BleepingComputer.com: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

I'm guilty somewhat of getting off topic here, so to keep us somewhat on track:

(quote name='Bouhatsu' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:22 AM' post='1313213')
Let's say you're right and scientists are just trying to create a panic. What do they stand to gain?{end quote]

Not just scientists but politicians and business people as well.

The simple, but overwhelmingly important answer to your question is:

power and money.

Power in controlling what people can do and to whom they are subservient.

When I pointed out that Gore spent $300,000,000.00 on promotion of his carbon trading schemes, one should realize that that is just his advertising money. There are billions and billions of $$$'s to be made in this arena.



(quote)I admit I can't prove to you that man-made CO2 is harming the planet, ...(end quote)

Therein lies the problem - no one can provide proof that man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is harming the planet.

Claiming that there is a consensus, that all the facts are in, that all the scientists agree, that the science is settled (all claims by Al Gore, BTW) do not make it so.


(quote)But! This brings me to my next question for you John ^o^ Let's say you're right and AGC is all hub-bub. No government action in the world that I know of is currently putting anywhere near a major effort into doing anything about it (feel free to enlighten me on that one, kinda lousy with current events ^_^) so.. What do you want to see happen?(end quote)

I would like to see all of us stop wasting time, money, and effort to resolve a non-issue, namely Anthropogenic Global Warming by CO2 emissions.

Remember, I've been saying consistently that this issue is separate from being better stewards of the planet. Very important distinction that should not be lost in "green diversions" of the primary topic of this thread.


(quote) XD Oil is still very much a finite resource, and the world's population is outgrowing our ability to find the stuff. The plan of "Let's get it out of the ground as quickly as we can, and then burn it!" is going flawlessly, but what do we do after that? Why shouldn't we be trying to move on from this fuel source? (end quote)

As I've said, this is a separate topic from AGW by CO2.

However, we could start a new thread on it.

There are, for example, a number of scientists who are saying that oil is not a "finite resource" and is, in fact, being renewed by the planet all of the time. I'm not convinced this is true, but it may actually have a better scientific basis than AGW by CO2 does.

Even if true, I'd prefer to have alternative, cleaner burning fuels as well - remembering that CO2 is not a pollutant.

JohnWho, No, I haven't planned on reading any of those. Maybe after I finish the book
I am reading now--The 1904 American Almanac Year-Book Cyclopaedia and Atlas--in a few years I might take the time. That is if I survive the heat wave we are having now.

Part of book Review: (Set UP and Sold Out)
The public has been conditioned to believe that any opponent of the Greens is a dupe of Big Business, but Swanson has traced the matrix of connections between movement leaders to its roots in the U.S. Communist movement.

http://www.campusprogress.org/fieldreport/...ok-whos-talking
In an effort to plug his new book, multiple websites and blogs, junk scientist Steven Milloy spoke Monday at the conservative Heritage Foundation. His message: For the love of liberty, pollute, pollute, pollute.
Milloy’s book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin your life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, describes members of the green movement as communists who are creating and exaggerating environmental problems in order to scare the public into allowing the government to take control of and regulate all aspects of Americans’ lives.

Uh, JohnWho.....Can you see a pattern here?

I think that some in the "green" movement are in it for the power, money, and control rather than the altruistic "save the world" concept

but then there are people like that in virtually everything.

I'm always wary of "conspiracy" type things.

However, your link is written by:

"Sarah Karlin is an editorial intern at Campus Progress."

An "editorial intern" is calling someone a "junk scientist" and we immediately fall down at her feet and thank her for the enlightenment?

I don't think so.


However, I haven't read either of the books, either, and do not plan on reading them.

While I believe that both contain a lot of useful and factual information, I'm inclined to be a little less sure about their conclusions.

I am certain, though, that regarding anthropogenic global warming by CO2, there are a lot of people claiming it is a crisis that have absolutely no desire to do anything but help themselves either by gaining power or control or financially. They certainly are not promoting it to save the world because they know that the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing global temperatures to warm is not accurate and it is not affecting the global temperature more than barely measurable, if at all.

It is like saying "the sky is falling" - you run around saying it enough times and people begin to believe it.

Doesn't matter whether there is evidence or facts that support it, as long as it is repeated often, it must be true.

Blah. I shall now bombard you with information showing it's more than just a few scientists who subscribe to this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...tist-warns.html

http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

One out of every 10 members of the NAS holds a Nobel Prize.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?p...ABOUT_main_page

(maybe you'll like truth by the masses more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...emy_of_Sciences )

http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
"The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, have signed a statement on the global response to climate change. "

You can just say "They faked it" or "That guy is an idiot" or "Those thousands of scientists didn't all have Einstein's awesome hair-do, rendering their aquired data invalid." and be forever wrapped in the security blanket that is an unfalsifyable claim. As such, this may be my last post as I again believe this argument to be completely moot. Just as an aside though, you keep mentioning Al Gore. I actually have never watched his movie thing he came out with, nor have I watched the rebuttal movie that came out after it. I honestly don't care much for politics or politicians, so I had and still have no interest in renting a movie that would somehow benefit that one. I would much rather watch a good Nicolas Cage or Stallone flick O-o or maybe transformers. Anywho. Back to stabbing at you with links. XD

Here's a lovely organization You may have not known existed. http://www.us-cap.org/about/members.asp That's the membership list for the United States Climate Action Partnership, it includes companies such as Ford Motor Company, Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, etc.

I mean crap. BP is a freaking oil company -_-


"No discussion about the realities facing our industry today would be complete without reference to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. This is an issue that crosses all boundaries, impacts industry and governments, but most importantly will directly impact consumers in every part of the world.

The majority of the growth in energy demand will come from developing nations as their growing populations pursue higher standards of living. With this improvement in living standards will come most of the growth in future greenhouse gas emissions.

By the year 2030 it is expected that global emissions of carbon dioxide will approach 40 billion tons per year, up from close to 28 billion tons per year today.

So, we know our climate is changing, the average temperature of the earth is rising, and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing. We also know that climate remains an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. While our understanding of the science continues to evolve and improve, there is still much that we do not know and cannot fully recognize in efforts to model and predict future climate system behavior.

Having said that, the risks to society and ecosystems from climate change could prove to be significant. So, despite the uncertainties, it is prudent to develop and implement sensible strategies that address these risks while not reducing our ability to progress other global priorities such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.

Our industry has a responsibility to contribute to policy discussions on these important issues -- and to take concrete actions ourselves to reduce emissions."

Man. What an anti-oil brainwashed slug that guy must have been! heh >->.. Wait.. What's that you say?!? O-o;; That was the CEO of Exxon?! One of the world's leading oil companies?! Well woopiteh poo. http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/...s.aspx?CID=8604

Sorry, that was a little snippy I cannot for the life of me find a link containing just the original document, but the Unites States Pentagon issued a report to President Bush about climate change being a threat that needed to be dealt with. As their job is to defend the Nation from possible threats, and.. Let's face it, they pretty much get all the money and power they ask for anyway, why would they be buying into this hoax? I'm gonna give you a link that contains it but they do chop it up pretty darn horribly. Yay for the media. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004...ews.theobserver

(Quote) "Therein lies the problem - no one can provide proof that man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is harming the planet." (End Quote)

Not a soul on this earth can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that gravity is holding your butt to your chair right now either o_o It could be hyper obese Mcdonald's addicted invisible aliens with their hands on your shoulders and their feet in the air using some form of propulsion system on their shoes to hold you to the ground. Provide me the proof to say otherwise o_O

List of institutions that agree that AGC is real and needs to be dealt with.

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_...e_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html


http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm Here we go. This page has a nice huge list of people, including a lot who are going against their normal bias (like BP and Exxon as I had pointed out before).

And I could post an equally long list of organizations and people who do not believe that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming, and show lists of thousands of scientists who say it is not happening,

and then you post more,

then I post more,

then...


Oh, or we could just post rebuttals on whether each person's list is accurate.

For example - You have the IPCC on your list - well, doh, they were commissioned by the UN to show that man is causing climate change. You expect them to conclude anything less?


The bottom line here is that it is clearly not "settled science", the debate is not over, and all the scientists do not agree.

Which should we believe - the one's who continue the miss-information in AL Gore's move ("An Inconvenient Truth") and the exaggerated conclusions of the IPCC Summaries even though most of the information has been shown to be false or misleading, or should we believe the scientists who want further debate, want the real facts to be disseminated, and don't want us wasting time, effort, and money on an action that will resolve absolutely nothing while that time, effort, and money would better serve real global problems?

We are at, or near, historical low CO2 levels in the atmosphere and yet you and others want to claim the "high levels of CO2 are causing an alarming global temperature increase"!

Globally we have not experienced warming, and, in fact, have been very slightly cooling over the last 8-10 years and yet we are supposed to believe that out of control warming is moving us toward a catastrophe?

Never in the past has atmospheric CO2 levels either rising or falling preceded global temperatures rising or falling - it has always been the other way around, temps rising and falling precede atmospheric CO2 levels rising and falling - yet, this time, we are supposed to believe it is happening differently?


If you are having a problem getting your mind around how much disinformation on what "Global Warming" is causing, Google "List of things caused by Global Warming" and then do a little research and you'll find every one of them is not true. At what point do you (all of us) say "enough of these lies" and demand the truth?

Global Warming is not being caused by man's CO2 emissions. Global warming, right now, is not happening. But, to be fair, I'll point out that the slight Global Cooling isn't being caused by man's CO2 emissions, either.

By the way -

(quote) "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in the atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (end quote)


From Petition Project Org

Some 31,478 American scientists have signed the petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

Can anyone find anything similar with scientists directly supporting AGW by CO2?


To be fair, I'm sure that some of the signatures were bogus - some from alarmist's wanting to discredit the petition, for example, and probably some from people who just like to be disruptive, but over all, of the names now listed, all have been verified. Some names which were claimed by "alarmists" as fictitious, such as Perry Mason or Michael Fox have been verified to be the names of actual scientists.


Why do I show this?

To counter-act the claim that AGW by CO2 is settled science or that there is what the AGW by CO2 supporters claim - a consensus among scientists that AGW by CO2 is settled. Indeed, you'll also find that the majority of scientists in China and India have also disputed the AGW by CO2 claims.

With all of this clear dissent, why do so many of us "little people" think it is happening?

Simple - besides the scientists that promote it, journalists who have no scientific background, repeat it. Other journalists read it and assume it must be true and they repeat it. We hear it over and over from people who are not scientists (even Al Gore admits he is not a scientist), yet we keep hearing it, so it must be true.

It is like that story of the chicken going around yelling "the sky is falling!" Others heard it, repeated it, again and again, until most believed it. Even though the majority believed it, the sky was not falling.

Same thing is happening here - people with absolutely no idea what they are talking about in our main stream media keep repeating it over and over. So, it must be true.

Here are two reports worth reading:

Read especially the first part - the Executive Summary

National Center for Environmental Economics (in the EPA) draft

and

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)


Both show reasonable scientific evidence and ask reasonable questions - all showing that the possibility that global warming is being caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is extremely doubtful or not happening at all.


In any case, this should at least impart the knowledge that all the facts are not in, all the scientists do not agree, the debate is not over, and the science is not settled.

JohnWho---In your opening post to this topic you posted a British Newspaper article.

According to what I have read this afternoon about the reporter, it is not flattering.
It seems he enjoys too much trashing science and fails to verify what he writes with original
reports from official sources. Instead he relies on a blogger (Watts Up With That blog) who
also has a desire to trash the findings of those actually doing research.

Here is an example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...e-warmists.html
That great authority Ban Ki-moon, the UN's Secretary-General, solemnly tells us that the polar ice caps are "melting far faster than was expected just two years ago". Yet the latest satellite information from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (passed on by the Watts Up With That blog) shows that, after the third slowest melt of April Arctic ice in 30 years, the world's polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.

Here is what the report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center actually says:
Arctic sea ice extent declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000). The thin spring ice cover nevertheless remains vulnerable to summer melt. … Sea ice extent averaged over the month of April 2009 was 14.58m sq km (5.63m sq miles). This was 710,000 sq km (274,000 sq miles) above the record low for April in 2007, and 420,000 sq km (162,000 sq miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

In other words, Arctic sea ice extent for April is in fact slightly below its average extent since 1979, not slightly above.

See what I am trying to get across to you. I think it is time for the Newspaper this reporter works for
to have a serious talk with him about principles and credibility. Of course, if they think that is important. You can read many more articles on the web criticizing his column. One thing he and many more who deny global warming being caused by man have in common is they are selling books. Profiting from misinformation. Who would of thought that.

I think even you would have to admit that the list provided by Bohatsou is an impressive list of professional
organizations both public and private. I think their opinions trump a British newspaper reporter's opinion he bases
on what he reads in a blog. Don't you?

(quote name='buddy215' date='Jun 26 2009, 05:41 PM' post='1315576')
I think even you would have to admit that the list provided by Bohatsou is an impressive list of professional
organizations both public and private. I think their opinions trump a British newspaper reporter's opinion he bases
on what he reads in a blog. Don't you?
(/quote)

I would if I didn't know what I know about many of those organizations on the list.

The IPCC was commissioned to show that AGW by CO2 is happening, so of course it supports it. Don't believe me? Check out the mission or purpose of the IPCC.

Certain main supporters of AGW by CO2 - NASA's GISS Jim Hansen is Gore's leading scientific adviser, for example - so of course they do.

The EPA? - I knew they were biased, but until just a few minutes ago was not aware of this:

CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA (which is, incidentally, the first report I listed above). This allegation, if true, shows how the EPA has actively suppressed information which goes against the AGW by CO2 concept. Should we put them in a creditable category?

The American Meteorological Society - I believe if you check it out, it is not the membership that endorses AGW by CO2, it is only the very small board of directors and there is much controversy over this within the AMS.

The others may be legit or may also be questionable - that's why I didn't want to get into a "P-ing" contest over who can provide a longer list.


The real point isn't, as I've pointed out a number of times, who is saying what, but whether what is being said is factually correct or not.

We can expect biased information from virtually any organization. The trick is to determine whether the information is creditable and accurate.

If AGW by CO2 is really happening, then why do it's supporters such as Al Gore in his movie, feel that they have to falsify data, miss-represent information, and blatantly lie in order to convince us it is happening?

Why don't the facts support it without deception?

Beyond that, I don't like these kinds of things:

(quote)Here is an example:

That great authority Ban Ki-moon, the UN's Secretary-General, solemnly tells us that the polar ice caps are "melting far faster than was expected just two years ago". Yet the latest satellite information from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (passed on by the Watts Up With That blog) shows that, after the third slowest melt of April Arctic ice in 30 years, the world's polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.

Here is what the report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center actually says:
Arctic sea ice extent declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000). The thin spring ice cover nevertheless remains vulnerable to summer melt. … Sea ice extent averaged over the month of April 2009 was 14.58m sq km (5.63m sq miles). This was 710,000 sq km (274,000 sq miles) above the record low for April in 2007, and 420,000 sq km (162,000 sq miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

In other words, Arctic sea ice extent for April is in fact slightly below its average extent since 1979, not slightly above. (end quote)

He says "in the last 30 years" and your rebuttal discusses 1979 to 2000 averages. That is only 21 years. Why not use the full 30? Could it be that the missing 9 years were among the lowest levels - after all they would include 2007 which your rebuttal says was the record low. If we include them, is he then correct?

Someone is manipulating figures and data here, probably to discredit the author and his data, and you've fallen for it.

But don't feel bad - a lot of people are being deceived in this manner regarding the support of AGW by CO2.

If you're just going to discredit all of that with a wave of your hand then blah. ~_~ You don't even offer to try and explain away the hard ones, like Ford motor company and Exxon's CEO, or the United States Military (even though my resource sucked on that one) >.> Even more so the NAS, and I find it hilarious that you posted a petition against them. -_- I think you're going on faith here as you seem to be repeating yourself while at the same time kinda dodging my questions with the stereotypical chicken little statements. I'm respectfully dropping out of the debate now, but I'll continue to follow it, and I'll probably chime in again at some point because I enjoy the blabbering.

Was very nice talking with you Mr. John, I whole heartedly enjoyed getting to piddle around in this stuff again ^-^ Hadn't messed with research type stuff since college.

I do encourage you to flip back a page and watch that entire video set. Or at least go watch "How it all ends: No Holds Barred" as it deals directly with most of your claims/arguments. Kinda also proves you never bothered watching it all o.o lol Oh well. Later ^_^

Actually, if you read one of my previous posts you know that I don't see anything beneficial in showing lists of organizations that either support or do not support the concept of AGW by CO2 since it just takes us down a road of "my list is better than your list" or similar, which does nothing to further the actual debate on whether any level of climate change - either cooling or warming - is being caused by atmospheric CO2 and specifically man's contribution to atmospheric CO2.

Sadly, though, it is those organizations themselves that bring on the discredit - not the people who point it out to others who are unaware of what is happening. When someone praises these organizations without being aware of what is going on, If I can shed enlightenment, I'll try. You are doing similar - you feel that links to "big oil" causes bias from some groups, too.

If the suppression of information by the EPA is true, at the least it should concern every American who will be effected by decisions made with incomplete information while this information has been kept from Congress and the Obama Administration by the EPA.

The petition I linked was simply to show that there are quite a few scientists speaking out against the AGW by CO2 concept, showing that it clearly isn't settled science with a consensus.

I notice you bring up the discussion about Arctic Sea ice, but then don't respond when it looks like your source is questionable or somewhat attempting to mislead. I'll admit guilt on this, too - why are we even discussing Arctic Sea ice? The answer - AGW by CO2 alarmists point to it as proof that we are warming. Since they use it as "proof", or at least a symptom, research will show that ocean currents and the sea water temperature have as much if not more to do with the level of the sea ice than does the air temperature there. Why is it that the global temperatures have not been rising in the last 10 years or so (and have been slightly cooling), yet during this time we have reports of serious lack of ice problems? It's because the AGW by CO2 folks don't want the slight cooling temps to be discussed or promoted, so they deflect the conversation by bringing in other things. Those who choose to oppose the AGW by CO2 concepts are somewhat forced to respond to these deflections, otherwise they appear to stand and become accepted.

Meanwhile, and back on point, the Wall Street Journal isn't afraid to point out that there is not a "settled science consensus" -

The Climate Change Climate Change - The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

From the article:

(quote)The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. (end quote)

My response to "How it all ends" is the part I've bolded in the quote.

I can see why people are confused about this warming thing.
Am watching an episode of Naked Science on the National Geographic Channel right now and the narrator on the show just stated that increasing CO2 levels has caused earth's temperature to raise a few degrees.

Besides the Nat Geo Channel, I've seen programs on Discovery Channel, Science Channel, History Channel and others that either mention or blame "global warming" for something and on some they even warn that "we must do something" before (insert catastrophe here).

Many of the shows are not up to date and do not reflect more current information showing either the problem they mentioned isn't related to "global warming" at all or that the global temperatures have not been warming for the last 8 - 10 years.

It's a shame that programs that we all would expect to have a reasonably scientific basis instead promotes political and unfounded opinions.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environme...05_warmest.html
"The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Thumbnail of the first frame of the animation of the 10 year graph. Image/animation to right: The animation to the right shows a basic demonstration of the increase in annual mean temperature in ten year increments from 1891 through 1996. Warmest temperatures are in red. Click on image to view animation in the link above. Credit: NASA/GISS

Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.