The mantra of the religion of Global Warming(Capmag)

[White_Male_Canada]

The Global Warming Debate
by Tom DeWeese (May 7, 2007)


With great fanfare, in March, Al Gore took Capitol Hill like a conquering hero as he testified on Global Warming before both houses of Congress. Fresh from conquests at the Academy Awards where his adoring Hollywood elites showered him with coveted golden statues for spreading their favorite propaganda, Gore was determined to turn his personal conquest into draconian federal law and ultimate human misery.

Gore's words to Congress were predictable. The earth is warming. The polar ice caps are melting. Polar bears are on the run. And it's man's fault. Solution? Ban or control human activities. The mantra of the religion of Global Warming is getting a little boring. It's quite possible, however, that Gore's appearance on the Hill actually represents the beginning of the end of his influence on climate policy rather than the start of a legislative tsunami.

Why? Because even after the Global Warming storm troopers, armed with billions of dollars, the backing of the Hollywood elite, the news media and most of academia have done everything possible to threaten, bully and force their one-sided propaganda on us, the so-called global warming skeptics seem to be coming out of their hiding places in ever greater numbers. The debate is now taking a dramatic change. As the skeptic side is heard, more Americans are beginning to understand that there are legitimate reasons for skepticism. Here are just a few of the latest developments.

Item: Just days before Gore's charge up Capitol Hill, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner. Before the start of the debate, held in New York City, the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a crisis. But following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. Conclusion - when people hear both sides they can easily judge for themselves what is truth.

Item: On March 13, The New York Times, one of the most adamant promoters of the Global Warming gospel, published a landmark article stating "scientists argue that some of (former Vice President Al) Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."

Item: French scientist Claude Allegre, a prominent French Socialist and supporter of Global Warming dogma, recanted his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming and now says promotion of the idea is motivated by money.

Item: One of Israel's top young scientists, Nir Shaviv, recently reversed his opinion, declaring that the link between emissions and climate variability has nothing more that "circumstantial evidence."

Item: The United Kingdom's famed environmental activist David Bellamy also recently converted to skepticism, as did Meteorologist Reid Bryson, who has switched from the 1970's global cooling scare to a global warming skeptic.

Item: A report by the Heartland Institute, entitled "What Climate Scientists Really Say About Global Warming," exposes the weakness of the "consensus" claims of Global Warming shock troops. To reach its findings the report examined two surveys conducted among climate scientists; the first in 1996, and the second in 2003. Both surveys confirm scientists are divided on the issue. Says the report -


More climate scientist "strongly disagree" than "strongly agree" with the notion that climate change is caused by humans.

Most climate scientists do not believe "the current state of knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability" over 100-year periods.

Only 2 percent of climate scientists surveyed "strongly agree" that modeling programs designed to predict climate changes are accurate, and

Almost all climate scientists agree that climate change could have "positive effects for some societies."

Item: After Global Warming propagandists rushed to declare that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report proved conclusively that Global Warming was caused by human action, (a report by the way that won't be released until May) the just released summary predicts less global warming than was forecast by previous IPCC reports.

Item: New research by international scientists is revealing that the sun has been a major driver of climate variability. Solar specialist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center explained "We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years."

As Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) sums it up, "The usual suspects will still insist that there is a 'consensus' of scientists who agree with Gore. And yes, many governing boards and spokesmen of science institutions must toe the politically correct line of Gore-inspired science, but rank and file scientists are now openly rebelling.

As real debate finally forces fact over headline-making one liners, the truth will become ever more inconvenient to Al Gore and his Global Warming zealots.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4961

[North_of_60]

(...)the so-called global warming skeptics seem to be coming out of their hiding places in ever greater numbers. The debate is now taking a dramatic change. As the skeptic side is heard, more Americans are beginning to understand that there are legitimate reasons for skepticism.

Hahaahaaa !!!!

A great denialist march, yes indeed.

So, here's one of your sources or, should I say : mentor. You couldn't have picked a more rightwing bullshitter than Tom DeWeese of the APC.

The American Policy Center (APC), headed by longtime PR pro Thomas DeWeese, weighs in on what can safely be called the loony fringe of the sound science movement. One issue of the APC's newsletter attacks longtime environmentalist and author Jeremy Rifkin as "anti-industry, anti-civilization, anti-people" and accuses him of preaching "suicide, abortion, cannibalism and sodomy."

Yeah.. I see he's your type.

I declare this thread...

[LG]

(...)the so-called global warming skeptics seem to be coming out of their hiding places in ever greater numbers. The debate is now taking a dramatic change. As the skeptic side is heard, more Americans are beginning to understand that there are legitimate reasons for skepticism.

Hahaahaaa !!!!

A great denialist march, yes indeed.

So, here's one of your sources or, should I say : mentor. You couldn't have picked a more rightwing bullshitter than Tom DeWeese of the APC.

The American Policy Center (APC), headed by longtime PR pro Thomas DeWeese, weighs in on what can safely be called the loony fringe of the sound science movement. One issue of the APC's newsletter attacks longtime environmentalist and author Jeremy Rifkin as "anti-industry, anti-civilization, anti-people" and accuses him of preaching "suicide, abortion, cannibalism and sodomy."

Yeah.. I see he's your type.

I declare this thread...

Yup, North_of_60, it's all bullshit, spouted by blinkered conservatives and by "scientists" with a hidden agenda. We've already seen how most of them are funded by the oil and auto industry. Would you believe a "scientist" who advocated skepticism if he was funded by Exxon or GM?

Well, unfortunately one person on these forums would.

[White_Male_Canada]

(...)the so-called global warming skeptics seem to be coming out of their hiding places in ever greater numbers. The debate is now taking a dramatic change. As the skeptic side is heard, more Americans are beginning to understand that there are legitimate reasons for skepticism.

Hahaahaaa !!!!

A great denialist march, yes indeed.

So, here's one of your sources or, should I say : mentor. You couldn't have picked a more rightwing bullshitter than Tom DeWeese of the APC.

The American Policy Center (APC), headed by longtime PR pro Thomas DeWeese, weighs in on what can safely be called the loony fringe of the sound science movement. One issue of the APC's newsletter attacks longtime environmentalist and author Jeremy Rifkin as "anti-industry, anti-civilization, anti-people" and accuses him of preaching "suicide, abortion, cannibalism and sodomy."

Yeah.. I see he's your type.

I declare this thread...

Yup, North_of_60, it's all bullshit, spouted by blinkered conservatives and by "scientists" with a hidden agenda. We've already seen how most of them are funded by the oil and auto industry. Would you believe a "scientist" who advocated skepticism if he was funded by Exxon or GM?

Well, unfortunately one person on these forums would.

Thanks for playing along ya dumb inbred buck-toothed Brit !

Hook, line `n sinker, AGAIN ! :lol: What is this I lost count. Five ,six times you`ve taken the bait not knowing what was to come next. :lol:

Once Religious Believers, Now Skeptics :

-Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money.

-Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol.

-Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

-Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical."

-Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself."

-Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything."

-Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”

-Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears.

-Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind."

-Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles.

-Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,”

-Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,”

-Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,”



-

[LG]

We've been through this before and you looked silly back then.

Just off the top of my head I can tell you that Bellamy is a joke within the scientific community, while Veizer's cosmic ray scenario is accepted by almost nobody but Veizer.

All of these scientists you mention are skeptics but all of them have different theories on what is really going on, which just proves, once again, that you have no consistent position on the matter, aside from disagreeing with the generallu accepted view, and that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Hook, line and sinker? Sure, once you take that hook out of your ass on a plate once again.

[White_Male_Canada]

We've been through this before and you looked silly back then.

Just off the top of my head I can tell you that Bellamy is a joke within the scientific community, while Veizer's cosmic ray scenario is accepted by almost nobody but Veizer.

All of these scientists you mention are skeptics but all of them have different theories on what is really going on, which just proves, once again, that you have no consistent position on the matter, aside from disagreeing with the generallu accepted view, and that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Hook, line and sinker? Sure, once you take that hook out of your ass on a plate once again.

Give up dufus, you`re in over your head. 8)

And of course dynamical meteorologist Prof. Lindzen is wrong too.

As is John Christy, lead author IPCC, " I`ve often heard it said there`s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the gw issue and humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true.”

-Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

-David Deming, University of Oklahoma after publishing a paper on bore hole data, " With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period."

-Prof. Bob Carter, James Cook University , " Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention... The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

[North_of_60]

You have found 12 skeptics, good work WMC.

Let me remind you some of the conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report :

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities.

Now let's get back to the Tom DeWeese bullshit thread !

... and the American Policy Center :

Chaired by an extreme-right demagogue, Thomas DeWeese, this property-rights propaganda mill makes no bones about it: There is no global warming, there's a global leftist conspiracy to deceive the American people and wreck our economy -- for reasons that remain unclear. To protest the treaty negotiations in Kyoto, APC has called a nationwide "Strike for Liberty" on Dec. 6; patriotic citizens "can participate simply by wearing red, white and blue arm bands, or driving their cars with the lights on, blowing the horn." They've been accusing Al Gore of genocide. APC also publishes EPA Watch, a survey of environmental regulatory activities, and Foreign Policy Focus, an anti-U.N. nativist newsletter.

APC is a proud member of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), wich is an anti-environmental umbrella outfit counting more than 300 Wise Use groups as members, with a phone and fax network and a monthly newsletter called Eco-logic, which promotes Wise Use efforts to stop the global warming treaty, and Lamb's (i'll get back to him) conspiracy theories of a United Nations New World Order.

Since 1998, Exxon Mobil has donate more than 12 millions $ to members of ECO.

[LG]

Here are just a few of your buddies- I can't be bothered to look them all up:

Bob Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs , and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth.

Still laughing?

[White_Male_Canada]

Still laughing?

Yes :lol:

From THE top dog, Freeman Dyson, "This is a dubious business(CGMs). The experts know it`s no better than the input. In this case we simply don`t yet know what`s going to happen to the carbon in the atmosphere because we don`t know what already has happened or is happening.The atmosphere is the tail, the ground is the dog...Until you have detailed information it makes very little sense just to believe the output of climate models."


-Fred Singer, Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and just happens to be the guy who devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone replying to the idea of consensus of agw, " It’s completely unsupported by any observation, but it’s supported by computer climate models. In other words, the computer models would indicate this. The observations do not.

The thing to keep in mind always is that the natural fluctuations of climate are very much larger than anything we can ascribe – so far – to any human activity. Much larger. We lived through a Little Ice Age just a few hundred years ago. During the Middle Ages the climate was much warmer than it is today. So the climate does change all the time. We need to understand the scientific reasons for natural climate change. Most of us now think it’s the sun that is the real driver of climate."


Hendrik Tennekes, "A [GCM] prediction 50 or 100 years into the future is an idle gesture."


Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities.

Vague statements that are useless.


Now let's get back to the Tom DeWeese

My hook, Tommy boy? You bit, caught lg again for the umpteenth time 8)

[trish]

That Dr. Claude Allegre (a French Socialist by the way…didn’t know your trusted those types) backpedaled from his position on is old news, it predates the latest IPCC report. He doesn’t claim to debunk the theory that human carbon production is the cause of climate change, he has reservations because some of the supposed consequences of warming may have alternative explanations (oh, and by the way, solar flux is not one of them). He thinks the receding snow cap of Kilimanjaro for example may be due to tectonic motion.

By your own account astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv says, "…after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
This is hardly damning. Read the IPCC scientific report. It’s complex. Study the models and their construction as well as their output. Make your decision on theory and fact, not a list of thirteen endorsements that popped up after some lunatic agency scoured the net for anyone who looks like a scientist against the current informed consensus on climate change.

Bellamy’s objections to current consensus are theoretical. He thinks the current warming is driven by the variations in solar output. Too bad the Solar Heliosheric Observatory (SOHO) hasn’t found variations of the duration or scale that could account for our climate change. Moreover, calculations show that solar heating would raise the temperature of the upper atmosphere creating a distinct temperature to height profile that isn’t born out by measurement. The warming on Mars is caused by changes in albedo due to sandstorms. Such changes were observed for hundreds of years. The changes on Neptune are significantly correlated with changes on the other planets, including Earth…moreover, on their face they seem to be more than a decade out of sync. The arguments against the solar warming theory are overwhelming and too numerous to mention.

[LG]

Fred Singer, President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project.
Editorial Advisory Board Member, Cato Institute. Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health. Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis. Research Fellow, Independent Institute. Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University. Former Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom. Former Fellow, Hoover Institution. Former Fellow, Heritage Foundation. Former Fellow, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. Editor, Global Climate Change newsletter.

Singer, a leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis.

As for Freeman Dyson, from what I know, Dyson has never actually denied that climate change may be caused by humans. What he has done is question the value of climate models and insist that more local observation data is used.

Once again, in an attempt to argue with me you have not only aligned yourself with biased scientists like Singer but tried to use opinions like those of Dyson, showing that you are willing to accept any scientific theory as long as you disagree with us. Between the skeptics you quote, there must be at least 5 different viewpoints on whether climate change is real, whether it is affected by CO2 and whether humans are part of the problem.

Your willingness to shift positions so easily and use the differing opinions of so many scientists just shows you haven't a clue what you're on about. The funny things is you think you're winning this argument when you've been well and truly cut to ribbons, Bozo.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/files/bozo_913.jpg

[North_of_60]

My hook, Tommy boy? You bit, caught lg again for the umpteenth time

You hooked nobody, son. You're like a circus curiosity around here with people teasing you through the bars of this cage of stupidity you're living in.

[chefmike]

It's hilarious when he babbles about people taking his "bait"...White_Mounted_Canadian is but a silly fop, same as it ever was...

[White_Male_Canada]

Fred Singer, President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project.
Editorial Advisory Board Member, Cato Institute. Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health. Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis. Research Fellow, Independent Institute. Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University. Former Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom. Former Fellow, Hoover Institution. Former Fellow, Heritage Foundation. Former Fellow, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. Editor, Global Climate Change newsletter.

Singer, a leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis.

Climate "consensus" change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received. Of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.





As for Freeman Dyson, from what I know, Dyson has never actually denied that climate change may be caused by humans. What he has done is question the value of climate models and insist that more local observation data is used.

Once again, in an attempt to argue with me you have not only aligned yourself with biased scientists like Singer but tried to use opinions like those of Dyson, showing that you are willing to accept any scientific theory as long as you disagree with us. Between the skeptics you quote, there must be at least 5 different viewpoints on whether climate change is real, whether it is affected by CO2 and whether humans are part of the problem.

You`re arguements grow weaker by the minute if that`s at all possible since you have the intellectual fiber of an anencephalic quadriplegic.

These honest scientists are man enough to say there are too many variables to come to the single type of conlcusions that agw religionists have.The atmosphere is far too complex a system, and too dependent on the oceans, on geothermal energy and solar radiation, to be arbitrarily reduced to processes driven by single causes.

More heretics :

-Robert White (former head of the US Weather Bureau)
-Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
-Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
-Eric S. Posmentier (Department of Physics and Mathematics at Long Island University, Brooklyn)
-Michael Jorgensen (Paleoclimatologist)
-Theodor Landscheidt (Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia)
-Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)
-Robert E. Stevenson (Oceanographer, previously with the ONR and Secretary General of The International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans)
-Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
-Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
-David Legates (Center for Climactic Research, Delaware)
-Chauncey Starr (Former Dean of Engineering at UCLA and founder of EPRI)
-Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize, Molecular Biologist)
-Roger Revelle (Prof. of Ocean Science at Scripps Institute of Oceanography)
-Michael McElroy (Head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard)

And in closing, here`s why we laugh so hard at your agw religion:

2005, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories announced that "if humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business-as-usual manner for the next few centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar to 14.5 degrees warmer than current day..." :lol:

[White_Male_Canada]

My hook, Tommy boy? You bit, caught lg again for the umpteenth time

You hooked nobody, son. You're like a circus curiosity around here with people teasing you through the bars of this cage of stupidity you're living in.

And AGW causes it to snow in Canada in May ! 8)

You have the intellectual gravitas of a dandruff flake.

[trish]

this


You`re arguements grow weaker by the minute if that`s at all possible since you have the intellectual fiber of an anencephalic quadriplegic.

These honest scientists are man enough to say there are too many variables to come to the single type of conlcusions that agw religionists have.The atmosphere is far too complex a system, and too dependent on the oceans, on geothermal energy and solar radiation, to be arbitrarily reduced to processes driven by single causes.

is just an insult, NOT an argument. try again.


And in closing, here`s why we laugh so hard at your agw religion:

2005, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories announced that "if humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business-as-usual manner for the next few centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar to 14.5 degrees warmer than current day..."

sorry, that's not an argument either, just misuse of the plural form of "I".

one more try.


More heretics :

-Robert White (former head of the US Weather Bureau)
-Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
-Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
-Eric S. Posmentier (Department of Physics and Mathematics at Long Island University, Brooklyn)
-Michael Jorgensen (Paleoclimatologist)
-Theodor Landscheidt (Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia)
-Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)
-Robert E. Stevenson (Oceanographer, previously with the ONR and Secretary General of The International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans)
-Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
-Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
-David Legates (Center for Climactic Research, Delaware)
-Chauncey Starr (Former Dean of Engineering at UCLA and founder of EPRI)
-Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize, Molecular Biologist)
-Roger Revelle (Prof. of Ocean Science at Scripps Institute of Oceanography)
-Michael McElroy (Head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard)


nope...NOT an argument either. that's just a list of people who might have arguments, if you could only understand and relate them. so much for a show of sophisticated wit and intellectual acumen. :roll:

[specialk]

:P :P

[qeuqheeg222]

why doesn't he try a little experiment to see if CO2 will harm him in his garage with his car running and the g-door shut!!!

[LG]

Climate "consensus" change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions.

Even if true, this research was not funded by an industry with something to gain from the findings. Like I said, why should we trust research disputing climate change being funded by Exxon? Would you trust research disputing the fact that smoking causes cancer if it was funded by tobacco companies? If so, you are more stupid than I thought.




As for Freeman Dyson, from what I know, Dyson has never actually denied that climate change may be caused by humans. What he has done is question the value of climate models and insist that more local observation data is used.

Once again, in an attempt to argue with me you have not only aligned yourself with biased scientists like Singer but tried to use opinions like those of Dyson, showing that you are willing to accept any scientific theory as long as you disagree with us. Between the skeptics you quote, there must be at least 5 different viewpoints on whether climate change is real, whether it is affected by CO2 and whether humans are part of the problem.

You`re arguements grow weaker by the minute if that`s at all possible since you have the intellectual fiber of an anencephalic quadriplegic.

Insulting, untrue and badly spelled, and like Trish said, not an argument. It's also insulting to Freeman Dyson, who you have named amongst your ragtag of biased "scientists" without even understanding (or probably knowing) what he says on the matter.


These honest scientists are man enough to say there are too many variables to come to the single type of conlcusions that agw religionists have.The atmosphere is far too complex a system, and too dependent on the oceans, on geothermal energy and solar radiation, to be arbitrarily reduced to processes driven by single causes.

Not what you used to say. You've bandied about every theory you could find and used it to counter our arguments, while throwing in ugly epithets as if they were confetti. I am now sure you don't understand the matter.

The way you have argued it would seem to me that you think you are more of an expert than any scientist. Certainly, the way you accuse the vast majority of climate researchers of being junk scientists, you seem to think you know more than them.


More heretics :[/b]

-Robert White (former head of the US Weather Bureau)
-Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
-Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
-Eric S. Posmentier (Department of Physics and Mathematics at Long Island University, Brooklyn)
-Michael Jorgensen (Paleoclimatologist)
-Theodor Landscheidt (Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia)
-Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)
-Robert E. Stevenson (Oceanographer, previously with the ONR and Secretary General of The International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans)
-Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
-Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
-David Legates (Center for Climactic Research, Delaware)
-Chauncey Starr (Former Dean of Engineering at UCLA and founder of EPRI)
-Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize, Molecular Biologist)
-Roger Revelle (Prof. of Ocean Science at Scripps Institute of Oceanography)
-Michael McElroy (Head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard)

Some of these scientists have industry ties. The rest would be embarrassed to even be mentioned in the same breath as you.


And in closing, here`s why we laugh so hard at your agw religion:


Exactly who is laughing, Bozo? Your friends have abandoned you. TFan has disappeared and guyone, who has a lot more sense than you, isn't willing to defend you. You have firmly established yourself as the most unpopular member of these boards. People are not laughing with you, they are laughing at you. You are our comic relief.

Just so you know.

[guyone]

Hey I'm here!

I'm just not going to bother responding to personal attacks on my brother WMC which is what these debates usually devolve into.

Besides he does quite fine without me.

[LG]

Hey I'm here!

I'm just not going to bother responding to personal attacks on my brother WMC which is what these debates usually devolve into.

Besides he does quite fine without me.

Just remember who attacked first, guyone. WMC is reaping what he sowed, after calling us all kinds of names and personally insulting every one of us. Surely there must be a reason why nobody likes him.

I had no problem with him until he started being so abusive. Some of the things he has said here would have got him banned if this were the General Discussion forum.

And no, he is not doing fine at all. He has been made to look like a fool, once again.

[trish]

Hey I'm here!

I'm just not going to bother responding to personal attacks on my brother WMC which is what these debates usually devolve into.

Besides he does quite fine without me.

illustrating which of his posts are not arguments does not constitute a personal attack.

[White_Male_Canada]

Hey I'm here!

I'm just not going to bother responding to personal attacks on my brother WMC which is what these debates usually devolve into.

Besides he does quite fine without me.

Just remember who attacked first, guyone. WMC is reaping what he sowed, after calling us all kinds of names and personally insulting every one of us. Surely there must be a reason why nobody likes him.

I had no problem with him until he started being so abusive. Some of the things he has said here would have got him banned if this were the General Discussion forum.

And no, he is not doing fine at all. He has been made to look like a fool, once again.

Only losers such as yourself whine like little children taken to the woodshed. But try not to worry, console yourself in knowing that you`re leauges from the all time champ, the VillageIdiot. :lol:

Since we know consensus scientists almost fully rely on government funding we can conlcude that they are biased. Your faulty claim of scientists on the the take by Exxon is exposed by the mere fact Exxon does not deny global warming.
Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president of public affairs,"The appropriate debate isn't on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it...Climate is changing. It's a serious issue. The evidence is there."

So much for your canard which has just been fried like so much fois gras.


Look limey another heretic, burn him at the stake !

E. Wegman, professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association,

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported...The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable."

Prof. Wegman on M.Mann and the IPCC who claim even if Mann`s science was faulty he nevertheless came to the right conclusion, "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."

With junk/consensus science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

Too easy, still laughing at you earth worshiper. :lol:

[LG]

WMC, I have never read such a monotonous, biased, offensive pile of tripe since...well..since your last post man.

And it would help if you could read what you are replying to properly.

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC, I have never read such a monotonous, biased, offensive pile of tripe since...well..since your last post man.

And it would help if you could read what you are replying to properly.

It would help if your anencephalic skull could recall your own narrative posted on page two. :lol:

Awww did I call the whittle boy a bad name...aww poor baby.

Now, Get to Bed ! 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

Hey I'm here!

I'm just not going to bother responding to personal attacks on my brother WMC which is what these debates usually devolve into.

Besides he does quite fine without me.

Whad`ya expect from the kook brigade ? They keep getting their noses bloodied despite promising never to reply. Why come back over and over to get shellaced? Well, to try get even of course. :lol: Notice, there still coming back ;-)

[trish]

Only losers such as yourself whine like little children taken to the woodshed. But try not to worry, console yourself in knowing that you`re leauges from the all time champ, the VillageIdiot.



The above is not an argument.


Since we know consensus scientists almost fully rely on government funding we can conlcude that they are biased.



The above assertion relies on the unstated and false assumption that the current government supports the hypothesis that human activity is a primary force driving global climate change.


Your faulty claim of scientists on the the take by Exxon is exposed by the mere fact Exxon does not deny global warming.
Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president of public affairs,"The appropriate debate isn't on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it...Climate is changing. It's a serious issue. The evidence is there."


Even you don’t deny the existence of global climate change. But like Exxon you deny that burning fossils fuels is a major contributor to that change. The above argument is a non-sequitur.



So much for your canard which has just been fried like so much fois gras.



Not an argument or even a statement of your position; just a waste of bandwidth.


Look limey another heretic, burn him at the stake !



Nobody here threaten to burn anyone at the stake. We in fact had quite respectable things to say about your list of a dozen or so above. This is a mischaracterization of your readers, us.


E. Wegman, professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association,

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported...The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable."



So what if it’s not the hottest decade in the millennium? It is the hottest since the industrial revolution, which supports (I didn’t say proves) that CO2 emissions are the cause.

This


“Prof. Wegman on M.Mann and the IPCC who claim even if Mann`s science was faulty he nevertheless came to the right conclusion, "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."

is just incoherent.


With junk/consensus science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer. Too easy, still laughing at you earth worshiper.


Finally this last is something we can agree on. You are the professed true believer and you are never wrong. You have the God given right to sling insults at those with differing opinions. God is on your side, and He is the cause of the global warming. May He never allow the UN to rule the world through the regulation of profits, weapons and fossil fuels. God’s will be done.

[LG]

Hey I'm here!

I'm just not going to bother responding to personal attacks on my brother WMC which is what these debates usually devolve into.

Besides he does quite fine without me.

Whad`ya expect from the kook brigade ? They keep getting their noses bloodied despite promising never to reply. Why come back over and over to get shellaced? Well, to try get even of course. :lol: Notice, there still coming back ;-)

Still using ugly epithets, I see.

So why do we even bother to reply? Maybe because we can't stand to read bullshit. Maybe because we don't want your drivel to convince any of the more impressionable members out there. Maybe because we just like making you look silly and laughing at you.

But then again, you have an answer to everything don't you, WMC? Pity it's always a wrong one.

As for my comment on reading properly, I will reiterate that, firstly, I am not British, and secondly, I find your pejorative use of the word "limey" pretty offensive. This I have told you already but, as usual, you refuse to read posts properly.

And I am not sure what you mean when you refer to my comments on page 2. Was I being offensive? I don't think so, even though you gave me good reason. Were your feelings hurt 'cause I called you Bozo? I think it's only fair, since you've called me a Stalinist and a kook. What would you expect from a kook anyway?

Trish and I have taken your arguments apart on climate change so many times that it's getting quite boring. As for promising never to reply, what I actually said was that I will not bother arguing with you, It is a waste of time. Your posts are a waste of bandwidth and you are- it seems- a waste of space. I am sorry, but I'm tired of being polite in the face of such nastiness such as yours is.

Arguing with you is like throwing mud at a pig- you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

[White_Male_Canada]

Trish and I have taken your arguments apart on climate change so many times that it's getting quite boring. As for promising never to reply, what I actually said was that I will not bother arguing with you, It is a waste of time. Your posts are a waste of bandwidth and you are- it seems- a waste of space. I am sorry, but I'm tired of being polite in the face of such nastiness such as yours is.


There`s therapy and pills for self-delusional thoughts such as yours, simply because you leftists have placed all your eggs in the "man-made co2 is the main cause of global warming".

Last time, that contention falls flat on it`s face from the very start.
CO2 does not antedate temperature increases.Temperature increases first, CO2 follows behind by up to 800 years.CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases.. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
Add to this information data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing that the annual per-capital CO2 global emissions rate has flattened out since the early 80s. Based on these facts, no one can predict exponential increases in man-made CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. And if there's no exponential increase in CO2, there can be no global warming.
The only way the spurious theory gains adherence is from the UN and it`s flawed CGMs that are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin.

Your politeness was thinly veiled and crudely feigned from the get-go so don`t insult our intelligence. Leftists such as yourselfs are arrogant, conceited, self-righteous busy bodies intent on micromanaging every facet of an individuals life. The only answer leftists have to problems are higher taxes more regulations and bigger government. Which of course has always failed,Chavez being the latest example on how to run a country into the ground. You`re looney-kazooney kooks and stalinists. 8)

[chefmike]

Exactly who is laughing, Bozo? Your friends have abandoned you. TFan has disappeared....

BREAKING NEWS...

TFool has been located! Yes, I know what you're thinking...that he was found under Karl Rove's desk wearing a blue dress...sorry, but not this time, anyway...

Sources who wish to remain anonymous have told me that he is currently in a xian re-education camp...a jesus camp for the GOP(gay old pederasts) so to speak...apparently he and his fellow conflicted right-wing bible-bangers visit these places in the hope that it will cure them of their sinful homosexual desires...kind of like those catholic re-education camps for pederast priests...so perhaps there is also still hope for White_Mounted_Canadian and gumpone... :P

[trish]

Last time, that contention falls flat on it`s face from the very start.
CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. :roll:

first of all, we know from past experience that won't be the "last time" you quote this inane mantra. we know from experience that when pressed you will post a chart of temperature vs CO2 concentrations on a time scale of 45 million years or more. I agree these variations of driven by the Earth's secular motion, not CO2. The current story, however is quite different as you can see.

[White_Male_Canada]

Last time, that contention falls flat on it`s face from the very start.
CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. :roll:

first of all, we know from past experience that won't be the "last time" you quote this inane mantra. we know from experience that when pressed you will post a chart of temperature vs CO2 concentrations on a time scale of 45 million years or more. I agree these variations of driven by the Earth's secular motion, not CO2. The current story, however is quite different as you can see.

You`re certifiable if you think wiki the source of complete and full accurate data.

Last time, CO2 lags behind temp increases:

-Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon -- specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue "can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change" -- in air bubbles in the Vostok ice, " confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation."

- Idso et al, "changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature.

-Genthon et al, "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record."

-Petit et al,"the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Also Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

-Indermuhle et al, shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years.

- Monnin et al. found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.

- Mudelsee et al concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.


Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.
Idso, S.B. 1982. Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.
Idso, S.B. 1988. Carbon dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core. Atmospheric Environment 22: 2341-2342.
Idso, S.B. 1989. Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition. IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.
Genthon, C., Barnola, J.M., Raynaud, D., Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Barkov, N.I., Korotkevich, Y.S. and Kotlyakov, V.M. 1987. Vostok ice core: Climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle. Nature 329: 414-418.
Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.
Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.
Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.
Monnin, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science 291: 112-114.
Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.

[trish]

wikipedia is NOT the data source

[trish]

Last time, CO2 lags behind temp increases

the last time was the last time, wasn't it?

[White_Male_Canada]

wikipedia is NOT the data source

It`s the source of incomplete data and statistics.

[trish]

Oh the chart’s incomplete. What points between 1860 and 2000 are missing? The irrational ones? The transcendentals? WTF are you on about? The reason that chart upsets you is not because it’s incomplete, but because it puts the lie to your mantra. Admit it, WMC…you have no interest (and certainly no talent for) science. Your only interest in climatology is political. You can’t stand regulation and your AFRAID we might have to regulate the use of fossil fuels. OH MY!!! THAT’s SOOO AWFUL!!


The only answer leftists have to problems are higher taxes more regulations and bigger government

Of course righties don’t mind if abortions are regulated. They demand stem-cell research be regulated. They want to regulate who can get married and who can’t. They want to regulate who is allowed to produce new pharmaceuticals, and new products. They want big government to protect their copyrights and patients. They want to mandate prayer in school and demand equal time for creationist pseudo-science. They want government out of board rooms and in the bedrooms. Righties are for corporate rights and dead set against the protection of individual rights.

So here's your real argument: If our CO2 emissions are driving climate change, then people will eventually force the government to regulate those emissions. AAARRRRGGG!!! Therefore, climate change is due to sunspot activity.

[North_of_60]

Last time, that contention falls flat on it`s face from the very start.
CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. :roll:

first of all, we know from past experience that won't be the "last time" you quote this inane mantra. we know from experience that when pressed you will post a chart of temperature vs CO2 concentrations on a time scale of 45 million years or more. I agree these variations of driven by the Earth's secular motion, not CO2. The current story, however is quite different as you can see.

You`re certifiable if you think wiki the source of complete and full accurate data.

Last time, CO2 lags behind temp increases:

-Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon -- specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue "can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change" -- in air bubbles in the Vostok ice, " confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation."

More bullshit WMC ?

You are just digging out some science infos and spinning it in a stupid denialist conservative fashion way.

These are the conclusions from Caillon et al.

"Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump, we
should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2
increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it
naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the
atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter
4200 years of the warming.
The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the presentday
and future climate.

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? No. CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. Nature is a well balanced system taking back the Co2 it gives. The real issue in this debate is what happens when there is a significal rise of Co2 in the atmosphere due to anthropegenic activites.

Now, read the IPCC's 4th assessment report, stupid.

[Quinn]

Oh the chart’s incomplete. What points between 1860 and 2000 are missing? The irrational ones? The transcendentals? WTF are you on about? The reason that chart upsets you is not because it’s incomplete, but because it puts the lie to your mantra. Admit it, WMC…you have no interest (and certainly no talent for) science. Your only interest in climatology is political. You can’t stand regulation and your AFRAID we might have to regulate the use of fossil fuels. OH MY!!! THAT’s SOOO AWFUL!!


The only answer leftists have to problems are higher taxes more regulations and bigger government

Of course righties don’t mind if abortions are regulated. They demand stem-cell research be regulated. They want to regulate who can get married and who can’t. They want to regulate who is allowed to produce new pharmaceuticals, and new products. They want big government to protect their copyrights and patients. They want to mandate prayer in school and demand equal time for creationist pseudo-science. They want government out of board rooms and in the bedrooms. Righties are for corporate rights and dead set against the protection of individual rights.

So here's your real argument: If our CO2 emissions are driving climate change, then people will eventually force the government to regulate those emissions. AAARRRRGGG!!! Therefore, climate change is due to sunspot activity.

And there's the best laugh I've had so far today. Nicely done, Trish. Oh, perhaps a not so subtle metaphor to illustrate what has happened, yet again:

http://www.heywhynot.com/images-jolly/muhammad-ali-knock-out.jpg

I don't think I even need to explain who's who in the above pic as it's painfully obvious.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Last time, that contention falls flat on it`s face from the very start.
CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. :roll:

first of all, we know from past experience that won't be the "last time" you quote this inane mantra. we know from experience that when pressed you will post a chart of temperature vs CO2 concentrations on a time scale of 45 million years or more. I agree these variations of driven by the Earth's secular motion, not CO2. The current story, however is quite different as you can see.

You`re certifiable if you think wiki the source of complete and full accurate data.

Last time, CO2 lags behind temp increases:

-Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon -- specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue "can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change" -- in air bubbles in the Vostok ice, " confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation."

More bullshit WMC ?

You are just digging out some science infos and spinning it in a stupid denialist conservative fashion way.

These are the conclusions from Caillon et al.

"
of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the presentday
and future climate.

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? No. CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. Nature is a well balanced system taking back the Co2 it gives. The real issue in this debate is what happens when there is a significal rise of Co2 in the atmosphere due to anthropegenic activites.

Now, read the IPCC's 4th assessment report, stupid.

Now you`ll know why the villageIdiot avoids me at all costs, to keep from being embarrassed.

Feeling lucky eh punk? Unfortunately you can`t think, which comes naturally to a leftist. Let`s take a look at their own words:

The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier

May, as in possibly, might, maybe. Get it ? They did not say " Conclusively proves.." :smh

You and many others invent various bizarre verbal constructs to circumvent the otherwise inevitable conclusion, that temperatures drive co2 not the other way around. It`s agreed, up to the point it becomes political and then the 180 degree turn where they then try to argue the opposite!
And they argue outgassing increases, a point you failed to mention. They continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric co2, which is believed to be due to warming-induced co2 outgassing from the world's oceans, serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place!

That belief is founed on unproven assumptions and cannot be assumed from from the ice core data. Unless it`s Gaia !?

Nice try, next time you "may"- possibly - maybe have a chance to win an argument. If it`s with an orangutan or chimpanzee. 8)

[LG]

Last time, that contention falls flat on it`s face from the very start.
CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. :roll:

first of all, we know from past experience that won't be the "last time" you quote this inane mantra. we know from experience that when pressed you will post a chart of temperature vs CO2 concentrations on a time scale of 45 million years or more. I agree these variations of driven by the Earth's secular motion, not CO2. The current story, however is quite different as you can see.

You`re certifiable if you think wiki the source of complete and full accurate data.

Last time, CO2 lags behind temp increases:

Biased, unscientific, ignorant, monotonous unadulterated crap. And I'm being nice, here.

Prof John Mitchell, FRS, OBE, Met Office Chief Scientist, a man who has more intelligence and scientific skills in his pinky fingers than you do in your entire body, has clearly said, on the Met Office's website that:

Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Concentrations of CO2 are now much higher and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now is very different to what happened in the past.

In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate (due to orbit changes for example) led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 is enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

Writing about the climate models, the man whose job it is to predict the weather (short and long term) writes:

There have been major advances in the development and use of models over the last 20 years. The models are based mainly on the laws of physics. There are also empirical techniques which use, for example, studies of detailed processes involved in cloud formation. The most advanced computer models also include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and oceans, along with detailed descriptions of the feedbacks between all components of the climate system including the cryosphere and biosphere. Climate models have been used to reproduce the main features of the current climate, the temperature changes over the last hundred years and the main features of the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000) years ago.

The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events.


And he warns:
There are genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy. There are also a number of misunderstandings and myths which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact.

Recent coverage has questioned the influence of humans on the climate. While the arguments used might have been regarded as genuine areas of sceptical enquiry 20 years ago, further observed warming and advances in climate science render these out of touch.

The above is not just my opinion (and, unlike you, I happen to have a science degree in a discipline very close to climatology) but the view of Professor Mitchell, a genuine expert and a leader in his field. The above is the scientific opinion of someone who knows, based on real science research, as opposed to the biased hot air of a man with too much time on his hands who keeps recycling the opinions of right-wing politicians and industry-funded "scientists" with an agenda to oppose all efforts to alleviate impacts from climate change just because it's bad for some people's pockets, regardless of what the human and environmental costs might be.

[North_of_60]

Now you`ll know why the villageIdiot avoids me at all costs, to keep from being embarrassed.

People avoids you because you are a self obsessed imbecile.


Nice try, next time you "may"- possibly - maybe have a chance to win an argument. If it`s with an orangutan or chimpanzee.

Not even once, I've seen you win an argument with me, or other members of this board. You're a pathetic loser. But you like it this way... Admit it.

[White_Male_Canada]

Biased, unscientific, ignorant, monotonous unadulterated crap. And I'm being nice, here.

Prof John Mitchell, FRS, OBE, Met Office Chief Scientist, a man who has more intelligence and scientific skills in his pinky fingers than you do in your entire body, has clearly said, on the Met Office's website...

Pfft~ 8) Thinking while half asleep again limey?

So what if proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years. Even during the 6 former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5C warmer than in our current interglacial!?!
This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false. 8)

[LG]

Biased, unscientific, ignorant, monotonous unadulterated crap. And I'm being nice, here.

Prof John Mitchell, FRS, OBE, Met Office Chief Scientist, a man who has more intelligence and scientific skills in his pinky fingers than you do in your entire body, has clearly said, on the Met Office's website...

Pfft~ 8) Thinking while half asleep again limey?

So what if proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years. Even during the 6 former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5C warmer than in our current interglacial!?!
This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false. 8)

That's not even worth replying to, Bozo. And no, it's not becuase I'm scared of your ignorant, crappy little arguments or your malodorous but misguided attempts at insulting my ethnicity (one last time, fuckface: I am not British!- and even if I was what would be the point of calling me a limey?). It's because I have better things to do.

That would include pretty much everything right now.
:trolls

[White_Male_Canada]

Biased, unscientific, ignorant, monotonous unadulterated crap. And I'm being nice, here.

Prof John Mitchell, FRS, OBE, Met Office Chief Scientist, a man who has more intelligence and scientific skills in his pinky fingers than you do in your entire body, has clearly said, on the Met Office's website...

Pfft~ 8) Thinking while half asleep again limey?

So what if proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years. Even during the 6 former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5C warmer than in our current interglacial!?!
This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false. 8)

That's not even worth replying to...

Heh-heh 8)

So what if proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years. Even during the 6 former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5C warmer than in our current interglacial!?!

This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate, man-made EVEN LESS, or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false.

Go ahead, take the bait. Any attempt to argue one or the other will fetch you nothing but mirgranes. By the time I`m done with you we`ll find you grinding your teeth in your sleep and seething while awake.

Now, get to bed ! and sleep on it, happy nightmares moron. 8)

[LG]

Biased, unscientific, ignorant, monotonous unadulterated crap. And I'm being nice, here.

Prof John Mitchell, FRS, OBE, Met Office Chief Scientist, a man who has more intelligence and scientific skills in his pinky fingers than you do in your entire body, has clearly said, on the Met Office's website...

Pfft~ 8) Thinking while half asleep again limey?

So what if proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years. Even during the 6 former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5C warmer than in our current interglacial!?!
This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false. 8)

That's not even worth replying to...

Heh-heh 8)

So what if proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years. Even during the 6 former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5C warmer than in our current interglacial!?!

This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate, man-made EVEN LESS, or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false.

Go ahead, take the bait. Any attempt to argue one or the other will fetch you nothing but mirgranes. By the time I`m done with you we`ll find you grinding your teeth in your sleep and seething while awake.

Now, get to bed ! and sleep on it, happy nightmares moron. 8)

Now you're being repetitive as well as stupid and also insulting, considering you have no idea what you're talking about... And I'm tired of this shit.

Firstly, now one tells me what to do, fuckface.

Secondly, carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years- the latest studies of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirm that.

Thirdly, according to science research by the University of East Anglia (who are amongst the leaders in this field), the Open University and others, the Jurassic warming was caused by a rapid increase of methane in the atmosphere. Methane is another greenhouse gas, but since you are not a scientist but most likely a travelling jizzmopper, I wouldn't expect you to know that. Other warming periods were also associated with increases in greenhouse gases. That CO2 levels are higher than ever makes it all the more worrying now.

The fact is that there are many variables, none of which you apparently understand, but one certainty- climate change is very real. This certainty is supported by the vast majority of the scientific community, by people who- unlike you- do not whip theories out of their ass. These are people who know what they're talking about and it is sickening how a brainless shit like you (and this is, apparently what you are, so if you're going to dish out the insults be ready to take them) gets to throw about bullshit to try and disprove them to satisfy a right-wing agenda.

There is no bait to take in this case, so you can put your "hahaha" and your "LOL" where the sun don't shine, because, once again, you're full of shit. For how long will you repeat this monotonous garbage?

Now take your ass off the plate, put your tail between your legs and fuck off back to your mop closet.

[chefmike]

Is there anyone here who hasn't "taken the bait" and proved once again that White_Mounted_Canadian is nothing but a fop and a fraud?

I doubt it.

[White_Male_Canada]

Secondly, carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years- the latest studies of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirm that.

The Vostok core with air inclusions showed co2 levels below 220 ppm between 30,000 to 110,000 years BP. Such low levels would mean extinction of certain plant species which has not been recorded by paleobotanists. Fossil leaf stomata indicate co2 levels up to 360ppm.


CO2 reconstructions reflect rapid changes with a significantly greater magnitude than the smooth and modest atmospheric CO2 decline to values of260 ppmv inferred from the low-resolution Taylor Dome ice-core record. The data also confirm the regular occurrence of early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentrations well above 300 ppmv, unknown from Antarctic ice cores but common in leaf-based time series.
(Friederike Wagner, Bent Aaby and Henk Visscher )

Naturally, the icecore boys argue, " we`re not wrong, you leaf people are."


Thirdly, according to science research by the University of East Anglia (who are amongst the leaders in this field), the Open University and others, the Jurassic warming was caused by a rapid increase of methane in the atmosphere.

And guess what? There was no evidence of +feedback Venus style warming. Instead life flourished in the oceans and land. So the kook fringe hysteria of run away man-made warming is just that, kooky and hysterical.


The fact is that there are many variables, none of which you apparently understand, but one certainty- climate change is very real.

Never stated a denial of climate change. It ALWAYS changes. The fact is the left seem to think it should not. That there is some sort of perfect mean temperature that the Earth should be, usually the mean temp of their pot-smoking youth. What we deny and have easily proven is man is not the main cause of climate change.

[trish]

Anyone who gave it two seconds thought agrees that
there is some sort of perfect mean temperature that the Earth should be. That’s why astronauts have life support systems and why vacationers flock to fair weather locations. There is a range of temperatures outside of which the maintenance of human civilization is all but impossible. Regardless of what is causing the current change we will want to regulate those activities that make it worse. In the current case we’re lucky. We know the cause (CO2 emissions) and we can do something directly about it (reduce emissions).

[White_Male_Canada]

Anyone who gave it two seconds thought agrees that
there is some sort of perfect mean temperature that the Earth should be. That’s why astronauts have life support systems and why vacationers flock to fair weather locations. There is a range of temperatures outside of which the maintenance of human civilization is all but impossible. Regardless of what is causing the current change we will want to regulate those activities that make it worse. In the current case we’re lucky. We know the cause (CO2 emissions) and we can do something directly about it (reduce emissions).

Or else we`re all cooked, just like on Venus.

"Hey buddy"

[LG]

Secondly, carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years- the latest studies of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirm that.

The Vostok core with air inclusions showed co2 levels below 220 ppm between 30,000 to 110,000 years BP. Such low levels would mean extinction of certain plant species which has not been recorded by paleobotanists. Fossil leaf stomata indicate co2 levels up to 360ppm.


CO2 reconstructions reflect rapid changes with a significantly greater magnitude than the smooth and modest atmospheric CO2 decline to values of260 ppmv inferred from the low-resolution Taylor Dome ice-core record. The data also confirm the regular occurrence of early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentrations well above 300 ppmv, unknown from Antarctic ice cores but common in leaf-based time series.
(Friederike Wagner, Bent Aaby and Henk Visscher )

Naturally, the icecore boys argue, " we`re not wrong, you leaf people are."


Thirdly, according to science research by the University of East Anglia (who are amongst the leaders in this field), the Open University and others, the Jurassic warming was caused by a rapid increase of methane in the atmosphere.

And guess what? There was no evidence of +feedback Venus style warming. Instead life flourished in the oceans and land. So the kook fringe hysteria of run away man-made warming is just that, kooky and hysterical.


The fact is that there are many variables, none of which you apparently understand, but one certainty- climate change is very real.

Never stated a denial of climate change. It ALWAYS changes. The fact is the left seem to think it should not. That there is some sort of perfect mean temperature that the Earth should be, usually the mean temp of their pot-smoking youth. What we deny and have easily proven is man is not the main cause of climate change.

Ice core data is a much better indicator than stomatal densities and indicies, simply because it is based on measuring what CO2 was actually there rather than measuring how plants behaved to the CO2 that was present. CO2 is not the only thing that affects leaf stomata, and as such is a poor proxy.

There are too many variables affecting leaf stomata indicies and too many assumptions that must be made if the proxy CO2 data they suggest is to be taken seriously.

A common theory for why CO2 should (partially) control stomata (e.g. Woodward 1987, Nature, 327, 617) is that the two main fluxes through the leaf are water vapor and CO2. It’s generally advantageous for plants to conserve water while maximizing CO2 uptake. As CO2 rises for a given water budget, a plant can afford to reduce stomatal activity without suffering a reduction in CO2 intake. Two main ways this happens are smaller stomatal pores (Bettarini et al. 1998, Global Change Biol., 4, 17) and fewer stomata (Woodward 1987, Nature, 327, 617). When CO2 drops, plants require more stomatal activity to maintain CO2 intake, but at the cost of increased water loss.

Stomatal density (SD) depends on both the number of stomata and the size of the epidermal cells. Thus SD is affected both by the number of stomata and the expansion of epidermal cells. This in turn depends on a great many variables, and can mask the signal depending on CO2. That’s why Salisbury (1927, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B, 216, 1) introduced the concept of stomatal index (SI), which combines stomatal density (SD) and epidermal density (ED) into a single index defined as:

SI (%) = 100 * SD / (SD + ED)

SI is generally thought to be a better indicator of CO2 than SD. In other words, we can use SI as a “proxy” for CO2.

However, the stomatal response of plants to CO2 levels can be very tricky business. Both SD and (to a lesser degree) SI, depend on a lot of factors other than CO2, including the water budget, the amount of available light, temperature, and the position of the leaf on the plant. Also, SD and SI don’t depend on the CO2 concentration, but on the amount of CO2 in the air. This depends on the CO2 concentration, and on the density of the air itself. Hence stomata are better related to the “partial pressure” of CO2, or pCO2, than to the CO2 concentration. This can be computed by multiplying the CO2 concentration by the atmospheric pressure. But atmospheric pressure depends very strongly on altitude; hence stomatal response to CO2 is very strongly altitude-dependent.

Royer (2001, Rev. Paleobotany and Palynology, 114, 1) studied the stomatal response (both SD and SI) to CO2 in data from over 200 plant species, using experimental data, sub-fossil data, and fossil data. For stomatal density (SD), only 49% of of samples showed the expected response (less SD with more CO2), while 11% showed the oppositve response; the remainder showed no statistically significant relationship. For SI, 50% show the expected response (less SI with more CO2) while 5% showed the opposite response. He also mentions numerous factors besides CO2 that affect SD and SI, and emphasizes that the response is strongly species-dependent. The conclusion is that while stomatal measurements are a useful way to estimate CO2 changes in very ancient eras, SD- and SI-based CO2 estimates are of far less precision than direct measurements from ice cores.

Some research has indicated that CO2 has shown much larger fluctuations in the last several thousand years than is indicated by ice core data. Most of this research comes from Friedereke Wagner and colleagues in the Netherlands, who concluded that:

"Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were > 300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception".

But there are powerful reasons to believe the ice core data over the SI estimates. Foremost is that fact that ice core data are not estimates based on a proxy, they are actual measurements — a vastly better indicator. Another is the stunning agreement between the ice cores; the Taylor Dome and Vostok data are in such close agreement, one has to look closely to tell which data point is from which ice core.

Subsequent research by Wagner and colleagues (van Hoof et al. 2005, Tellus, 57B, 351) has argued that the ice cores show far less CO2 fluctuation than stomatal-index estimates because the ice cores tend to smooth the data strongly, a process which of course would smooth out the fluctuations. In other words, the ice cores cannot be trusted to show fluctuations which occur on timescales less than about a century.

But there is one unimpeachable record of atmospheric CO2 concentration: direct measurement from the modern instrumental era (the best-known being from Mauna Loa atmospheric observatory). We can check the ability of ice cores to resolve short-timescale CO2 changes by comparing the Law Dome ice core data to Mauna Loa measurement during their brief period of overlap. And, comparing the two, the Law Dome ice core data faithfully detects changes which occur in as little as 5 years.

So, do you still assert that the IPCC, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the Earth Institute at Colombia, England's major universities and research bodies such as the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia, the National Environment Research Council, University College London, the UK's Met Office, plus a vast number of universities, associations and research bodies worldwide (I could go on for pages) are all wrong? And you are right? You think these people with years of research are biased and you- a bigot with tunnel vision and the science expertise of a squashed pea- are impartial?

Fucking hubris, that is. And if you don't know what that means, go look it up.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/files/bozo_913.jpg
White_Male_Clown: at it again

[White_Male_Canada]

So, do you still assert that the IPCC, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the Earth Institute at Colombia, England's major universities and research bodies such as the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia, the National Environment Research Council, University College London, the UK's Met Office, plus a vast number of universities, associations and research bodies worldwide (I could go on for pages) are all wrong? And you are right? You think these people with years of research are biased and you- a bigot with tunnel vision and the science expertise of a squashed pea- are impartial?

Fucking hubris, that is. And if you don't know what that means, go look it up.

Fucking pedantic jejune drone. :lol: He googles, cuts and pastes the first page he opens and expects that to be the end all and be all. That nincompoop even admitted to not being an expert, " I am certainly no expert in the use of stomatal data as a CO2 proxy..." :lol:

What kind of fool would google, click on the top one ( tamino wordpress) and expect to get away with it ! ?

1. ALL ice core data has proven that CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. Temperature increases first, CO2 follows behind by up to 800 years.

2. The so called “air is younger than ice” theory is just that, a theory. Both argon-39 and krypton-85 isotopes show that large amounts of ambient air are indeed included in the air inclusions in deep ice cores. Contamination from drilling fluids and more than twenty physical-chemical processes occurring in the ice before, during, and after drilling, make ice cores inaccurate not to mention contamination.

3. CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases.. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total.

4. Data from LD were made to fit data from mana lua.C02 concentrations found in the pre-industrial ice cores(1890) were found to be 328 ppm, quite a bit ABOVE the 290 ppm needed to prove the man-made global warming hypothesis. At Mauna Loa, Hawaii, recorded atmospheric C02 concentrations at 328 ppm 83 years later.

You`re a moron being led by the nose. Take your junk science and go fuck yourself. 8)

[LG]

Actually, I used that text because I thought it would be the easiest for a moron without a scientific background to understand. Unfortunately you have failed to grasp even that.

Try this:
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have also been reconstructed indirectly, from stomatal index measurements on sub-fossil leaves (Van de Water et al., 1994; Beerling et al., 1995; Rundgren and Beerling, 1999; Wagner et al., 1999). Stomatal density and stomatal index of many species respond to atmospheric CO2 (Woodward, 1987; Woodward and Bazzaz, 1988) but are influenced by other environmental variables as well (Poole et al., 1996). One recent stomatal index record, interpreted as implying high (up to 350 ppm) and rapidly fluctuating CO2 concentrations in the early Holocene (Wagner et al., 1999), is clearly incompatible with the ice core record of Indermühle et al. (1999), whereas a continuous stomatal index record from 9 kyr BP onwards (Rundgren and Beerling, 1999) has shown concentration trends consistent with the ice-core records.
IPCC 2001

Observed changes in the stomatal data give support to the suggestion from physical evidence, that atmospheric CO2 concentrations fell from an Early Devonian high of 10-12 times its present value, to one comparable to that of the present day by the end of the Carboniferous. These results suggest that stomatal density of fossil leaves has potential value for assessing changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration through geological time.
Royal Holloway, University of London Study

Now do you get it? Stomatal indices and densities are only proxies which give a rough indication of changes in CO2 levels, if all other variables are constant. They are not direct, precise measurements and there is an inherent risk in using stomata data to calculate atmospheric CO2 in the past.

For more information and education:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
I'm sure you will find most of your arguments debunked there, so I don't see the point of taking you apart here.

[White_Male_Canada]

Actually, I used that text because

Because you`re a lazy-assed earth worshiper, that`s why. Posting some scientists long winded opinion means nothing.


One recent stomatal index record, interpreted as implying high (up to 350 ppm) and rapidly fluctuating CO2 concentrations in the early Holocene (Wagner et al., 1999), is clearly incompatible with the ice core record of Indermühle et al. (1999), whereas a continuous stomatal index record from 9 kyr BP onwards (Rundgren and Beerling, 1999) has shown concentration trends consistent with the ice-core records

That`s odd because Beerling et al had their data show CO2 levels up to 310ppm which would make their data closely match that of other stamata studies.

Added to that the early Holocene CO2 trend has also been detected in a record of Betula leaves from Denmark thereby providing ever-increasing evidence for the integrity of leaf-based CO2 quantification.

Ice core proxies are nothing like they seem.The so called “air is younger than ice” theory is just that, a theory. Both argon-39 and krypton-85 isotopes show that large amounts of ambient air are indeed included in the air inclusions in deep ice cores. Contamination from drilling fluids and more than twenty physical-chemical processes occurring in the ice before, during, and after drilling, make ice cores inaccurate.

More recently, during the Holocene (8,000 to 10,000 years before the present) when the temperature of the Arctic was 5°C warmer than now (Brinner and al. 2006), your own ice core records show a CO2 level of about 260 ppmv (IPCC 2007). This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate, man-made EVEN LESS, and that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false.



Now do you get it? Stomatal indices and densities are only proxies which give a rough indication of changes in CO2 levels, if all other variables are constant. They are not direct, precise measurements and there is an inherent risk in using stomata data to calculate atmospheric CO2 in the past.

As risking as using ice core proxies are. In any event all data has proven that CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. 8)

[LG]

Actually, I used that text because

Because you`re a lazy-assed earth worshiper, that`s why. Posting some scientists long winded opinion means nothing.
Actually, it's not just a random opinion but one formed by someone who actually bothered to read up on the subject, unlike you. But, of course, you have no respect for scientists, period unless they support the republican position. The way you dismiss respected scientists (such as those of all the research units and centres I mentioned) yet still cling on to the hot air of conservative politicians shows that your inability to understand science is matched only by your passionate and pathetic disrespect for it.

So am I lazy. Not really, but I can't be assed to have to reply to your asinine posts again and again, since you reiterate pretty much the same bullshit everytime.

And, call me lazy, but I'll just give you a URL on this one. You may want to read up on this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/



One recent stomatal index record, interpreted as implying high (up to 350 ppm) and rapidly fluctuating CO2 concentrations in the early Holocene (Wagner et al., 1999), is clearly incompatible with the ice core record of Indermühle et al. (1999), whereas a continuous stomatal index record from 9 kyr BP onwards (Rundgren and Beerling, 1999) has shown concentration trends consistent with the ice-core records

That`s odd because Beerling et al had their data show CO2 levels up to 310ppm which would make their data closely match that of other stamata studies.

Added to that the early Holocene CO2 trend has also been detected in a record of Betula leaves from Denmark thereby providing ever-increasing evidence for the integrity of leaf-based CO2 quantification.

Really? Give me the reference. Here is one I have:

Reading a CO2 signal from fossil stomata

D. J.Beerling11Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK; and D. L.Royer2,2Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, PO Box 208109, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109, USA; 33Present address, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK

Summary

The inverse relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the stomatal index (proportion of epidermal cells that are stomata) of vascular land plant leaves has led to the use of fossil plant cuticles for determining ancient levels of CO2. In contemporary plants the stomatal index repeatedly shows a lower sensitivity atmospheric CO2 levels above 340 ppm in the short term. These observations demonstrate that the phenotypic response is nonlinear and may place constraints on estimating higher-than-present palaeo-CO2 levels in this way.

We review a range of evidence to investigate the nature of this nonlinearity. Our new data, from fossil Ginkgo cuticles, suggest that the genotypic response of fossil Ginkgo closely tracks the phenotypic response seen in CO2 enrichment experiments. Reconstructed atmospheric CO2 values from fossil Ginkgo cuticles compare well with the stomatal ratio method of obtaining a quantitative CO2 signal from extinct fossil plants, and independent geochemical modelling studies of the long-term carbon cycle.

Although there is self-consistency between palaeobiological and geochemical CO2 estimates, it should be recognized that the nonlinear response is a limitation of the stomatal approach to estimating high palaeo-CO2 levels.



Now if you bother to think about all that, and if you have a couple of brain cells to rub together, maybe you'll finally get it. But knowing you, I guess you won't, eh Bozo?

[White_Male_Canada]

That`s odd because Beerling et al had their data show CO2 levels up to 310ppm which would make their data closely match that of other stamata studies.

Added to that the early Holocene CO2 trend has also been detected in a record of Betula leaves from Denmark thereby providing ever-increasing evidence for the integrity of leaf-based CO2 quantification.



Really? Give me the reference.

Competing for the VillageIdiots crown limey? :wink:

McElwain, J.C., Mayle, F.E. and Beerling, D.J. 2002. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. Journal of Quaternary Science


Actually, it's not just a random opinion but one formed by someone who actually bothered to read up on the subject, unlike you.

I was wrong. You`re intellectually lazy and stupid. You`re adherence to the near perfect accuracy of proxy ice cores theory has led you to a dead end.

By your reasoning since ice core values remained low during the entire 650,00years, EVEN DURING THE SIX FORMER INTERGLACIAL PERIODS WHEN THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE WAS AS MUCH AS 5C WARMER THAN IN OUR CURRENT INTERGLACIAL CAN ONLY MEAN ONE OF TWO THINGS.

THAT CO2 LEVELS HAVE NO DISCERNABLE INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE OR THAT THE PROXY ICE CORE RECONTRUCTIONS OF THE ATMOSPHERE ARE FALSE ! :lol:

So which is it ? 8)

[LG]

You're not very bright are you, Bozo?

I quoted Prof. Mitchell before and noted that he is a respected expert and you are a lame-brain jizzmopper with too much time on your hands.

He wrote:

Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Concentrations of CO2 are now much higher and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now is very different to what happened in the past.

In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate (due to orbit changes for example) led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 is enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

It would help if you read my replies to you more thoroughly and actually visited the links I gave and not made spurious assumptions randomly pulled out of your ass. You might learn something. And then I might find the time to discuss this with you again.

[White_Male_Canada]

Its like talking to a piece of lumber. You`re a non-thinker.

Mitchell:
“over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.

However, concentrations are now higher than ever before and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now may be very different to what happened in the past”

Scientists only use qualifiers such as “may, probably, contribute” to hedge their theory that man-made CO2 is the main cause of global warming and/or CO2 rises in concentration first and temperatures and CH4 then respond.

Ice core proxy reveal that the concentration of methane was correlated with temperatures. So if CO2 is the primary cause of warming there is no explanation as to why CH4 was also correlated.

This is why the most popular explanation,and straightforward, is accepted as fact. CO2 levels only changed it`s trend after temperatures rise. But leftists such as yourself and fellow travelers in science are just not willing to accept these obvious facts. Instead they come up with bizarre anti-logic, generously peppered with qualifiers like “ may, possibly, maybe, probably, etc” instead of words such as conclusive. They agree there was a lag of CO2 for the first 800 years, but then in the remaining 4200 years of the trend, it was the other way around!

Their classic runaway +feedback theory. If that were true then there must surely be evidence of exponentially escalating temperatures. That is not observed in present day data and therefore proves Mitchell and their +feedback theory, completely false.

[LG]

Its like talking to a piece of lumber. You`re a non-thinker.

Mitchell:
“over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.

However, concentrations are now higher than ever before and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now may be very different to what happened in the past”

Scientists only use qualifiers such as “may, probably, contribute” to hedge their theory that man-made CO2 is the main cause of global warming and/or CO2 rises in concentration first and temperatures and CH4 then respond.

Ice core proxy reveal that the concentration of methane was correlated with temperatures. So if CO2 is the primary cause of warming there is no explanation as to why CH4 was also correlated.

This is why the most popular explanation,and straightforward, is accepted as fact. CO2 levels only changed it`s trend after temperatures rise. But leftists such as yourself and fellow travelers in science are just not willing to accept these obvious facts. Instead they come up with bizarre anti-logic, generously peppered with qualifiers like “ may, possibly, maybe, probably, etc” instead of words such as conclusive. They agree there was a lag of CO2 for the first 800 years, but then in the remaining 4200 years of the trend, it was the other way around!

Their classic runaway +feedback theory. If that were true then there must surely be evidence of exponentially escalating temperatures. That is not observed in present day data and therefore proves Mitchell and their +feedback theory, completely false.

Most of this has already been dealth with by me and other posters and you can read more in the links I've pasted. But I guess you're more lazy than I am.

It's interesting how few qualifiers like "may" Mitchell's opinion contains. You should already know that there are no real 100% certainties in life, just probalities and risks. Maybe the world will end next Tuesday, maybe George Bush will choke on Dick Cheney's dick, maybe your jizz bucket at work will fall over and spill onto your sneakers. Who knows? Are you trying to put words into Mitchell's mouth as well? Perhaps you should take your foot out of your own mouth first.

So you claim that because their is a shadow of uncertainty, the consensus view should be trashed whereas your politically motivated denial is to be trusted, despite the total lack of science to back it up.

I also like the way you clutch at arguments just to try and be contrary and then, once you have failed to convince, move on to another rightwing myth. Really slick.

I don't feel like going into details here. If you're not bothered to read up on the subject (or worse, if you have read up but still insist on making shit up) then I'm not bothered to continue this debate.

[White_Male_Canada]

It's interesting how few qualifiers like "may" Mitchell's opinion contains. You should already know that there are no real 100% certainties in life, just probalities and risks...

Mitchell couldn`t even shine MIT Lindzen`s shoes,

" Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?...Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief...

With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign...

It's a sad story, where you have scientists making meaningless or ambiguous statements (ahem, Mitchell). They are then taken by advocates to the media who translate the statements into alarmist declarations. You then have politicians who respond to all of this by giving scientists more money...

The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible,"

[LG]

It's interesting how few qualifiers like "may" Mitchell's opinion contains. You should already know that there are no real 100% certainties in life, just probalities and risks...

Mitchell couldn`t even shine MIT Lindzen`s shoes,


Yeah, sure. Every scientist is an idiot apart from the twenty or so that you seem to agree with. Interesting how many of those have a (badly) hidden agenda. Interesting too, that they have so many theories and cannot even agree with each other, yet you are willing to latch on to their opinions and contradict yourself every time your argument falls flat.

In 2005, reseacher James Annan offered to take Richard Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favor. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.

"Richard Lindzen's words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling," Annan wrote about the bet. "His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?"

And, below, from an article in Harper's:

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

Another site has this to say:

FACTSHEET: Richard Lindzen
ORGANIZATIONS
---The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received $688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

---Cato Institute : TASSC Fred Singer, TASSC Patrick J. Michaels, TASSC Steve Milloy
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Cato Institute = $12,999,240
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Cato Institute = $2,057,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Cato Institute = $217,600
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Cato Institute = $832,500

---Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station : TASSC Patrick J. Michaels, TASSC Michael Fumento, TASSC Steven Milloy,
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received $95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Tech Central Science Foundation = $25,000
NOTE: Because TCS website runs paid commercial advertising, incomes from this is NEVER reported as charitable gifts by either the donor or receiver. The parent to TCS is DCI PR firm, whose incomes are likewise not reported publically, nor do client corporations necessarily report the payments to the public. A lot of EXXON ads run on TCS webpages, perhaps a disguised form of giving as it's doubtful that EXXON needs brand advertising to get people to fill up at the Tech Corner Station -- if internet ads were proven effective there would be EXXON ads everywhere on the net.

And even Lindzen's own quotes are ambiguous:

Q: You're a meteorologist, what do you think scientists really agree on? LINDZEN: "I think they agree that we've probably warmed about a half-degree centigrade in the last century. I think they agree that carbon dioxide has gone up 30 percent. I think we agree that carbon dioxide would tend to contribute warming. But there is no agreement that the warming we've seen is due to man. Moreover, the warming we've seen is much less than we would have expected on the basis of the models that produce alarm. "

:what

It is not a "religious question". It should not even be a question of politics or economics, but sadly it has become one. It is a question of recognising the high risks ahead and acting fast to mitigate them.

[White_Male_Canada]

A whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

People accept fees. You`re inference that their time effort and knowledge should be free is idiot. John Edwards charged 55 Gs to talk to people about poverty !

Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president of public affairs,"The appropriate debate isn't on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it...Climate is changing. It's a serious issue. The evidence is there."


Climate change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

Of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action. The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in 2004. Global alarmists are dependant upon these funds and must continue to produce doomsday scenarios.

[qeuqheeg222]

please put your car in the garage in that cold winter up there with the door shut and have a seat.you decide if the C02 is bad or not.

[trish]

People accept fees. You`re inference that their time effort and knowledge should be free is idiot. John Edwards charged 55 Gs to talk to people about poverty ! And you criticized him for it. Do you now retreat from that critique?

[White_Male_Canada]

People accept fees. You`re inference that their time effort and knowledge should be free is idiot. John Edwards charged 55 Gs to talk to people about poverty ! And you criticized him for it. Do you now retreat from that critique?

Nope.

Accepting speaking fees for one`s time and knowledge is one thing, but taking Fifty Thousand Dollars to talk about poverty !?

That`s just crass and guache. But hey, it`s Edwards, the ambulance chaser. 8)

[LG]

People accept fees. You`re inference that their time effort and knowledge should be free is idiot. John Edwards charged 55 Gs to talk to people about poverty ! And you criticized him for it. Do you now retreat from that critique?

Nope.

Accepting speaking fees for one`s time and knowledge is one thing, but taking Fifty Thousand Dollars to talk about poverty !?

That`s just crass and guache. But hey, it`s Edwards, the ambulance chaser. 8)

The issue is not Edwards, who I never really liked much anyway. The issue is scientists who take industry money to carry out research that- though supposedly scientific and impartial- invariably benefits the industry that pays them.

Would you trust an oncologist who told you that cigarettes cannot cause cancer if he was being paid by British American Tobacco or Philip Morris/Altria?

[insert_namehere]

Would you trust an oncologist who told you that cigarettes cannot cause cancer if he was being paid by British American Tobacco or Philip Morris/Altria?

If I didn't want bad news? Absolutely!!