FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.6°C in the last 100 years (IPCC)
“There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
With the release of Al Gore’s propaganda movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and with the help of the liberal media establishments the public has been driven into a mass hysteria based not on science but lies. You will learn that there is no scientific proof that man-made CO2 is the cause of the mild 0.6c increase in temperature over the last 100 years, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution, pollution has nothing to do with global warming, Al Gore and his movie are a fraud, there is no consensus on the cause of global warming, the earth has been warmer in the past then it is today, the land based temperature stations are positively biased, Antarctica is not melting, Arctic sea ice cannot effect sea level, sea levels are rising milimeters not feet, computer climate models are irrelevant, polar bears are not endangered or dying, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires are not caused by global warming and there is extensive evidence of natural causes for global warming such as increased solar activity and orbital variations.
Thousands of links debunking the global warming hysteria.
Dr Dodd–you know thinking is kinda like juggling. With some practice, a juggler can learn to keep more than two balls in the air at a time.
Same with ideas.
Never too late to start challenging yourself. I’ll give you third ball to start with: Atmosphere.
Now get with it.
#94 – bobbo,
I don’t understand your statement regarding the United Nations. However, that aside, I’m curious why you become agnostic on the issue of climate change when neither you nor anyone else here has made the case from peer reviewed literature.
Why does an article from 21st Century Science and Technology create so much doubt for you?
Why is it that if there is a real question about this that it is not hotly debated in peer reviewed literature? There are a few articles from skeptics in real peer reviewed literature showing that there is no conspiracy to prevent their publication. Why are you and everyone else so unable to make the case without ExxonMobil funded PR sites and obviously biased publications like this one?
Wouldn’t there be more in at least relatively unbiased publications from relatively unbiased sources?
#97 bobbo
No argument. Atmosphere does play a “short term” role for example after volcano activity. There is a measured change after such an occurrence, but as you may have noticed the earth has this remarkable way of cleaning up afterwards.
#99 – Dodd
>>as you may have noticed the earth has this
>>remarkable way of cleaning up afterwards.
Yeah! Just like the Cuyahoga river cleaned up after catching fire, right?
Oh, no…wait! It didn’t clean up, it caught fire again, catalyzing the environmental movement of the sixties. Now it doesn’t burn any more.
A volcano blows, then goes quiescent. Continuing pollution of the ecosystem causes further worsening of a bad situation. And that won’t change without human intervention.
Continuing
#100 Mister Mustard
It must be stated that there is a difference in long term climate change and just living in filth.
#101 – Dodd
>>It must be stated that there is a difference
>>in long term climate change and just living in
>>filth.
Sure there’s a difference. The latter leads to the former.
The sooner the Deniers realize this, the better off we’ll be.
#102 Mister Mustard
I’ve given you the answer. How you choose to believe is your own affair.
98–Scott==it may be more a side issue, but I just find the UN a suspect source for information on what “the world” should do. I don’t reject the studies they proffer on that account, but its in my mind. What was going on 18 years ago when the UN formed this committee? Seems like they were way ahead of the curve? Like I said, side issue.
I posted extensively on this before==no scientific ability to run controlled tests on anything, models can’t predict-they can only be made to match past data thru tweaking, water vapor (95% or 98%!! of the GHG) not even taken into account in early models but when it is added into their models, the result doesn’t change at all, over and over again I read that “xyz is not fully understood” and on and on. It all just doesn’t give me a good comfort level, so I go from supporter to agnostic. Note, I’m talking about Man Caused Global Warming–not simple GW. Scott==you show great fortitude in returning to this subject ad nauseum, I don’t really mean to add to your load, and I’m not trying to convince anyone. I see lots of errors and misstatements in the GW debunkers too==again, all just leaving me agnostic.
I’m getting sleepy, but I didn’t refer to the 21rst article you posted.
Why isn’t there “controversy” within the IPCC scientific community?==Isn’t that pretty normally the way science works? There is consensus until a better idea comes along? I don’t need an active controversy when I read about models being accepted as the best they can do, and yet leave out water vapor.
You never answered above==what if a paper comes out “proving” co2 interacts in a previously unknown way to reflect more heat than it traps?===like interact with NF3 or some other unmodeled gas?
Agnostic==I don’t know. Please don’t make me make this my religion. I couldn’t stand having Mustard in my face after pulling his chain for all these months.
#103 – Dr Dodd
>>I’ve given you the answer…
As I have given it to you.
How you choose to believe is your own affair.
Dr. Dodd,
If you were correct, the average temperature on Earth would be -18 degrees centigrade rather than the +15 degree centigrade temperature we actually have. As bobbo said, atmosphere, get with it.
#104 – bobbo,
What was going on 18 years ago when the UN formed this committee? Seems like they were way ahead of the curve?
Actually, anthropogenic climate change has been known and well confirmed for quite a bit longer than you’d think when viewing the issue from the U.S., land of the great scientific denial on a wide variety of topics.
Global warming, then known as the Greenhouse Effect, was first noted in 1824 by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier.
History of Global Warming
That global warming may be caused by fossil fuel combustion was first noted by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming
By the time that the IPCC was created, there was little debate in the scientific community about the basic facts of a warming globe due to greenhouse gases emitted by human industry.
So, IPCC was not really ahead of the curve, merely about in the middle of it. As evidenced by the discussion on this site, we are quite late, possibly disastrously so.
#104 – bobbo,
You never answered above==what if a paper comes out “proving” co2 interacts in a previously unknown way to reflect more heat than it traps?===like interact with NF3 or some other unmodeled gas?
I did answer that.
Your hypothetical case would fall into category A. Good luck with that! I hope like hell you are right.
#96–Dodd==you say: “No matter how much you would like to think you have the power to control long term climate change, it’s just not possible.” /// I’m struck by just how wrong that is. Human can dramatically affect short and long term climate making it warmer or colder as we wish====if we wanted to. If we knew “exactly” what all the consequential effects would be.
For instance: Atomic Bombs could be exploded creating “nuclear winters” of various different degrees==its very scalable. We just have to agree on who gives up a couple of square miles of territory. Or go ahead and do it in Nevada as that is all Federal Land anyway==or we could just run black ops between India and Pakistan and let them do it?
Or–warm the place up by putting additives in jet fuels and let commercial airlines spew the stuff out at high altitudes.
Where the dominoes might fall might be difficult to assess. I wonder if the IPCC climate models would be any help there, given their precision?
Scott==I don’t blame you for not going thru all my post, but there is more meat there that you missed. Point to emphasize is the UN’s IPCC formed 18 years ago to promote the need to stop human caused global warming with their “neutral resources.” Sounds inconsistent to me.
#105 Mister Mustard
If man has the power over the earth as you claim then why after decades of environmentally friendly actions do the measurements on these experts graphs fail to indicate success or at least that they happened?
No, instead the line of fear continues to rise.
To believe your way forces us to conclude that all of man’s efforts have met with failure. If these graphs are to be believed we might even say the actions taken have made things worse.
#108 – Bobbo
>>Point to emphasize is the UN’s IPCC formed 18
>>years ago to promote the need to stop human
>>caused global warming with their “neutral
>>resources.
That sounds pretty neutral to me, unless one accepts that there’s a real “controversy”.
Kind of like saying an organization was formed “to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
Who are the opponents?
Oh yeah…..the oil companies and others who profit from unfettered pollution of the ecosystem (and their paid shill “scientists”).
Follow the money, Bobbo. Follow the money.
#110–Mustard==yes, the money. The biggest opponent was the USA. Maybe thats the same as Oil? No, I’m thinking who benefits? That would be the third world countries with no manufacturing or cars and so they don’t pollute. Under cap and trade, USA buys their CO2 credits so that business can continue as usual with just a transfer of wealth to Timbuktu. China and India were both exempted, so they voted for the Kyoto Protocol.
The UN.
#111 – Bobbo
>>The biggest opponent was the USA. Maybe thats
>>the same as Oil?
Pretty much. Although the Sheik of Araby and his dancing girls get a lot of money from oil, they’d get a lot of money from oil no matter what the environmental policies were.
It’s folks like Dick Cheney’s Secret Energy Cabal who are much more dependent on continuing pollution to line their pockets.
And THAT is why “the US” (if you consider the current administration “the US) is so vehemently opposed to the Kyoto Treaty.
#108 bobbo
“Human can dramatically affect short and long term climate making it warmer or colder as we wish… Atomic Bombs could be exploded creating “nuclear winters” of various different degrees==its very scalable.”
Perhaps you remember this has been done in Japan but without the results you state.
Still this is a far cry from in order to save the planet we must use approved light bulbs, approved food, approved type of car… the list goes on.
bobbo,
I’m with Mr. Mustard on this one. What’s the part you find not neutral? If, for example, there is greater agreement in the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change is real than there is in the medical community that cigarette smoking leads to cancer (a point I heard in a lecture once but have not been able to find a link to back up), then would you agree that there is no debate and that acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is the neutral position? Or, would you still consider that a biased opinion?
It is only here in the U.S. that people are under the impression that there is actually debate about this. The rest of the world knows that the intricacies and amounts of warming and sea level rise may be debated but that the situation is very real.
Again, scientists could be wrong. But, when you have such widespread agreement across so many fields, the default and neutral position is to take it at face value. We don’t tend to question the science on other issues, especially when it gives us fun new toys. We question it only when it means we can’t drive our humpers 0-60 in 4 seconds flat up the side of a mountain, especially when it might eat into the profits of our corporatocracy.
#113–Dr doody==why do you call yourself a doctor? Only “doctors” and basketball players do that, and generally basketball players are too tall to type?
Anyway, you are very monolithic/limited in your thinking. Japan was an air burst designed to destroy people and buildings. Much different outcome if you plant the bomb 300 feet down in ground over an active volcano magma chamber? Or do you disagree with the whole concept of nuclear winter?
#114–Scott==you ask: “What’s the part you find not neutral?” The sponsor and control entity and funder of the IPCC is the UN. Not neutral. The purpose of the IPCC as you quoted is: “The IPCC was established to provide……literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” Thats not neutral.
Imagine they said “relevant to the understanding of the benefit of unrestrained industrial co2 contribution to the atmosphere relevant to the increased production of vegetative material.” A bias revealed? or at least a potential for bias.
The UN is corrupt. They aren’t “neutral.” Now, quite a few of the reports may be fine and dandy, I’m just saying.
“anthropogenic climate change is the neutral position?” /// by definition, if you adopt a position, you are not neutral. Agnostic, or don’t know or don’t care, is neutral. Not yea or nay.
“Or, would you still consider that a biased opinion?” /// I separate the reports published from the UN itself and am concerned only with a “potential” for bias. I wouldn’t provide a single label for 1000’s of reports issued over 18 years.
“It is only here in the U.S. that people are under the impression that there is actually debate about this” /// Really? Those two websites I provided that turned me agnostic were based/staffed/funded out of Australia and New Zealand.
I don’t think there is any debate about sea rise. Whether AGW inputs can be reduced to prevent it is the question on which I am agnostic. Actually, I think we are past the tipping point already. No ice at North Pole in the Summer? Humans never wake up until it is too late and with the lag times/power curves here==little hope unless the A-Bomb option is undertaken.
“But, when you have such widespread agreement across so many fields” /// thats true about climate shift and warming etc but not about AGW. If you are that sloppy in your actual thinking, easy to over generalize/over commit.
The actual Subject of Discourse has to be firmly defined and kept in mind. One of my complaints about IPCC and truthers is they constantly mix GW with AGW. Causes lots of confusion. Not in formal reports but in the criticism and pop press that go along with them.
“We don’t tend to question the science on other issues” /// lost in your own eloquence now? “Science” is disagreed with more than supported. ID? Vaccinations? Stem cells? GMF. Gene anything for that matter? Radiation of food. Feel good to get the juices flowing?
#115 bobbo
“why do you call yourself a doctor?”
Dr Dodd is a character in the movie “Real Genius.” You don’t think I would let this crowd in on my real name do you? 😉
I would have told you earlier but since it bothered you so much I decided to hold off. I’m just wicked that way.
#116–Dr D==I deserve that and much more as you determine. You still didn’t answer the question, but maybe that is a continuing twist on the rack?
I’ve seen Real Genius but don’t recall the character. Is he a retard, or what is the connection? (Again, couldn’t resist. Hes what–probably a good guy physicist? And yet you know so little about AGW or Nukes. A counter intuitive avatar) Well, I’ll look for the show and that character with interest.
#117 – Bobbo
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/fullcredits#cast
Check it out. Monte Landis. Dr. Dodd.
Christopher Landsea resigned from IPCC while working on the Fourth Assessment Report and validates Bobbo’s (and my) suspicions that the IPCC is both biased.
“In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying that he viewed the process “as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound” because of Kevin Trenberth’s public contention that global warming was contributing to recent hurricane activity [47]. Roger A. Pielke who published Landsea’s letter writes: “How anyone can deny that political factors were everpresent in the negotiations isn’t paying attention”, but notes that the actual report “Despite the pressures, on tropical cyclones they figured out a way to maintain consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts.” He continues “So there might be a human contribution (and presumably this is just to the observed upwards trends observed in some basins, and not to downward trends observed in others, but this is unclear) but the human contribution itself has not been quantitatively assessed, yet the experts, using their judgment, expect it to be there. In plain English this is what is called a ‘hypothesis’ and not a ‘conclusion.’ And it is a fair representation of the issue.”[48]
Source
Bobbo, re #56, “If you do goof off some more explain how biofuel has anything at all to do with GW and not everything to do with oil price shock and the search for energy alternatives as a result of that issue alone?”
My reasons on that are speculative. The supply and demand market forces on oil have increased somewhat over recent years (China, India) but the speculative market reaction is out of whack with reality (currently being investigated by US congress?). As the attack on gasoline usage has intensified with IPCC predictions of impending doom, you would think that it would have a dampening effect on futures, but the opposite is happening. IPCC is pushing for oil demand to drop and oil companies are reacting in a predictable self preserving, greedy, and opportunistic way IMHO. A collateral damage to this is that biofuels become an attractive investment.
Re: my previous post #119, “the IPCC is both biased” … remove the “both” I was going to add something and then thought better of it.
#120–Jim==I see the connections, a tad bit extended? In a sense, everything is connected to everything else. The strength and number of links being the key there.
Your model of the market is that it is rational? Would a rational market care or react to what the IPCC might wish as a goal? Investing in biofuels is a terrible investment. Investing in biofuels advantaged by the Federal Government is pretty good.
The oil companies could be sued and lose a shareholder lawsuit if they acted any other way. Its the law.
Well, until Scott shows up to stoke the fire, or put it out (?)==I’m thinking of the futures price of a barrel of oil to be delivered on Jan 1, 2009. Want to lay a bet on whether it is above or below $220?
#115 – bobbo,
#114–Scott==you ask: “What’s the part you find not neutral?” The sponsor and control entity and funder of the IPCC is the UN. Not neutral. The purpose of the IPCC as you quoted is: “The IPCC was established to provide……literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” Thats not neutral.
I disagree. That is neutral to me.
Imagine they said “relevant to the understanding of the benefit of unrestrained industrial co2 contribution to the atmosphere relevant to the increased production of vegetative material.” A bias revealed? or at least a potential for bias.
Huh??!!? Not getting your point here at all. Imagine they said, “to prove that AGW is real and force legislature on people regardless of what the science says.” But, they didn’t.
The UN is corrupt. They aren’t “neutral.” Now, quite a few of the reports may be fine and dandy, I’m just saying.
Based on what??!!? Why do you assume U.N. is biased? I mean, they are human. No human is perfectly unbiased. But, why is U.N. more biased than say ExxonMobil? or Saudi Arabia? or China? The latter two actually have scientists who agreed with the IPCC reports, despite their bias against AGW.
“anthropogenic climate change is the neutral position?” /// by definition, if you adopt a position, you are not neutral. Agnostic, or don’t know or don’t care, is neutral. Not yea or nay.
Wrong. Saying let the science decide is neutral by my standards. Saying let opinion override science is biased. You and I have very different opinions about bias as is shown when we discuss religion as well. You think that bias always means not taking a side. You don’t recognize that when there is no legitimate other side and you give it credence, you are biased.
“Or, would you still consider that a biased opinion?” /// I separate the reports published from the UN itself and am concerned only with a “potential” for bias. I wouldn’t provide a single label for 1000’s of reports issued over 18 years.
OK, Ignore IPCC. Look at the peer review. All I’m saying is to ignore opinion on matters of science. Opinion is meaningless. Stick to the science. Anything without peer review is much more suspect than anything with it. Peer review is not perfect, but how else are you going to weed out crap like ExxonMobil’s claim in the graph above that the earth was 10 degrees celsius warmer a thousand years ago than today. That’s total bullshit. When did the antarctic ice form? Last week? All 10,000 feet of it?
“It is only here in the U.S. that people are under the impression that there is actually debate about this” /// Really? Those two websites I provided that turned me agnostic were based/staffed/funded out of Australia and New Zealand.
One of those articles was just quoting the IPCC’s own statement. It did not state bias at all. The other was funded by ExxonMobil. You’re correct that they have hired biased individuals from around the world and published wherever they could, in this case, an extremely biased non-peer reviewed publication.
I don’t think there is any debate about sea rise.
I said there was debate about the amount of it, not the existence of it.
Whether AGW inputs can be reduced to prevent it is the question on which I am agnostic. Actually, I think we are past the tipping point already. No ice at North Pole in the Summer? Humans never wake up until it is too late and with the lag times/power curves here==little hope unless the A-Bomb option is undertaken.
That’s a very different statement than being agnostic about whether AGW is real. We may well be past the tipping point. If so, we’re all toast. What we need to do is act as if we’re not and take the strongest action possible in case it’s not too late to stave off the worst of it.
“But, when you have such widespread agreement across so many fields” /// thats true about climate shift and warming etc but not about AGW. If you are that sloppy in your actual thinking, easy to over generalize/over commit.
Wrong again. It’s true about AGW. You’re just listening to too many invalid sources. Stick to real science. There are a few peer reviewed articles contradicting AGW. Very very few. Just about enough to prove there’s no conspiracy. Not enough to cause doubt, IMNSHO.
The actual Subject of Discourse has to be firmly defined and kept in mind. One of my complaints about IPCC and truthers is they constantly mix GW with AGW. Causes lots of confusion. Not in formal reports but in the criticism and pop press that go along with them.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. There is no serious debate in the peer reviewed publications or among climate scientists about AGW. The debate is largely outside of peer review, often by “scientists” in thoroughly unrelated fields, most often meteorologists who can’t tell weather from climate ’cause their morans. And, whenever I’ve looked into the most reputable sounding ones, they consistently end up funded by ExxonMobil. It really just is that way. Do some deep digging on your own. Get out of the popular press.
“We don’t tend to question the science on other issues” /// lost in your own eloquence now? “Science” is disagreed with more than supported. ID? Vaccinations? Stem cells? GMF. Gene anything for that matter? Radiation of food. Feel good to get the juices flowing?
OK, two out of your first three in your list are hotly contested by religious freaks who think god said something about modern science in the bible. Vaccinations are not in debate in the scientific community. They quite simply do not cause autism. But, you’re right. Many induhviduals do not believe in science. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop them from using it every time they turn on their computers to spout their bullshit.
Some of the others have actual debates in the relevant scientific communities, e.g. will the GMFs escape and become invasive species?
The point is, when there is something to debate, you’ll find the debate in the scientific publications. When there is no debate there, one of two things is happening, a brand new theory is coming out and is not yet accepted or the existing data is quite well established. We’ve got 20 years since IPCC was formed and still there is not a really lively debate in the scientific community. You should look into where your doubts are coming from.
If you can’t be bothered to do the research to find out about the publications to which you post links, perhaps you should consider why you feel strongly enough about the subject to spew nonsense about being unbiased but not strongly enough to examine your own sources.
121, Bobbo, “I see the connections, a tad bit extended? Would a rational market care or react to what the IPCC might wish as a goal? ”
I thought it would react to the hits on fossil fuel … Al Gore getting a Nobel prize for his “truth”, SUV sales and values plummeting, car plants closing, etc. But as I said… speculative… and I have a very low opinion of the major oil companies, so probably “extended” as well. 😉
Hmmm. $220 seems a tad high. I say $190. You?
#122–Scott==thanks. I hope you got some pleasure inbetween the pain?
One of my definitions of Agnostic/neutral was “don’t care” and I have to say I recognize that in me. For 5-6 years I was satisfied that if you add co2 to a balloon next to a control and shine lights on both, the co2 added balloon gets warmer faster and so the AGW link was the “best evidence” for me.
But after about the third wave of anti-IPCC literature came rolling thru, I gave a literature search another go. It hurt my head as I described, so I’ve become agnostic because as I have said, I’m all for reducing c02 for other reasons.
Like a foreign language, we make choices on what we spend our time doing. GW and AGW are terrific choices, I just prefer some other choices.
I admire and greatly respect line by line analysis as you have done. I would do the same, but as an agnostic, I have no agenda so will leave this discussion unless you want to especially address 1 or 2 issues? Otherwise, I can’t argue without appearing to be an advocate.
#123–JimR–I think I heard in passing the tv say oil has doubled in 2 years so I thought with anything possible that a 50% rise in 6 months might be ballpark in a steady market.
Under game theory, I will guess higher than $190, and like you, ineffectually hope it is lower===or given GW concerns, do I?
All the candidates are for fighting AGW and finding more oil at the same time. Too bad they don’t read DU?
It’s not ‘they’: there’s only one writer on the blog, and that’s the poster himself: Mastertech, a well known self-publicist, aka Andrew K(han), or Pop(ular)tech. He previously found infamy for spamming ‘Firefox Myths’ round the internet without ever admitting authorship.
#1 Pollution has nothing to do with Global Warming:
– Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth’s Atmosphere (NASA)
– Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 280 to 380 ppm over the past 100 years (IPCC)
– Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)
– Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible (Source)
– OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate ‘Greenhouse Gases’ only:
– Carbon dioxide (CO2)
– Methane (CH4)
– Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
– Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
– Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
– Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
– Carbon dioxide (CO2)
– Nitrogen (N2)
– Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
– Carbon monoxide (CO) *
– Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
– Nitric oxide (NO) *
– Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
– Particulate matter (PM-10) *
– Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Your car’s Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Smog consists of:
– Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
– Particulate matter (PM-10) *
– Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)
The United States has sharply reduced air pollution levels, despite large increases in nominally “polluting” activities
– Areas in the United States with the highest pollution levels have improved the most (Source)
– Air quality in the United States will continue to improve
– Regulators and environmental activists exaggerate air pollution levels and obscure positive trends in the United States
– Air pollution affects far fewer people, far less often, and with far less severity than is commonly believed.