# Global warming



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 17, 2009)

*Scientist: Warming Could Cut Population to 1 Billion - New York Times* 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated. [UPDATED, 6:10 p.m: The preceding line was adjusted to reflect that Dr. Schellnhuber was not describing a worst-case warming projection. h/t to Joe Romm.]
“In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,” said Dr. Schellnhuber, who has advised German Chancellor Angela Merkel on climate policy and is a visiting professor at Oxford.

*Paris Hilton and the End of the World - DeSmogBlog *

http://www.desmogblog.com/paris-hilton-and-end-world

Britney Spears is a great artist. Paris Hilton is very talented. It seems the yawning gulf between perception and reality has never been greater. That is truer still for how the public perceives climate science. A new poll shows that 41% of Americans now believe concerns around global warming are exaggerated -the highest level of skepticism in over a decade. This is a shocking figure given the latest scientific findings being revealed, even as we speak, at a gathering of 2,500 of the world's leading researchers on climate change. This chasm of opinion between the scientific community and the public shows how criminally irresponsible many in the mainstream media have been about portraying climate science, and how effective the misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel lobby has been in deceiving the average American.

*Earth warming faster than thought - BBC News *

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7940532.stm

International scientists say the worst-case scenarios on climate change envisaged just two years ago are already being realised.

*Severe global warming 'will render half of world's inhabited areas unliveable' - Guardian *

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/global-warming-temp-rise-population

Parts of China, India and the eastern US could all become too warm in summer for people to lose heat by sweating, expert warns. Severe global warming could make half the world's inhabited areas literally too hot to live in, a US scientist warned today. 

*Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible' - Independent *

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...f-the-rainforest-is-irreversible-1643083.html

The impact of climate change on the Amazon rainforest could be much worse than previously predicted, new research suggests.

===============================

Barley


----------



## Illuin (Mar 17, 2009)

_*December 19th, 2008*_ 

At a United Nations climate change conference in Poland earlier this month, 650 leading scientists stepped up and said that anthropogenic global warming is a lie, a hoax, and a part of a new religion. Many of these scientists were also heard in a recent U.S. Senate minority report and are current or former members of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report also included new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses contesting man-made warming fears and climate developments that contradict the theory.



Here are a few excerpts from the report from the World Net Daily:

* “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”_ — Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand._


***“*Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”* _— U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist._


***“*I am a skeptic … . Global warming has become a new religion.”*_ — *Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever*._


** “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp … . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”* _— Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee._


** “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain skeptical.”*_ — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”_


** “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”* _— Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa._


** “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds … . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”*_ — Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet._


** “The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.”*_ — Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico._


** “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”*_ — U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration._


** “After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.”*_ — Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review._


** “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?”* _— Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden._


** “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense … The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”*_ — Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles._


** “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”*_ — Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan._


** “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”*_ — Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata._


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 17, 2009)

Well Iluin — "The truth is out there," as they say on the X Files. It reminds me of an old story:

A starving cat was chasing a mouse, desperate for food, and the mouse was bent on getting away, almost blind with terror. Nothing else existed for them but (1) eating and (2) not being eaten. 

The cat had almost caught up with the mouse when suddenly two snakes appeared and one caught the cat and the other caught the mouse in their mouths.

So intent was the cat on the mouse and so intent was the mouse on getting away that neither one was aware of what was about to happen to them...


----------



## Prince of Cats (Mar 17, 2009)

I really like that, thanks for sharing Barley


----------



## Illuin (Mar 17, 2009)

I like that little story myself, but I see the snakes representing two political parties capturing a desperate sell-out scientist and the fleeing funding he‘s chasing.


----------



## Tyelkormo (Mar 17, 2009)

Illuin said:


> _*December 19th, 2008*_
> 
> At a United Nations climate change conference in Poland earlier this month, 650 leading scientists stepped up and said that anthropogenic global warming is a lie, a hoax, and a part of a new religion. Many of these scientists were also heard in a recent U.S. Senate minority report and are current or former members of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> 
> The report also included new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses contesting man-made warming fears and climate developments that contradict the theory




I'm afraid you've fallen for a hoax, Illuin. The fact that people were heard in a "Senate minority report" means precisely nothing. Both the Senate minority report and the Poznan conference were a political conference, not a scientific one. And most of the scientists you cite here have no relevant credentials. That's the key issue. What's more, the fact that some of them actually go way out of their field of expertise undermines their credibility further. Peer-reviewed scientific studies also aren't published in "reports", but in scholarly journals. And if one takes these journals and looks into them, it is pretty evident on which side peer-reviewed studies are. For that very reason, the claim that the IPCC doesn't listen to others is a joke - the IPCC does not make its own research, it condenses the existing literature into reports. It cannot BUT listen to others, because without literature to heed, it has nothing to report on. The claim that CO2 emissions make no difference and that every scientist knew that to be the case is equally dubious in that it denies a physical constant to be what it is, namely the absorption wavelength of carbon-oxygen bonds. 

Oh, and as to the claim that "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” -the opposite is true. Surveys on the published literature have been done and published in scholarly journals which demonstrate this point resoundingly. Oh, and a lot of the studies supporting global warming have actually been done at NOAA.

I think your key misconceptions is between "statements by a scientist" and "science". Just because a scientist says something, it isn't science. Quite the contrary. It's science only at that point where others find the arguments convincing enough to accept his conclusions and spread them, i.e. publish or cite them.


----------



## Illuin (Mar 17, 2009)

> Originally posted by *Tyelkormo*
> _The claim that CO2 emissions make no difference and that every scientist knew that to be the case is equally dubious in that it denies a physical constant to be what it is, namely the absorption wavelength of carbon-oxygen bonds_


 
I'm not sure how far you would like to go concerning the physics of this (CO2 Absorption Peaks, Black Body Radiation, Convection etc.); but I’m game if you are. The way your post is worded, there appears to be a contradiction; because the fact that the absorption wavelength is a _*constant*_ only serves to invalidate the global warming assumption, so I’m not sure why you would mention that. Those who promote the global warming hype try to work around that fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere (separation of absorption wavelength peaks). So let me know why you mentioned that, and also let me know how deep into the rabbit hole you wish to go .


----------



## Tyelkormo (Mar 17, 2009)

Illuin said:


> I'm not sure how far you would like to go concerning the physics of this (CO2 Absorption Peaks, Black Body Radiation, Convection etc.); but I’m game if you are. The way your post is worded, there appears to be a contradiction; because the fact that the absorption wavelength is a _*constant*_ only serves to invalidate the global warming assumption, so I’m not sure why you would mention that. Those who promote the global warming hype try to work around that fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere (separation of absorption wavelength peaks). So let me know why you mentioned that, and also let me know how deep into the rabbit hole you wish to go .



Um, no, it does not invalidate the global warming assumption at all. Unless you suddenly declare the laws of thermodynamics invalid, and I'd like you to prove THAT.


----------



## Illuin (Mar 17, 2009)

> Originally posted by Tyelkormo
> _Unless you suddenly declare the laws of thermodynamics invalid, and I'd like you to prove THAT._


 

Actually, quite the contrary (your buddies are claiming that one ). Before we start gettin' down with some real science here, are you familiar with the term *"**unsaturation" *(i.e. _near the earth's surface, absorption peaks for water vapor overlap the absorption peaks for CO2_)? 

PS - Maybe we should consider doing the PM thing as well; because I think we might end up putting the forum to sleep; like *Gore the Bore* himself .


----------



## Illuin (Mar 17, 2009)

Where’s Butterbur? Barley, don’t be a stranger. We need a little fire in this thread ; it’s starting to sound like lunch in the faculty room in here.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Mar 17, 2009)

Illuin said:


> Where’s Butterbur? Barley, don’t be a stranger. We need a little fire in this thread ; it’s starting to sound like lunch in the faculty room in here.



No no, I want to see where you two go together!!  

I've never met a professor willing to discount anthropogenic sources of climate change and I know that Illuin is a physics-lover, and Tyelkormo seems conscious of my experiences with 'le science' so I hope you two come to understand each other publicly


----------



## Tyelkormo (Mar 18, 2009)

Illuin said:


> Actually, quite the contrary (your buddies are claiming that one ). Before we start gettin' down with some real science here, are you familiar with the term *"**unsaturation" *(i.e. _near the earth's surface, absorption peaks for water vapor overlap the absorption peaks for CO2_)?


 
I don't think it means what you think it means. I do think, however, you're repeating some jargon you grabbed from other self-proclaimed "skeptic" sources which invent their own theory on how others allegedly explain climate change. You've confused their own little scheme with the actual theory and think because you can reproduce their arguments you can rebut climate change. In fact, in doing so, from what I've seen you even got their scheme backwards, which talks about unsaturation leading to separate peaks in the higher atmosphere and the overlap near the surface being (obviously) saturation.

Frankly, I haven't seen any "real science" from you, but droppings of terms, claims and concepts and random quotes. Why, instead of asking if I am familiar with this term, can't you just cite a publication in which the effects you claim to be relevant have been studied?


----------



## Gandalf White (Mar 25, 2009)

Wow, the newbies have gotten really rude in my absence. I'm sorry to see that. 

Barley hasn't changed one bit...which is what one would expect. 

I'm really not into science at all; never have been and never will be. As a result, the conversation that Iluin is trying to have and Ty...(whatever that name is) is arrogantly trying to avoid is over my head. 

There is, however, something I have always wondered, which is related to this topic, and to which I would like to hear feedback. It is my understanding that the world has undergone radical temperature changes in the past. From the tropical climates the dinosaurs lived in, to the ice ages that covered most of North America. Obviously things have heated up a little since those ice ages, and just as obviously it has nothing to do with human beings. So why is it any different now? 

It has always struck me as a little arrogant to believe that humans are able to have such a large effect on the planet. But hey, to each their own.


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 26, 2009)

Tyelkormo said:


> I'm afraid you've fallen for a hoax, Illuin. The fact that people were heard in a "Senate minority report" means precisely nothing. Both the Senate minority report and the Poznan conference were a political conference, not a scientific one.


 
Tyelkormo states that Illuin's assertions are unfounded as they are political; not scientific. And yet the politics of global warming leads to some of the greatest fear consumption in world history. Oh, I'm not going to cite any sources either Celegorm. All you tend to do is rebut an argument, valid or not, attempt to poke holes in it, stand back, and watch it deflate. This is quite an effective way to argue, if you want no one to win, including yourself. You ask for evidence supporting Illuin's claims whilst not offering any support of your own. If you want to triumph over the ignorance of the opposition; instead of stating they're ignorant and puttting your thumbs in your ears and waving your fingers around whilst poking out your tongue saying: _♫ na, na, na, na, na, na! ♪..._ Why don't you show them exactly why they're ignorant or misinformed? Frankly I believe there's more politics to Global Warming than science and often the data that gets published is the data that has the support of the Government. Why else was it a Senate *Minority* Report? You guys had some serious problems with minorities 30 to 40 years ago, right?



Tyelkormo said:


> And most of the scientists you cite here have no relevant credentials.


 
How on Earth are Atmospheric Scientists lacking sufficient credentials? More to the point, what makes you a qualified expert on Global Warming? What an utterly pretentious statement.



Tyelkormo said:


> That's the key issue. What's more, the fact that some of them actually go way out of their field of expertise undermines their credibility further. Peer-reviewed scientific studies also aren't published in "reports", but in scholarly journals. And if one takes these journals and looks into them, it is pretty evident on which side peer-reviewed studies are.


 
Two words Ty... Government... *and hold your breath for this one too* are you holding it? ... ... ... Funding! Sure, oilco's will fund scientific study of Global Warming to achieve the result that Global Warming is a myth, a religion. But it's interesting that an increase of taxation in carbon tax and on automobiles could potentially benefit the Government far more monetarily than oil ever could. If they whip people into a frenzy crying "_the end is nigh... unless we do something! But we're going to need money, lots and lots of money_". What do you think people will do? After 9/11, the state of perpetual fear and the war on an everlasting concept and thus an everlasting war (war on terror) people are so pertrified they'll s**t their pants and empty their pockets for anything. This is why Ciryaher's signature is by far the greatest on TTF. I rather sit in a sauna because if you give those bastards an inch they'll go a mile. You can sit there and laud peer-reviews for remaining objective but the real myth here is objectivity itself. Agenda is king. Sure, Global Warming may be a legitimate problem but naught will be done until it becomes financially profitable. This difference of opinion is ultimately irrelevant as you're both arguing with faulty evidence; well, one is and the other isn't providing any.



Tyelkormo said:


> I think your key misconceptions is between "statements by a scientist" and "science". Just because a scientist says something, it isn't science. Quite the contrary. It's science only at that point where others find the arguments convincing enough to accept his conclusions and spread them, i.e. publish or cite them.


 
And I think you're key fallacy is that you don't seem to listen to your own advice; particularly when it's the most cogent aspect of your argument.

** “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain skeptical.”*_ — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”_

Perhaps this scientist "with no relevant credentials" is skeptical because Global Warming is far from conclusive...?

When it comes to climate science, I'm definitely no expert. (I believe it's called climatology, right?) When it comes to politics, I sure am an expert when it comes to bulls**t.

Example? The gun-totin' Obama-lovin' Americans are so outraged that AIG used taxpayer money that bailed them out to pay their executives bonuses. Who do you think amended the legislation allowing them to do so? (Of course the first place I could find this was independent media! ) I wonder where people should really be pointing the finger... Oh, and sorry Ty, it isn't a peer-reviewed source. I prefer it that way actually... makes me trust it a little more. 

I don't see any reason to clean up my carbon footprint yet.

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Tyelkormo (Mar 26, 2009)

Úlairi said:


> Tyelkormo states that Illuin's assertions are unfounded as they are political; not scientific.


 
Wrong. I pointed out that the quotes made were made in the context of a political conference, not a scientific conferences, and as such, the fact that the people cited made these statements at the conference cited is of no importance whatsoever, since neither were they actually key participants of the conference, nor was there any "science" coming out of the conference.



> You ask for evidence supporting Illuin's claims whilst not offering any support of your own.


 
The one making the claims, in this case Illuin, is supposed to provide evidence - and the more incredulous the claim, the better the evidence should be.



> Why don't you show them exactly why they're ignorant or misinformed? Frankly I believe there's more politics to Global Warming than science and often the data that gets published is the data that has the support of the Government. Why else was it a Senate *Minority* Report? You guys had some serious problems with minorities 30 to 40 years ago, right?


 
Huh? Sorry, but you are not only grossly mistaken, but apparently, you have no idea who you are talking to and about. Who is "you guys"? No, the data that gets published is the one with the evidence, no matter how many people are howling. "Help, help, I'm being suppressed" might be ok for a Monty Python movie, but in a day and age were people with obscure ideas such as that pathogenic mechanisms might be possible without any nucleic acids, as is the case with prions, get awarded the Nobel Prize, it's simply a pitiful excuse by people who know nothing about scientific publishing.



> How on Earth are Atmospheric Scientists lacking sufficient credentials? More to the point, what makes you a qualified expert on Global Warming? What an utterly pretentious statement.


 
Ulairi, I don't think someone spouting such a blatant lie is qualified to make such an assessment. I never claimed to be a qualified expert - but neither was Illuin's list composed of atmospheric scientists.



> Two words Ty... Government... *and hold your breath for this one too* are you holding it? ... ... ... Funding!


 
And obviously, you don't know how scientific funding works, either. That government in many country has no decision over its distribution - who cares.




> You can sit there and laud peer-reviews for remaining objective but the real myth here is objectivity itself.


 
Except I never did such a thing. But to hell with facts, right?



> Sure, Global Warming may be a legitimate problem but naught will be done until it becomes financially profitable.


 
Who says it isn't already?



> This difference of opinion is ultimately irrelevant as you're both arguing with faulty evidence; well, one is and the other isn't providing any.



Wrong. One is citing the equivalent of the yellow press, the other is pointing at credible sources. The latter is me. If you folks are utterly unwilling to do the minimum homework, don't blame me. If you folks quote every **** off the internet because you're all too willing to believe it, don't expect to be taken seriously. The IPCC reports are available for free online, they reference countless scientific publications. Once you have read them, talk about requesting more evidence. Until them, it's up to YOU to provide evidence they are wrong. EVIDENCE. Not claims that the moon is made of cheese.

If you talk about fear-mongering while spouting conspiracy theories against which the theories about the Kennedy assassination is harmless drivel, don't expect to be taken seriously. It's up to you to provide evidence that the entire world and every major National Academy of Science on the Planet is after you just for the heck of it.



> ** “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain skeptical.”*_ — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."_
> 
> Perhaps this scientist "with no relevant credentials" is skeptical because Global Warming is far from conclusive...?


 
Or perhaps she is skeptical because she's out of the loop of current goings-on? Do you have any idea how quickly scientific knowledge evolves?

Look, the fact that both of you demonstrate consistently that a nice title is all you need to convince you is precisely the problem. Waving with "190 publications" is naive number-crunching. What's important is what is IN those studies and when they were published.

When all you can do is cite *SCIENTISTS* you merely underscore that you don't even read what I said. The fact that a scientist says it doesn't make it science. Cite *SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.*



> When it comes to climate science, I'm definitely no expert. (I believe it's called climatology, right?) When it comes to politics, I sure am an expert when it comes to bulls**t.


 
Yeah, everyone says that, but the only thing it proves is that they are an expert in bullsh**tting. Because that's what you're doing to yourself if you think without a knowledge of the current goings-on, you are qualified to judge.

Since you had no qualms to simply invent claims that I allegedly made, the discussion is ended here. Since you're unwilling to stick to the truth, there is no purpose in further discussion. People who will invent arguments ad lib even when simple scrolling back will reveal their lies will not be convinced by any evidence whatsoever. And since you are unwilling to even access such evidence as is available for free on the web if it actually counters your opinion, there is no convincing you anyway. Selective reading is of course a tried-and-true way to convince yourself of something.


----------



## Illuin (Mar 26, 2009)

Hey guys, let’s take this on over to _Project Evil_ and continue. I would really love to resume this discussion, but this is not the place. We can loosen up a bit over there




. The PE thread is just below this one. Ty, you may have to sign in or register again; but head on over within the next few days or so. 

And enough with the pre-game show already; let’s play some ball! Come on; it'll be fun.


----------



## The Tall Hobbit (Mar 26, 2009)

I remember a period during the early/mid 1970's when many of the scientific "experts" were worried about global cooling.

They claimed at that time that we would see the beginning of a new ice age by about the year 2000.

They even blamed the supposed cooling on the same factors (pollution, CO2 buildup, etc) that are now being blamed for warming.

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf


----------



## Gandalf White (Mar 27, 2009)

I had a good chuckle reading about plans to melt the arctic ice cap, particularly since everyone is (read: was) in such a tizzy about it a year or two ago. Just some more ammo in my common sense stockpile. 

The earth is going to heat and cool on its own, as it always has in the past. Blaming humans and spending trillions to go green isn't going to stop anything.


----------



## Illuin (Mar 27, 2009)

> Originally posted by *Gandalf White*
> _I had a good chuckle reading about plans to melt the arctic ice cap, particularly since everyone is (read: was) in such a tizzy about it a year or two ago. Just some more ammo in my common sense stockpile. _
> 
> _*The earth is going to heat and cool on its own, as it always has in the past*. _


 
Of course it is; and BTW, your last two posts prove the conversation is not over your head. The science simply verifies what common sense and intuition already tell you. Never let the proponents confuse you with their slick jargon. The subject of AGW in it's entirety comes down to one simple issue: _"Are human C02 emissions the main cause of global warming?"_ That's it, period! And the answer is absolutely, unequivocally *NO*! Utterly impossible; and the data (and lack thereof - failed predictions of the IPCC, disastrous computer models, etc.) emphatically proves that more and more each and every day (it has for two years already). AGW is a flat out hoax; and ironically, it's not even a sophisticated one. The game is up, and has been for quite some time now, and the general public is finally beginning to wake up. Slithering out of this embarrassment intact will be the real challenge for the advocates. Mark my words here and now; I give it about two years or so for this ruse to be publicly exposed *in full* (it is already exposed on the inside). You think the scientists that bought into the chic, _in-vogue_ String Theory fad were humiliated? You ain't seen nothin' yet! But knowing Al Gore, he'll come right back at us with global cooling restrictions and taxes. _You will only be permitted to open the door to your fridge once a day to prevent atmospheric cooling - bags of ice will no longer be sold - say goodbye to Carvel and Ben & Jerry's - air conditioners will be hybrids - the NHL will gradually have to convert to roller blades (even though they'll refashion Al Gore's "Hockey Stick" ); and the poor polar bears won't be able to find any liquid water;_ but according to Al, they can't swim anyway, so oh well.


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 28, 2009)

Tyelkormo said:


> Wrong. I pointed out that the quotes made were made in the context of a political conference, not a scientific conferences, and as such, the fact that the people cited made these statements at the conference cited is of no importance whatsoever, since neither were they actually key participants of the conference, nor was there any "science" coming out of the conference.


 
Yes, and then I inferred that you were claiming Illuin's "evidence" was unfounded due to its political origin. I can infer this because you've just said above that there was no "science" coming out of the conference. By process of elimination... 1 + 1 = 4... purple cats vis-à-vis flying saucers... no "science"... political conference... ah yes, Illuin's assertions based upon these quotes are... P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L...!



Tyelkormo said:


> The one making the claims, in this case Illuin, is supposed to provide evidence - and the more incredulous the claim, the better the evidence should be.


 
So, essentially you're stating that, as you're purporting the majority view any claims you've made require no "evidence" whatsoever... that's profoundly hypocritical. 



Tyelkormo said:


> Except I never did such a thing. But to hell with facts, right?


 
Hey, just taking a page from your book Celegorm. Learning from the best as they say...



Tyelkormo said:


> Huh? Sorry, but you are not only grossly mistaken, but apparently, you have no idea who you are talking to and about. Who is "you guys"?


 
I was referring to Americans and the Civil Rights movement...

But it looks as though you're German... I think. I retract that statement.



Tyelkormo said:


> No, the data that gets published is the one with the evidence, no matter how many people are howling. "Help, help, I'm being suppressed" might be ok for a Monty Python movie, but in a day and age were people with obscure ideas such as that pathogenic mechanisms might be possible without any nucleic acids, as is the case with prions, get awarded the Nobel Prize, it's simply a pitiful excuse by people who know nothing about scientific publishing.


 
Well, for one, it's: "_Help, help, I'm being *re*pressed_". I guess I'm not the only one that makes unsubstantiated claims due to a severe lack of evidentiary support... but neither of us really care about the facts, do we? 

"Science" is a human invention. A belief system. The data is used to fit the findings. The above example given is quite a good one. Sure, Einstein's and Newton's theories defined many Laws of the Universe; and as such are intrinsically correct. However the subjectivity of knowledge permeates science to its very core. I study computer science at University. Computer's work. Planes fly. Both crash. Despite how much we discover about the universe we're still children wandering blindly in the dark. I know exactly who I'm talking to... a fellow human being with strong opinions and a mind of his own that's influenced from external sources and politics on a constant basis... like me. The "perfection" of science is a myth... otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument, would we?



Tyelkormo said:


> Ulairi, I don't think someone spouting such a blatant lie is qualified to make such an assessment. I never claimed to be a qualified expert - but neither was Illuin's list composed of atmospheric scientists.


 
And if you're not a qualified expert then who are you to criticise those who are? You're whinging because many of these "experts" are making assertions outside their field and yet you're so adamant that the data supporting climate change is irrefutably right... and you're in medical diagnostics! The futility of this argument is overwhelming to the point that I don't even understand what the point of it is! It's simply a clash of opinion. If I had to pick sides I would choose Illuin nine times out of ten because at the very least his field of expertise is considerably less extraneous than your own. The most important thing is that you're both scientists looking at material outside your own field and shovelling the data to fit your own flimsy belief system. Just as science tends to fit the data with the findings. It's flawed Celegorm. 



Tyelkormo said:


> And obviously, you don't know how scientific funding works, either. That government in many country has no decision over its distribution - who cares.


 
Pah! *Hilarious!* And *you *do! TTF's resident expert, just ask Dr. Ty! The fact that you presume to know how lobbying and silent funding works juxtaposed to political agendas when you're not privy to it is outrageous. Government in many countries true! ALL of them? No. What about countries where a majority of the research is performed? I'm growing progressively less convinced of anything. Ever heard of private funding from public office? You're right about one thing though Ty... who cares? It's all bulls**t anyway. The fact that you're desperately clinging to your beliefs by purporting to have infallible knowledge and then claiming that you're no expert is about as convincing that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 



Tyelkormo said:


> And obviously, you don't know how scientific funding works, either.


 


Tyelkormo said:


> But to hell with facts, right?


 
Any evidence there?  



Tyelkormo said:


> Who says it isn't already?


 
Could be. Maybe this is why we're seeing scientific literature steering more toward the direction that global warming is an imminent threat. But, I think I might have said that above somewhere...



Tyelkormo said:


> Wrong. One is citing the equivalent of the yellow press, the other is pointing at credible sources. The latter is me.


 
Yeah... one. The IPCC. But, hold on a sec... aren't you just...



Tyelkormo said:


> ...repeating some jargon you grabbed from other self-proclaimed ... sources which invent their own theory on how others allegedly explain climate change[?]


 
The IPCC still gets to 'choose' what literature goes in there. Oh wait...



http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm - IPCC Mandate said:


> IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors.


 
Yeah, it "should" be... Not even they sound too convinced. As such, I'm not...



Tyelkormo said:


> If you folks are utterly unwilling to do the minimum homework, don't blame me. If you folks quote every **** off the internet because you're all too willing to believe it, don't expect to be taken seriously.


 
Now I know you're completely ignoring me. I don't believe most things I read off the internet - including the IPCC Mandate. That's why I haven't taken any aspect of this argument seriously at all. I've actually been having a good chuckle about it with a few mates over a couple of beers. I'm just soooo burgeois. 



Tyelkormo said:


> The IPCC reports are available for free online, they reference countless scientific publications. Once you have read them, talk about requesting more evidence. Until them, it's up to YOU to provide evidence they are wrong. EVIDENCE. Not claims that the moon is made of cheese.


 
It isn't? Boy, I have to read some peer-reviews! And I always thought _Wallace and Gromit: A Grand Day Out_ was a documentary! Knowledge really is power...



Tyelkormo said:


> If you talk about fear-mongering while spouting conspiracy theories against which the theories about the Kennedy assassination is harmless drivel, don't expect to be taken seriously. It's up to you to provide evidence that the entire world and every major National Academy of Science on the Planet is after you just for the heck of it.


 
What about the above passage makes you think I want to, or for that matter, take anything about this seriously. It's all hearsay BS. He said, she said.



Tyelkormo said:


> Or perhaps she is skeptical because she's out of the loop of current goings-on? Do you have any idea how quickly scientific knowledge evolves?


 
Wow, way to remain... what's that word again? Oh yeah, objective. You presume to know what research she's conducted and the scientific literature she's read. Come now Celegorm, I expected just a little more from you than that. Maybe you're just a little...



Tyelkormo said:


> ...out of the loop of current goings-on?


 
Just maybe? 



Tyelkormo said:


> Look, the fact that both of you demonstrate consistently that a nice title is all you need to convince you is precisely the problem. Waving with "190 publications" is naive number-crunching. What's important is what is IN those studies and when they were published.


 
Wrong. You're Ph.D doesn't impress me at all; especially when you're assertions are as flawed as the assertions of those who hold the contrary perspective. You know what happens when you fight fire with fire? Everything burns and there's nothing left but a steaming heap. Why does this argument remind me of another steaming heap of something? Hmmmm...



Tyelkormo said:


> When all you can do is cite *SCIENTISTS* you merely underscore that you don't even read what I said. The fact that a scientist says it doesn't make it science. Cite *SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.*


 
What excellent advice Ty! Why don't you practice a little of what you preach?

_...continued below... _


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 28, 2009)

..._continued_...




Tyelkormo said:


> Yeah, everyone says that, but the only thing it proves is that they are an expert in bullsh**tting. Because that's what you're doing to yourself if you think without a knowledge of the current goings-on, you are qualified to judge.


Well, I'm learning from some of the best. Amazing how many science students I meet at Uni seem to have conflicting views of the same subject matter. I'm not judging anything. I could take or leave climate change as an issue. In fact I lean a little more to the concept that climate change exists. All I'm saying is that both sides of the coin come from the same mint.




Tyelkormo said:


> Since you had no qualms to simply invent claims that I allegedly made, the discussion is ended here. Since you're unwilling to stick to the truth, there is no purpose in further discussion.


And the truth is what you declare it to be? Sounds a little too _Nineteen Eighty-Four_-ish for me. Have to agree with you about the further discussion too... hypocritically futile.




Tyelkormo said:


> People who will invent arguments ad lib even when simple scrolling back will reveal their lies will not be convinced by any evidence whatsoever. And since you are unwilling to even access such evidence as is available for free on the web if it actually counters your opinion, there is no convincing you anyway. Selective reading is of course a tried-and-true way to convince yourself of something.


*yawn*

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Illuin (Mar 28, 2009)

Well, I think all of my hopes to play scientist are shot. But no worries, in all honesty, the above conversation was far more entertaining than AGW could ever hope to be. Usually, I would never even consider taking part in an AGW discussion. My original intentions were to keep Barley in the game for awhile, before he disappeared again . 



> Originally posted by *Úlairi*
> _The most important thing is that you're both scientists looking at material outside your own field and shovelling the data to fit your own flimsy belief system._


 
That is not _'entirely'_ true. The facts come down to this: it is *The Sun* (variation of the solar energy input to our atmosphere) which is warming the oceans, not an increased _"Greenhouse Effect"_ caused by human activity. Astrophysics has been my game for, well, too long (specifically _Stellar Astronomy_). The study of _Atomic Absorption Spectrometry_ and _Infrared Spectroscopy_ (key to the study of AGW) is a familiar old friend to us _Space Cadets_. So, it's a bit more than he said, she said; it's intimately related; and we _astro folk_ have done quite a bit of work (to say the least) in this area (our own work - I don't trust anyone either ). But, you're point is understood, and can not be _'fully'_ denied. Earth's climate is a complex subject, spanning not only the "pure" sciences like physics and chemistry, but many of the "natural sciences", such as oceanography, meteorology, paleontology, archeology, vulcanology, and many others. The truth of the matter is, there isn't enough time available for everyone to be cross-trained in every other discipline to any competent depth. However, the fact that no one is cross-trained in all AGW related disciplines does not mean that we are merely _'shoveling'_ unrelated nonsense from our specialized fields exclusively, and disregarding everything else. If that were so, you would have to conclude that everyone who has ever been involved in any scientific study is guilty of that .


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 28, 2009)

Just ponder a while as to why scientific studies need to be peer-reviewed...

However Big Blue, I must say that I greatly appreciate someone who is not only honest, but honest with themselves. That's more important than any of the dribble that has been posted above... and I'm including what I've posted as well. It's a dead topic... end of story.

Hey Ty, maybe this might apply to your argument with me:

_"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."_* ~* anonymous.

I've had a lot of experience. 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 16, 2009)

Here's the latest on global warming:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/al_gore_warns_on_latest_climate_trends.html

Barley


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 21, 2010)

Tyelkormo said:


> The IPCC reports are available for free online, they reference countless scientific publications. Once you have read them, talk about requesting more evidence. Until them, it's up to YOU to provide evidence they are wrong. EVIDENCE. Not claims that the moon is made of cheese.


 
Guess the IPCC isn't the final word on climate change after all! How is this possible?!?!?  It just doesn't "make sense" anymore! I was just so confident that this was the truth! How soul-destroying it truly is that we can't even take the IPCC at its word! I've lost all faith in humanity... 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Uminya (Jan 21, 2010)

Gravedigger.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 28, 2010)

Ciryaher said:


> Gravedigger.


 
Politico-environmentalist prostitute. 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Uminya (Jan 28, 2010)

Keep in mind that the IPCC stated a mistake was made in stating the date at which the glaciers in question would disappear. The research they were referring to, according to your own article, said "I have not made any prediction on date as I am not an astrologer, but I did say they were shrinking fast".

I am quite far removed from being a "politico-environmentalist prostitute". Climate change is not an idea, it is a fact, supported by vast geologic data. Whether or not humans are the cause, it is occurring. To say that the climate does not change would be no different than saying evolution has never happened.

There's no need for personal attack, either. "Gravedigger" is the common term for posting in a long-inactive thread.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 28, 2010)

Science oft confuses fact with fiction and attempts to fit the facts into fictions, and the fictions into facts. 500 years ago the earth being flat and time being absolute were also "facts", but nonetheless turned out to be fictions. For me the jury is still out, and I think it always will be; especially considering there is now evidence that "climate change" data is being fabricated for the purpose of ensuring funding tenure, consistent with a statement that I had made above well before much of this had come to light. It's a real shame that fish evolved opposable thumbs as we'd never be in this "climate conundrum". Perhaps we should all pray to eywa at the tree of souls and hope that gaia is listening that we all may evolve into plant-men and photosynthesise our way to salvation.

As for the personal attack, I thought that you and I had gotten past this stage Cir, as I intended no malice whatsoever, it was a simple joke, and I meant nothing by it. If I didn't know what you meant by gravedigger, I wouldn't have made a quip in accord with our usual custom of a banter exchange. I forgot about the atmosphere of sensitivity here - can't put a pin near a balloon full of tears. Nevertheless, I'll drift back into the mist of members lost, and close the door to my tongue.

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Uminya (Jan 28, 2010)

Úlairi said:


> Science oft confuses fact with fiction and attempts to fit the facts into fictions, and the fictions into facts. 500 years ago the earth being flat and time being absolute were also "facts", but nonetheless turned out to be fictions. For me the jury is still out, and I think it always will be; especially considering there is now evidence that "climate change" data is being fabricated for the purpose of ensuring funding tenure, consistent with a statement that I had made above well before much of this had come to light. It's a real shame that fish evolved opposable thumbs as we'd never be in this "climate conundrum". Perhaps we should all pray to eywa at the tree of souls and hope that gaia is listening that we all may evolve into plant-men and photosynthesise our way to salvation.



Nobody believed the world was flat 500 years ago. People have known for thousands of years that the Earth is spherical. The Greek Pythagoras even calculated the circumference of the Earth and was very close to the actual figure.

It is the nature of man to learn, and to expand his knowledge. Sometimes, mistakes are made, particularly when they hinge on theory or a single piece of evidence. But that is not the case for everything.

As an example of climate change, there are the remains of large trees where I live in the desert, at the base of a rift valley's edge. This evidence shows that within the past thousand years, the forest that--presently--clings to the mountaintops was once all the way down to the basin floor. As the climate warmed and dried, the forest retreated up into the mountains. Similarly, there is fossil evidence, as well as geologic evidence, that there was once an inland sea in this very basin. With time and change, however, it has since disappeared.

Most evidence also shows that Earth's current status as a fairly warm, habitable planet was not always so. This current Holocene Epoch only began 10,000 years ago; but in the previous Pleistocene Epoch, the world was covered by glaciers. This is not conjecture. This is supported by hard, geologic data. We -know- that glaciers once covered vast swathes of the Earth, because you can -see- their effects. Look at Mars! The same notions of tremendous change apply to it as well.

If you want to doubt that, by all means, do so. But bear in mind that the religious fanatics and corporate strongmen who are the greatest advocates of doubting clear evidence are those who profit most greatly from it. Indeed, there are scientists who sometimes do the same. But science is a democratic entity, and everyone is free to examine the evidence and examine the conclusions drawn thereof. There are many climatologists, for example, who have stated their doubts that humanity is capable of changing the global climate, but generally these same individuals also note that it is changing.

Why would the Earth remain in a stasis? Do humans? Has human culture remained the same in the past 3,000 years? 1,000? 100? 5? No. We are as dynamic as the Earth upon which we reside, and it is imperative that we learn more about how the Earth's dynamism will affect us, if we intend to survive as a species.

It'd have been "friendly banter" if you hadn't made a shot against my beliefs (your observation thereof being both incorrect and not in the spirit of jest).


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 28, 2010)

All I can say to that Cir, is that one of the four functions of science itself - scientific _apologetics_ - has led humanity down some of the darkest roads in its cylical and repetitive history. It has led to statements of indisputable scientific fact that one race is biologically superior to another, eugenics, and that a entire population must be racially hygenic under the Third Reich. In such political climates (subject to political climate change - especially when the intensity of mass hysteria heats up from all the hot air) there can never be any room for objectivity in science and science as a democratic entity is an outright fallacy.



Ciryaher said:


> It'd have been "friendly banter" if you hadn't made a shot against my beliefs (your observation thereof being both incorrect and not in the spirit of jest).


 
Well, if there's one thing we can salvage from all of this is that we both agree on something: the pseudo-scientific rhetoric you've regurgitated from whatever mainstream media source has told you is definitely nothing more than a _belief_.

You can only behold the truth once you open your eyes.

*Sayonara,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Uminya (Jan 29, 2010)

Science is science. I am not the one politicizing science. I have no idea where you're pulling this Third Reich nonsense from, unless you're attempting some desperate incitement of Godwin's Law.

Also, I tend to get my sources from first-hand sources (geologists, for example) or scientific journals (_Scientific American_ and _Astronomy_, for example). BBC News is also a good resource, and I trust it because it presents multiple perspectives on the issues at hand.

I open my eyes and I see *my own surrounding climate changing visibly*. I don't know what you're smoking, but you shouldn't smoke in whatever hole you've got your head stuck in. Look at a satellite image and open _your_ eyes. Ice cover is _receding visibly_.

Unless you have some bizarre definition of the word "change" in Australia, I have absolutely no idea how you cannot recognize fact. I realize that you have a near-solipsist view of the world, but please try and pretend that you live on Planet Earth with the rest of us. Our world is _changing_, and if we want to survive as a species, it is essential that we stop politicizing the issue of the world itself. _The Earth has changed, is changing, and will continue to change._


----------

