quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: Perhaps professor John Christy, a NASA atmospheric scientists who has won distinguished rewards for his work may mean something to you? he IS an expert. "John Christy is an atmospheric scientist and Professor of same at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and winner of achievement awards from NASA and the American Meteorological Society. He was a lead author of the IPCC's 2001 Assessment Report, but in 2007 was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying, "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see."" As they say, you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing. If you cannot see a connection between the dissent, lies, false data, and connected to federal grant money, I cant help you. It all goes back to the money.

Love it. Why not research him and his friend Roy Spence and see where they get their backing. And the fact that their data sets have been shown to be wrong and that they've had to continually change their speculations in order to get published.

So you are right and the award winning NASA scientist is wrong, or make that paid off by some corporate interest to lie?

So is this supposed to balance out against the documented lies by East Anglia? Or refute the FACT that dozens of glaciers are growing and the Arctic Ice shield is recovering?

This gets weirder by the minute.

Arn

quote Originally posted by newf: http://reason.com/archives/...-of-an-alleged-exxo/

But, the money flows on both sides...

Bid Adios to the Anti-Global Warming MovementBid Adios to the Anti-Global Warming Movement[/url]

The truth is that there never has been an environmental issue that has enjoyed greater corporate support. Early in the global warming crusade, a coalition of corporations called United States Climate Action Partnership was formed with the express purpose of lobbying Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It included major utilities (Duke Energy) and gas companies (BP) that stood to gain by hobbling the coal industry through a cap-and-trade scheme. Meanwhile, the Breakthrough Institute, a highly respected liberal outfit whose mission is to rejuvenate the progressive movement in this country, points out that environmental groups spent at least $100 million over the past two years executing what was arguably the best mobilization campaign in history. Despite all of this, notes Breakthrough, there is little evidence to suggest that cap-and-trade would have mustered more than 43 votes in the Senate.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: So you are right and the award winning NASA scientist is wrong, or make that paid off by some corporate interest to lie? So is this supposed to balance out against the documented lies by East Anglia? Or refute the FACT that dozens of glaciers are growing and the Arctic Ice shield is recovering? This gets weirder by the minute. Arn

Funny I didn't say I was right, I said I trust the THOUSANDS of scientists that are in agreement. You are the one that keeps rolling out the single dissenting voices, not that there is anything wrong with it you are just entitled to your opinion as I am. When people tell me I'm wrong for my opinion and give "facts" that they claim are correct, I will challenge them.

Yup the ice shield is recovering (since 2007 that is) and to it's third lowest point. Awesome!

Oh, you haven't shown your Glacial Growing data yet, show us the Facts.

quote Originally posted by newf: Funny I didn't say I was right, I said I trust the THOUSANDS of scientists that are in agreement.

Which you keep repeating. Which DOESN'T MATTER.

quote Originally posted by newf: Yup the ice shield is recovering (since 2007 that is) and to it's third lowest point. Awesome! Oh, you haven't shown your Glacial Growing data yet, show us the Facts.

I've posted this before, more than once, but you don't seem to read. So here it is again

http://www.iceagenow.com/Li...panding_Glaciers.htm

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: I've posted this before, more than once, but you don't seem to read. So here it is again http://www.iceagenow.com/Li...panding_Glaciers.htm Arn

I'll get back to you after I finish laughing, so now your position is that we are entering an Ice Age?

quote Originally posted by newf: I'll get back to you after I finish laughing, so now your position is that we are entering an Ice Age?

Maybe if you spent less time laughing, and more time reading, you'd realize it doesn't matter if the site believes in the next ice age, what matters is that glaciers are growing, not shrinking, and the site provides sources for the claims.

http://www.skepticalscience...ion-intermediate.htm

This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).

On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).

While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).

The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate

Scroll down to Himalayas:

http://www.appinsys.com/glo.../GW_4CE_Glaciers.htm

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Scroll down to Himalayas: http://www.appinsys.com/glo.../GW_4CE_Glaciers.htm

Why not look what the experts in the field say. http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/index.html
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
http://nsidc.org/glaciers/

He needs spoon feeding.

[2010/01/17]: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece]

* “Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas. When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.”

Ahhh yes the usual tactic of no context. Do you ever get tired of cherrypicking? Why not read what a more objective veiw has to say. I know it's shocking but they deal with their mistakes.

Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 3000 page IPCC report.


This is not the first inaccuracy to be found in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - there have been several papers demonstrating where IPCC predictions have underestimated the climate response to CO2 emissions. However, this time the climate response has been overestimated. Specifically, the IPCC AR4 predicted the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 which is decidedly not the case. What's the significance of this error? To determine this, let's look at how it happened and the broader context.

The error occurs in Section 10.6.2: The Himalayan glaciers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."
The source for this information was "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China", a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF report was not peer reviewed. On Page 25, we find:

"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”. Direct observation of a select few snout positions out of the thousands of Himalayan glaciers indicate that they have been in a general state of decline over, at least, the past 150 years. The prediction that “glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming” and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will “eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages” (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003) is equally disturbing."
The WWF sourced their information from a 1999 news item in New Scientist. Again this was not peer reviewed (New Scientist is a popular science magazine). The article was based on an interview with Indian scientist Syed Hasnain, chair of the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who speculated that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035. This speculation was not supported by any formal research.

Unfortunately, the error was not spotted in the review process. This may be because it was buried deep in the Working Group II section (which focuses on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability with a regional emphasis). It was not one of the key features included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The 2035 prediction was not included in the Working Group I section (focusing on the Physical Science with more of a global emphasis) which was solidly based on peer reviewed research.

The moral of the story seems clear - stick to the peer reviewed scientific literature. This is not to say peer review is infallible. But as a source for climate science, there is no higher standard than rigorous research based on empirical data, conducted by scientific experts and reviewed by other experts in the field.

quote Originally posted by newf: Why not look what the experts in the field say.

Only the the so called "experts" can be trusted. Too many are dicking with the (so called) science.

So, let's see. The IPCC produced the "Hockey Stick Graph" and it was proven to be fraudulent. So I think I'll cherry pick that one. Hmm... Now that I've cherry picked it, the "Hockey Stick Graph" is no longer fraudulent?

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: So, let's see. The IPCC produced the "Hockey Stick Graph" and it was proven to be fraudulent. So I think I'll cherry pick that one. Hmm... Now that I've cherry picked it, the "Hockey Stick Graph" is no longer fraudulent? Arn

Yawn.
Changing course? OK, sure lets talk about the hockey stick graph again.
Fraudulent? Depends on what you mean by that I guess.

http://www.skepticalscience...ken-hockey-stick.htm
A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.

While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?

Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.


An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH1998) compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).

When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.


Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).
Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

quote Originally posted by newf: Funny I didn't say I was right, I said I trust the THOUSANDS of scientists that are in agreement.

Is there a list , somewhere, of all these scientists saying they agree, or are you assuming this?

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-20-2010).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Is there a list , somewhere, of all these scientists saying they agree, or are you assuming this?

Not sure if there is a list of all their names but here is a list of some of the organizations.
http://www.skepticalscience...sus-intermediate.htm
Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

•American Association for the Advancement of Science
•American Astronomical Society
•American Chemical Society
•American Geophysical Union
•American Institute of Physics
•American Meteorological Society
•American Physical Society
•Australian Coral Reef Society
•Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
•Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
•British Antarctic Survey
•Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
•Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
•Environmental Protection Agency
•European Federation of Geologists
•European Geosciences Union
•European Physical Society
•Federation of American Scientists
•Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
•Geological Society of America
•Geological Society of Australia
•International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
•International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
•National Center for Atmospheric Research
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
•Royal Meteorological Society
•Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

•Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
•Royal Society of Canada
•Chinese Academy of Sciences
•Academie des Sciences (France)
•Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
•Indian National Science Academy
•Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
•Science Council of Japan
•Russian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Society (United Kingdom)
•National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

•African Academy of Sciences
•Cameroon Academy of Sciences
•Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
•Kenya National Academy of Sciences
•Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
•Nigerian Academy of Sciences
•l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
•Uganda National Academy of Sciences
•Academy of Science of South Africa
•Tanzania Academy of Sciences
•Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
•Zambia Academy of Sciences
•Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

•Royal Society of New Zealand
•Polish Academy of Sciences
A survey of peer-reviewed research
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...


Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus
That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer-reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies here...

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Not sure if there is a list of all their names but here is a list of some of the organizations.

Why don't you list a source for your list?
Or a source for each of them making the claims you say they are?

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: WOW. forget it formula 88, Newf is choosing remain ignorant on the matter. You cant reason with someone like that. Let him believe the world is going to end. In the mean time Newf, I'll think of you every time I fill up my SUV.

Agreed.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-20-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Agreed.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Is there a list , somewhere, of all these scientists saying they agree, or are you assuming this?

yes, there is a list. It was also found that many on the "list were not actually scientists, but activists. There were also many on the list that did not wish to be on there, and were repealing to have their names taken off. There is also a list of scientists who signed a petition over global warning.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...-global-warming.html

"More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.
The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.
The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier.
It urged the US government to reject the treaty and said: "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."


The fact Newf keeps brining up the IPCC is a joke. They have fallen on their face disgracefully on the issue, and has been proven to be corrupt and biased.

To point out the "experts" in the IPCC and their data is like using ACORN to run an election ethically. what a joke.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 11-20-2010).]

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: and guess what....they all want a government grant for their research. This is how pork works in Washington. Duh!

You got that right if you follow the money it clearly leads to the uber rich research community.

quote Originally posted by newf: Be sure to post where they are not in agreement.

Once you've mastered the meaning of "logical fallacy" you can then move on to "proving a negative."

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Once you've mastered the meaning of "logical fallacy" you can then move on to "proving a negative."

haha, I didn't realize my posts were being peer reviewed for grammar. You'll never see me claim that I have any expertise at that or spelling.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: haha, I didn't realize my posts were being peer reviewed for grammar. You'll never see me claim that I have any expertise at that or spelling.

Proving a negative has nothing to do with grammar.
It has to do with the simple fact that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. You're apparently not ready for the advanced lessons, though. Keep working on logical fallacy before you try to tackle anything more difficult.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Proving a negative has nothing to do with grammar. It has to do with the simple fact that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. You're apparently not ready for the advanced lessons, though. Keep working on logical fallacy before you try to tackle anything more difficult.

whoooops.... got me on that one

You seem to like to deflect the arguements a lot though don't you.

If you want to believe you are anything more than me you go right ahead if it makes you feel better.

You want to debate your assertions bring it on, you've done a bang up job so far I mean you seem to think you are superior in intelligence you should have no problem disproving the science. Now try to stay on the subject at hand.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: whoooops.... got me on that one You seem to like to deflect the arguements a lot though don't you. If you want to believe you are anything more than me you go right ahead if it makes you feel better. You want to debate your assertions bring it on, you've done a bang up job so far I mean you seem to think you are superior in intelligence you should have no problem disproving the science. Now try to stay on the subject at hand.

I've given up any hope of rational debate with you. You'll ignore what you don't agree with and ask the same questions over and over until you get the answer you want.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I've given up any hope of rational debate with you. You'll ignore what you don't agree with and ask the same questions over and over until you get the answer you want.

Not sure what I've ignored? I've offered my views on the subject like others have and have rebutted them with what the scientific community has a general agreement on. I've stated many times I'm not an expert in climatology so have to trust the experts in the field and their data sets. I have also said I don't agree with extremist views on either side but mainly the science that has ben peer reviewed. Is it possible that the scientists are wrong? Sure it is but I'm going to go with them over any internet expert on here that claims to know better, if you or anyone else wants to think they know more and are the holders of the "real truth" good for you but if you come on here and claim that don't expect me to go along with it blindly, just as I don't expect anyone to believe me if I claim to know without a doubt. Decide for yourself, show why you do or don't believe and discuss.
I honestly try not to ignore but when presented with blogs or single independent non reviewed claims it's hard to take a lot of it too seriously especially when many of the arguements presented have been addressed time and time again by reputable sources. So who is ignorant in those cases?

If you want to claim the whole community of Climatologists and Scientists are suspect or pushing some kind of elaborate fraud then I think you may be back to your arguement from ignorance claim.

quote Originally posted by newf: You seem to like to deflect the arguements a lot though don't you.

Like when you compare global warming skepticism to the smoking-cancer link?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Like when you compare global warming skepticism to the smoking-cancer link?

No, when people are arguing one point and then move on to something else without any conclusion of the first.

I think the Science of the negtive effects of pollution on the earth is similar to the Science of the negative effects of smoking on the human body. And the consensus of scientists to the individual and sometimes industry backed skeptics is also valid.

quote Originally posted by newf: And the consensus of scientists to the individual and sometimes industry backed skeptics is also valid.

You keep repeating "consensus", as if that has any meaning to true science.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Wrong. Sorry. You can see a list of the scientists here: http://www.petitionproject.org/

This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.