen not to disclose, he could rightly consider your statement a publicly published defamatory statement. That cost both a website and the author of a similar off the cuff remark a great deal of money only last year in another science based forum.

I really would have liked to have found different results. It really is depressing by the way. But I cannot change the results because they are what you have called an "x-file" moment. I have already been asked to do so and I really did find that request very offensive.

Oh, and I was offered funding by someone that is in turn funded by oil companies. I declined.

By the way your quote is of Ms Oreskes' study. Have you read it? This is what was done. She and her colleagues did a search of a major database for the term "climate change". You get very different results by simply changing the words to "global warming" or "global climate change" or to any number of other similar searches.

Actually read the study and you will find the facts do not match the conclusion. Firstly, Ms Oreskes, University of San Diego, read extracts only. Imho in climate change studies these are opinion parts of studies or conclusions. They may or may not be based on fact or on the data reported in the study.

I wanted to provide a link to the study itself but couldn't find a site that provided it without payment.

The paper is by a person expert in the history of science. What I found most interesting in the study was the very precises use of words. "Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus" does not mean "they all agreed that man is causing global warming of which there is no doubt". It actually means only that in the reading of the extracts she found no comments that directly challenged the view that the earth's temperature was rising due to global warming. If the studies said nothing at all about this issue because they just did not address the point at all, that still fitted in with the conclusion because the absence of the specific comment challenging the view was all that was being recorded.

The study does not state that 928 peer-reviewed papers accepted global warming was a fact and man made. That is quite a different thing.

Unfortunately, a great many people would have trouble with the symantics used and would simply interpret the conclusion as 928 studies agreed with the "consensus" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Looking at all papers between 1993 and 2003 in the same database that are related to climate change in one form or other, there are about 1.500 papers. About 50 specifically challenge the proposition of global warming. About 40 challenge the proposition of man made effects. How they managed to be published is beyond me but they snuck through somehow. A significant minority do not address the issues, either of the reality of global warming or that it is man made, one way or the other.

It is certainly clear that the majority of papers do support the view that global warming is a fact. It is also clear that a smaller number but still very large sub-set agree with the view that global warming is man made.

I paraphrase one paper. "We found evidence that the sea level is rising. This is due to man's activities causing global warming." The study had no nexus at all between what was being studied and any proof of global warming or whether any such warming was man made. This was a personal view of the author, having no basis in fact in the study itself which simply analysed various data about sea levels for a certain very small location.

And in extracts this is what you tend to get, opinion. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. It happens a lot. "We found evidence of population flux in such and such a thing. It is clear from this that global warming is a fact and is man made" How absurd! It is not hard to find study after study that says very similar things by the way.

So what does Ms Oreske's study prove? That Ms Oreskes is good at symantics and getting considerable publicity for what should have been a very dry report.

I do hope Blacknad that you read more than extracts. If you do you will most likely confirm my comment about how extracts very often have opinion not supported by the study itself, when in the field of climate change. If you did this in most other science, the peer review would reject the paper or ask for the unsupported opinion to be removed before publication. How come climate science enjoys this special position?

Sorry there are no links. I cannot link to any study I have reviewed unfortunately and links to other studies would take time I currently do not have.

Going into hospital in a few hours. With a bit of luck to those that resent my views here, the nasty little infection I have will finish me off and you will win your arguments by default. Actually that was probably not really warranted but, boy, it is hard to discover real problems in studies being reviewed when such a position is the most unpopular of any that exist for the endevour. You then have to choose whether you will defend your findings despite the fact that you probably have no chance of convincing anyone, or change your view because you become sick of being the odd man out. It becomes tiring after a while.


Regards


Richard

RicS,

Thanks for the advice on PPDSs. I will be more careful.

I think I'm covered by including the 'as far as I can tell' as in:

"Dehammer who, despite having no scientific credentials as far as I can tell ,".

And surely, if he chooses not to disclose them, then I am hardly remiss in assuming he doesn't have any.

The other thing is that I'm being deliberately provocative with terms like 'flat-earthers' and so on, and trying to fit in with the general MO here on SAGG.

The fact that you are still responding to me in a civil fashion is heartening and a credit to you.

I have (probably wrongly) assumed that people will know I'm just behaving deliberately with a bit of blunderbus bluster.

I apologise if I've over-stepped the mark and will refrain from further bravado.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Doesn't this give the lie to the claims that no one will peer review work that goes against the conventionally accepted position?

Blacknad.

Richard,

You're making me feel more guilty by the minute. Okay, I'll stop already

Hope things go well for you in hospital.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Hi Blacknad,

I thought you would make the comment you made. The studies were not anti global warming per se but they did challenge at least some aspect of it. It could have been the wording. It could well be that they were in 1993, 1994 etc when it was much easier to hold a contrary view.

Currently, in 2006, it is extremely difficult to obtain publication of a study that contradicts a basic tenant of global warming. I cannot quote statistics because this is anecdotal.

I didn't get the five stars because I abuse people!! Now I'll probably get rated really low just because I've mentioned it. Sigh.

The tone of many of these discussions is poor. Blacknad, as a moderator on a site for some time, I'll repeate what I used to say to those that were producing whitiscms etc only to have people take terrible offence. There is no body language on a forum, no non verbal language at all (except for emoticons that are not used much - we can be grateful for small mercies).

I believe that we can all disagree substantively and get along fine but some personal attacks that have happened lately have really put some of these arguments close to the gutter. Anything that raises the tone is appreciated.

As to you rider "as far as I can tell", sorry, not good enough if someone decided to take offence and sue. Firstly you would be up for costs as would the site. Something I also had to deal with as moderator before but I am well qualified in this area, I just won't mention it, in the spirit of not wishing to look to be attempting to be superior to others on this site. I did mention my qualifications once in response to a specific question from Daniel but no one knows if I am lying through my teeth. I guess my posts might indicate something, right now, that I am a very unhappy bunny about my study and wish that my results were different than they are because I just know that no one will accept them.

I am now trying to see if I can get an assistant to do a tangental study an an attempt to quantify the deviations inherent in the GHCN data sets. More funding needed! Maybe that oil company funds are useful afterall. But think about that just for a second. Would ANYONE believe the study then. Keep on being asked to lie about a particular study I have particular fault with and threatened with having my funding withdrawn. The threat doesn't work all that well since I haven't seen any money yet anyway and wonder if I ever will.

So let me ask you? Which would you think is prefrable. Work for a rapidly pro global warming entity that has a good reputation but know they are happy to ask a researcher to lie. Work for another entity at least partly funded by an oil company in the knowledge that the whole exercise is pointeless because of the assumed bias everyone will have. Talk about depressing options. Give up the whole thing because it does not matter. No one will listen. Bad data will be used because, it seems in global warming, it is acceptable as long as it reaches the right conclusion. Bad scientific methods will persist because - actually I'm not real sure about this one. I have been thinking about it. Laziness perhaps. You can get away with it. No one is going to press you. Actually, I do believe that it is because those that believe think that they are right in their conclusions and if the facts have to be massaged a bit to fit the conclusions, well it is the fate of the world we are talking about. Really would you like to be the global warming advocate that demonstrated the first really major chink in the whole argument. What if global warming really is close to a tipping point and your report, being used to argue for inaction, dooms everyone.


Regards


Richard

Hi Blacknad,

Completely off topic.

Our posts seem to be crossing. To truly understand my post you need to understand chronic pain. It is something you often decide you don't want to live with. Something often developed is a fatilistic humour. Tisn't easy to keep going. This is not a post to elicit sympathy by the way. I do alright. I have a great family that most in my position lose.

My brain still works fine (although there would be some here that dispute that)


Richard

Blacknad, i was not aware that it required a doctorate in the scientific field of global warming to be able to read graphs.

I was not aware that it required a doctorate to be able to read fine print and realise that changes were being hidden.

I was not aware that it required a doctorate to understand that when politicans talked about climate change as if it were entirely man made climate change, even when the paper they quoted specified that it included solar, solar flare, volcano, etc. that it was for political power.

I was not aware that the ability to see someone cherrypicking data required a doctorate.

I was appearantly mistaken that the ability to think for oneself did not require a doctor degree in the field you are thinking about.

I have been told that im something of a social chameleon. If someone insult me, i have a tendacy to eventually start insulting them back. If someone pushes me with hyperbolies, i have a tendacy to push back. If someone comes out with a line that I find indiate of bs, im likely to dish it right back at them.

you claim that you acted that way because you assumed that was the way its suppose to be, then why were you such a big part of creating it.

When i first got here there was a major poster that figured the best way to win an arguement was to chase the other person off with insult. I did not run off. Instead I through his own insults back at him. At times this resulted in both of us begin told to back off. Some of the time, he took the fact that i backed off as a sign of his winning. Eventually it got to the point that I felt i was forced to slam him down for his constant childish insult. I only had to slam him down twice, before he stopped with the constant insults. Unfortunately, that resulted in you and a couple others joining in the attacks on me.

i dont believe that that kind of atitude is the proper atmosphere for a discussion of ideas, but if that is what it is forced into, ill respond accordingly. Perhaps i was wrong to expect people that are adults to act like them.

Adult discuss ideas from a link rather that refuse to because the author of the linked site is of the wrong political party, or because he is not politically correct, or because the site is owned but someone that once upon a time several decades ago, pumped gas for a living.

adults dont win arguements by telling the person that has better data that they need to have their mommy spoon feed them.

adults dont argue that because someone points out flaws in your reading of something, that they need to get out of kindergarden.

adults do read for content.

perhaps i was wrong to assume that a place for scientific discussion amoung adults should be civilized.

perhaps i was wrong to assume that i did not need a doctorate to think for myself.

perhaps i was wrong to believe that the training i got in the military to read graphs and data could not be used outside of the military to read scientific data.

perhaps i was wrong to beleive that people could post in a public forum and expect to have their post actually read before it was mentally discarded.

since i am appearantly wrong to believe these thing, i guess im in the wrong place to discuss this stuff

good bye

Hang on a moment.

You and Dan have been going at each like American Wrestlers for about a year. I happen to be a bit critical of you and you take the hump and leave. How come I'm catching the fall-out?

You don't need a Doctorate to have an opinion, but when you take no part in any real research and but start to believe that you have it right and the rest of the scientific establishment are mistaken, then I have the right to take your opinion with a pinch of salt.

Sorry for being a bit of an ass in earlier posts, but I'm still of the mind that you are very mistaken.

The fact that we very well may be screwing up this planet for future generations requires action from us. You would need to be exceptionally sure of your science if you want to tell us 'Hey, there's no real problem.'

I can't see how you can be that sure, so what you are doing is dangerous - or it would be if people took you seriously.

Blacknad.

So Exxon Mobil Corp. have splashed out $2.9 million to 39 organizations 'researching' Global Warming. No prizes for guessing how much of the research has been contrary to the consensus.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

Blacknad.

Hi Blacknad,

There is no science in this thread. It is either personal knowledge because of who I know or my own opinion.

To your post. This is the trouble with quoting news articles. They can be out of date, just plain wrong or seriously distort the scientific report or whatever.

In this case, the link is to a newspaper, who in turn is quoting an organisation that is in turn providing figures on what another organisation is supposed to be doing.

ExxonMobil HAS stopped funding the groups such as those mentioned. It funds a huge amount of things including pure research but being an oil company and therefore it must be the devil incarnate, anything it funds must be biased, distorted and just plain wrong. It is because of this perception that ExxonMobil has stopped funding. Now some serious research has lost its funding and I'm not talking about Global Warming.

Just how did it come to pass that a huge multi national corporation cannot be seen to fund anything of a charitable or research nature because it pollutes the ability of that charity or research to be published or taints them so badly that the exercise becomes one in futility?

A hate to say this but before Global Warming created a huge lode of funds from governments, donations to environmental causes and the like, the only source of funding for most serious but pure research without immediate practical benefit came from companies just like ExxonMobil, who believed it their corporate duty to set aside a very small amount of their profits for such purposes. So ExxonMobil cannot fund cancer research because the argument will now be they will pressure the research into saying it is not caused by gasoline fumes (forget for a moment that the research was probably into a cancer where there was absolutely no causal link between environment and the cancer).

I cannot say why I know about ExxonMobil's funding withdrawal, only that I do. It has nothing to do with what I am doing but it has had a significant effect on someone I know and coincidently the subject was discussed only a few hours before your post.

Please tell me why research paid for by Greenpeace (not known for its objective assessment of ... well anything) or some other environmental lobby group is obviously unbiased and uninfluenced by its source of funding yet if funded by industry, which traditionally has funded most of pure research, obviously must mean that it is just a front for their propaganda. If big industry companies want spin, they have think tanks and lobbyists and publicists for that. It has been my experience that funding from such sources either comes with strings if it may have a practical application, the strings being that the funder has first crack at the profits to be made from such practical application, or with no strings at all.

This amazing development is a consequence of Global Warming. I was speaking with a researcher whom I admire and asked how did their conclusion end up saying something like "And the results show ... which is a clear consequence of Global Warming and is man made".

I asked if they believed this. They said, no that it was garbage but they had to add that type of comment into the conclusion otherwise funding would be withdrawn for other projects. It was "a condition of the funding". Do you suggest this is unbiased? Oh and by the way the researcher does believe in global warming and that CO2 is a primary factor. The garbage comment was about whether the research had any connection to establishing this as stated in the conclusion.

Now I could be making all this up because I cannot back any of this up with references to anyone involved. I wouldn't know this information if I was the type of person that would provide proof in breach of a confidence. Indeed, even this comment is sort of borderline and a little uncomfortable for me but I am in the happy position of being in touch with a number of people with no one else knowing that I am so I?ll go as far as I have but no further.

If you think for a moment about the many billions of dollars that go into the industry of Global Warming both the positive and negative, whether it be pure research, lobbying or spin, there is no way anyone with even a modicum of common sense would believe that the whole thing has not a chance of being unbiased and fairly studied or reported. I do not greatly care about the truth of global warming or otherwise. If it is true then research is needed to work out how it will progress and how to adapt. If it is false, well along the way human knowledge into climate science has developed greatly. Funding for tornado and hurricane research means practical benefits will result. And if less fossil fuels are used, a finite resource will be preserved a bit longer, there will be less pollution and man might stuff up his environment a little less. If it means that the Indonesians do not burn down half of Indonesia each year because Global Warming has brought this absurd behaviour to world attention then that?s a good thing.

Unlike some who doubt the science of global warming, I have no trouble at all believing that humans have had a profound effect on the planet. Locally they affect climate greatly. But I?m not a big fan of environmental causes just because they give the participant a warm fuzzy feeling.

Recycling paper is idiotic. It uses six times the energy to recycle paper than it does to utilize plantation timber. The long term pollution caused by de-inking etc is truly horrific. Yet try telling this to those that separate their newspaper from other rubbish. Actually if you really thought CO2 was a really big problem then you would never recycle paper. By putting it in landfill, you are locking up the CO2 that will be released in the recycling process (not to mention the huge amount released to create the energy to recycle the paper). I do have a concern that some idiot will try to stop global warming. Not Kyoto or making cars more efficient. That?s fine. Actually a great deal of anti global warming ideas are really just anti-pollution ideas. That is a good thing, in my view.

If governments want to add a tax to business in the form of carbon credits, aside from making a bunch of people that do not deserve it filthy rich, what?s the harm. The concern I have is that someone will try to ?reverse? the effects of global warming at exactly the same time as the sun decides to turn down the thermostat a bit. I thought that I didn?t have to worry because no ?practical? solutions existed. The cost would just be too much and require too many resourses but in the past three months have read four separate papers on reducing global warming that are not too expensive or impractical. The one that truly disturbed me involved introducing material into the atmosphere which would result in ?shinier? clouds and many more of them. Clever solution. Easy to do. The resultant pollution, while nasty, is such that those that fervently believe in the Al Gore philosophy that there will be no human life on earth in 100 years unless we act now, will not find it too objectionable. And likely to really reduce temperatures ? by a lot. And there was a knock on effect that was truly frightening.

To those that keep on saying, what's in it for the scientists etc that report global warming, the answer is money, publicity, prestige, a reason for being, the congratulations and admiration of others who think alike etc. plus the real biggie, the herd mentality of scientists. Scientists are smart as individuals. As a group they are often morons. Think of pretty much any scientific theory and you will have an example that fits this hypothesis. Darwin. Gallileo. Wegener. Actually the last one is a bit unfair. His theory might have been right but his reasoning as to how were really bad.

Take one small Global Warming example that really happened. The way it happened as explained here is me making a point. Say I study history. It gets funded in small ways but I see that while for many years Earth Sciences received almost no funding and it was impossible to do post graduate work unless you were rich (which is the reason why there are so few Climatologists with higher degrees in the world - when they were studying it, it was the very worst of the sciences for funding). Because my field of history includes the recent past I know that my earth science colleagues attempted to obtain some funding in the 70s through some publicity into the global cooling scare but, while it might have made the odd writer rich, in the main it failed. However, I know that from the late 80s on the funding trickled and then flooded into Earth Sciences because of global warming. Now I?m not a good enough historian to get funding in my own field directly so up till now all I?ve been able to do is teach and be sneered at by my colleagues because I haven?t published. Academics don?t use money to determine status and seniority and superiority of their group, they use number of publications as their currency.

Now I'm not the greatest Historian. I'm not at a really prestigious university but I am ambitious so what do I do? I write a paper on Global Warming! Huh, but I?m an historian not a climate scientist. Doesn?t matter as long as my results are very pro global warming. How about an 100% result in favour of global warming? That should do it, the historian thinks.

Not being a climate scientist, all I do is analyse the scientists that study climate (actually most of them are not climate scientists either but that?s getting off the point). I already know that the opposition to the "fact" of global warming dried up long ago because it was the only sure way to have that flood of funding cut off so I also know that whatever I look at will prove the "fact" of global warming providing I confine my study to the conclusions of Climate scientists who have been published in the last 20 years.

And what happens. My really lame and flawed study in a field I know nothing about gets accepted for publication straight away, flies through peer review without a whisper of ?This is lame. It does not add to the body of knowledge of man at all. It does not even follow good scientific methods. It is not verifiable.? It is touted by many as brilliant, is quoted in newspapers around the world as finally a ?sensible? study that shows that all scientists agree on global warming, and I get to go on to be considered to be a world authority on the field, even to be quoted often whenever global warming is discussed.

Now this could refer to anyone and is not intended to refer to any individual. Please do not post who you think it might be. I do not want this forum or me to be threatened with a lawsuit. It is a satirical account meant to emphasise the point I am making (end of legal disclaimer).

Climbing off my soap box now. How about a new thread that we can really discuss some aspect of global warming with real science? I?ll even make a suggestion. Someone challenge me by citing a real global warming study and I?ll discuss the scientific methods used. A bit too ?I?m the greatest? of a suggestion? Don?t actually mean it that way but it at least should be able to be a thread where the science is discussed. Maybe we could even sets some rules. No opinions at all except those that relate directly to the study and then you have to back them up with science by quoting studies or experiments and provide references or links (and no links to newspapers, summaries or anything other than the original research or paper). Everyone is allowed to participate and suggest the rules. The moderator of the group decides on the rules (but just for this thread). Any takers or any suggestions for other threads where we can discuss the science without just calling each other names or endlessly expressing opinions (and that is not the case of the pot calling the kettle black I don?t know what is). Another suggested rule. All entries in the thread have to be run through a spell checker but no critiscm of someone just because their English structure.


Regards


Richard

Hi,

Off topic completely!

No I didn't lie. I'm not in hospital because it is Friday. Not going to explain that.

Have an infection but this happens to those in wheelchairs or in bed for long periods. Am rooting for the little fellows that are white or carry around the little T shaped shields but the war still rages. Reinforcements are being sent in in the form of high level bombing of large pink pills, they then open up and out pops a bunch of little warriors known as the Anti-Bs. They might be on the good guys' side but they are also war criminals of the worst order. They slaughter anyone that is of a certain colour. They kill good guys if they get in their way. They are mass murderers of the highest order. Hundreds of millions of innocents are now dying because of the need for these reinforcements.

The only good thing that can be said of the Anti-Bs is they also kill the enemy and end the end they don't even have to be tried for their war crimes. They don't make it to the end of the war no matter who wins.

So, who's winning. Well the goodies, have flooded the war zone in an attempt to drown the baddies and to concentrate the good guys where the bad guys are. They have started to light fires all over the place in an attempt to make life rather uncomfortable for the baddies. They have even cut through the outer layer in several places so all the dead bodies that could start to stink up the place can be thrown out.

But the baddies have numbers on their side, plus they attacked an area that was a rest and recreation area and had much less active troops than would normally be found. They have taken a large area and have marked it with either little red markers or much larger red splotches to prove they are in their fighting and have gained territory. They also have little respect for the rules of war and are currently engaging in deliberate torture through the deliberate attack of communication systems sometimes known as nerve endings.

Because it is Friday, the last line of defence, the overwhelming application of Anti-Bs has to wait so the poor defenders are doing it tough right now. The next 24 hours are critical. If a breakout occurs then I wouldn't like to be the poor defenders of other areas and it might be much harder to use the ultimate weapon.

Reporting from the front line, this is Richard, signing off.

ok, Blacknad, ill accept that appology.

As I said, im something of a camelion. I have a tendacy to treat others precisely as they treat me. The other poster i mentioned was constant on the attack with childish insults, which i eventually responded with.

Just so you know, while he was at it for at least a year, i have only been posting here for the last few months. I believe my first post was in March.

You should check out some of the threads that RicS and I went back and forth on. While some of the debate was simi intense, not one insult every past between us, not one put down, not one bit of disrespect. In the end, I learned a lot, and would like to think I might have even taught a few people things.

If you wish to discuss things, I ask that you act like RicS and not like the other. It would be more pleasant for all concerned.

As far as what the future holds if I am wrong, I dont believe that there would be much harm compare to the damage caused by the real problems that have been proven to be a factor. There has never yet been a proven connection between co2 increases and an increase in temperature as a result. There has been links proven between the rise in temperature to mans building, his roads, and his method of farming and ranching. Yet you try to mention this to anyone concerned with Global warming, and they will look at you like you the devil himself. They will accuse you of being in league with BIG OIL. Why, because there is nothing that can be done easily. No one would even consider trying to lower the population to reduce the temperature. No one would even entertain the thought that something must be done about cities to get control over GW. No one would even listen to the idea that the number of cows and sheep (both of which are in much greater number than any time in history and both replace animals that produced less methane) might be a rather large cause of increases in greenhouse gasses. Why, when the solution to this part would be easy, replace herd animals that produce methane with ones that produce none or little? simple, that means that they cant have their hamburgers, the port chops. Instead they want to get rid of the major companies that polute and cause everyone else to have to give up cars and such.

I have never said that man was not in some way responsible for part of the increase in the temperature, although there are times i doubt that his increases in co2 has caused any of it.

the thing is, there are things that are proven, beyound any possible doubt, to be in some way responsible for an increase in temperature, yet GWA's dont want to deal with those. Why? because it means that they are the culprets instead of some other "Big Oil" exec, or perhaps Bush and his cronies.

There are ways we could be moving away from Big Oil and possible many reason to do so, but I dont believe Global Warming is one of them. The reason to do so are more in the known and proven areas. Polution. Ozone in homes. Damage to sea life from polutiants dumped into the sea. Oil spills. These things are known, they are reason to move away from oil, and things like it, BUT they there is no proof that GW is.

I dont see how putting the spot light on global warming will do a thing for the future, but if we instead focus on things that are wrong now, and are known to be destroy the earths environment, then perhaps that will aid the temperature of the future if I am wrong. The danger is, if we focus on global warming, we will take away the spot light from the known areas of danger. If we take care of them, much of the problem with greenhouse gasses will fall away.

Richard,

Loved your picture of bodily warfare.

But with your posts, could you possibly be a bit more compact? When I see a block of text 800 words long I tend to just skip through it (if I can be bothered to read it at all) and I'm probably missing a few gems in the process.

The same with dehammer.

Maybe at least make some of your major points in BOLD to break it up and make it slightly more appetizing to the eye.

I think it may be where some of the disagreement comes from - where people do not read through your posts in their entirety.

And think of poor Amaranth, who reads every posts on the board. She's started loosing weight because she's not finding enough time to eat in between reading your ginormous posts

Ta.

Blacknad.

Hi,

Blacknad. Good point. Mentioned this before. My brain works but not like it should because of my condition. So reviewing and being able to take the time to make my posts compact is very difficult for me to do. Many posts would just not exist if I tried (what? did I hear cheering in the background).

• I type fast
  
  IE 7 stops popups unless I switch them off every time I want to use UBB
  
  But I like your idea and will use it.
  
  Maybe a bold summary at the beginning or the end of each point. I do that in my writing. Good idea?
  
  How about a different post for each subject with the above summary?

Richard