Global Warming Cont...

[arkansasbob]

Gee whiz, I've done #2 also. i get my information from science magazines. Where do you get your information?

The "12F without greenhouse gases which includes waer vapor" is based not on models but atmospheric physics.

To say that gw is a junk science scare is absurd.

Take a look at solar output,,,,doesn't change much in the short term.

ok, so 12f without greenhouse gases doesn't prove anything if it includes water vapor -- so quit reciting it as if it does.

i get my information from anywhere i can -- including your regurgitation of "science magazines" (which are included in the sensationalist media that we can't trust).

incidentally, there are some scientists whose research is not ethically tainted. there are groups that are funded by independant private organizations that keep their researchers blind of their donor base. these organizations are funded by thousands of independant donors, which often include oil companies. global warming activists use that fact to try to discredit the research because it is "funded by oil money," but in truth the donors exercise no influence over the research.

[saltydawg]

Which magazines? Are we talking about scientific (peer reviewed) journals or pop science mags?

Science and Scientific American.

Also, the book Global Warming by Sir John Houghton, CBE.

[saltydawg]

ok, so 12f without greenhouse gases doesn't prove anything if it includes water vapor -- so quit reciting it as if it does.

i get my information from anywhere i can -- including your regurgitation of "science magazines" (which are included in the sensationalist media that we can't trust).

incidentally, there are some scientists whose research is not ethically tainted. there are groups that are funded by independant private organizations that keep their researchers blind of their donor base. these organizations are funded by thousands of independant donors, which often include oil companies. global warming activists use that fact to try to discredit the research because it is "funded by oil money," but in truth the donors exercise no influence over the research.

Why don't you link your favorite scientific article about global warming? I'm always willing to change my mind about the subject.

[Bill Pup60]

Why don't you link your favorite scientific article about global warming? I'm always willing to change my mind about the subject.

For starters Salty here are a few books you might want to read if you're really serious......

• McKitrick, Ross and Essex, Christopher, “Taken by Storm – The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming.” Key Porter Books, Ltd., Toronto ,2002
• Lomborg, Bjorn, “The Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the Real State of the World.” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004
• Best, Joel, “Damned Lies and Statistics – Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists.” University of California Press, Berkeley, 2001

I tend to be somewhat skeptical about "Scientific American" (although I do read it regularly) because over the years I've found several articles dealing with my area of expertise that contained serious mistakes. When I pointed these out I've never even received a response.

I tend to be skeptical of much of what I read (especially on the web) because that is the truly scientific way. If a theory cannot stand up to efforts to disprove it, then it is useless. For instance many of the papers published in one of the technical journals of my profession -- The Journal of Petroleum Technology -- have someone challenge it. The challenge is published in the next issue and then the author's response to the challenger is published and it can go on for quite some time. The bottom line is that it is acceptable to challenge any theory. It it withstands the challenge great!! But if it can't, then it was probably hokem to begin with. That's what I'm seeing with the Church of Global Warming. Not only does the congregation and Reverend Al not want to hear what the other side ( which is quite large in spite of what you say) has to say, they even want them to lose their jobs.

[saltydawg]

Bill, here are some reviews of McKitrick, Ross and Essex, Christopher, “Taken by Storm – The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming.” Key Porter Books, Ltd., Toronto ,2002


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...283155&s=books

Chris Barrington Leigh gives a good review.

[saltydawg]

Regarding Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentist, it had pretty good reviews. However, you should note that Bjorn states that global warming is happening and is partially induced by human activities.

Here is what on reviewer stated: "Think about it. How can an ASSOCIATE professor of game theory...a gambling statistician...be an expert on no less than 20 complex multidisciplinary areas of natural, environmental and social sciences, not to mention chemistry, biology, immunology, oceanography, economics, medicine, public policy, and the list goes on and on and on.....? The chapters of this book are no more than about 7-8 pages long per issue area....You can't even introduce an issue as complex as energy or cancer or global warming let along explain how and where the scientists and experts in those particular fields got it wrong with any authority or credibility."

I agree that the environment is getting better in some areas but in others it is not. Controlling CO2 emissions is one area where we have to take action.

[saltydawg]

Bill, those three books you listed are written by an economist, a math guy, a gaming statistician, and a sociologist. Not a climatologist among them.

If you would like to read a college level textbook on Global Warming written by a climatologist, here is the link. It's expensive at $51 but well worth it.

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming.../dp/0521528747

[arkansasbob]

Why don't you link your favorite scientific article about global warming? I'm always willing to change my mind about the subject.

there are nearly 1000 posts in this thread. many of them contain links to very good scientific articles about global warming. in the early part of this thread and its predecessor, i furnished several links myself. many of them directly contradict what you continually regurgitate, and prove it scientifically. if you were truly willing to change your mind, you would have read these and had a good reason why you disagree other than, "it probably just some quack that gets money from oil companies."

[altadawg]

I havent even read a response since my last post and I wont. Im done. Im tired of political BS. You know your wrong. You should save your BS for something you have a shot in. Its over. Deal.

Most of us(outside this board) are ready for change. Change is going to happen. You cant stop the movement. The world is going to sweep over us like a tsunami on this one. Hell, most Americans are on board big time.

The rest of you, in the minority BIG TIME, are just going to have to deal. Good luck.

[Dawgbitten]

Did anyone see where only 13% of the republicans in congress believe in man-made global warming? Something like 85-95% of the democrats believe in it.

[arkansasbob]

oh, now that you put it that way, i guess you're right. how silly of me to go against the majority!

[Guisslapp]

Did anyone see where only 13% of the republicans in congress believe in man-made global warming? Something like 85-95% of the democrats believe in it.

Intelligence is not a prerequisite for being a politician.

[saltydawg]

oh, now that you put it that way, i guess you're right. how silly of me to go against the majority!

Ark BOb, show me ONE peer-reviewed scientific article that shows (1) global warming isn't happening or (2) gw is happening but isn't being caused by increasing levels of CO2.

I'm sure not going to go back and try to find some worthless bs from Fred Singer.


If your position has any merit you can provide me with that article.

[Guisslapp]

Ark BOb, show me ONE peer-reviewed scientific article that shows (1) global warming isn't happening or (2) gw is happening but isn't being caused by increasing levels of CO2.

I'm sure not going to go back and try to find some worthless bs from Fred Singer.


If your position has any merit you can provide me with that article.

Not to put words in your mouth, but for your #2 i think you meant to state "GW is happening but it isn't caused by increasing levels of ANTHROPOGENIC CO2."

[Guisslapp]

I am certainly no expert in this field, but here is a relatively short list of papers and articles supporting ArkansasBob's point. I am not sure if you can ever prove a negative (i.e., that GW is NOT CAUSED by X). Many of these papers (and some short articles) support theories of alternate causes (or cause unknown) or that that warming is not happening:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/news/news_sh..._testimony.php

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

http://www.examiner.com/a-173632~The...l_warming.html

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/415.pdf

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/203.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1023334.stm

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-0...over-dialogue/

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...al_warming.pdf

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/354023909X

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...1-weather.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...n13670777/pg_1

Not sure if any of these guys have submitted peer-reviewed articles.