Slashdot Mirror

Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference

Debate of the IPCC executive summary

"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99

E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer

Industry contributions to the environmental movement

Environmentalism for the 21st Century

The CO2 & Climate Team

is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules

Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.

Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy

Now we move on to Schneider's site.

Schneider Contrarians

Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.

No your mistaken Anonymous cowards who don't want to have credto answer for the things they post do that.

People willing to say "I said this, based upon infoprmation I've learned" agree. Science has said that the Little Ice age was a global event.

Uni of Southern California/A>
Uni of Korea
Sindh Agriculture University
Over 100 peer reviewed articles on the little ice age in North America.


How European centric to thing that the LIttle Ice age only effected one small area of the US.

for temperature and climate changes to be sure about anything. For example, jet contrails could be just as big of a factor in climate change as CO2 gas. Some say that they warm the atmosphere while others say that they reduce the variability of the temperature, causing other problems. It also could be that this worry about temperatures is based on the fact that more people are living in urban "heat islands", where overall temperatures are going up. As the city sprawl grows around them, the materials around them (concrete, asphalt, etc.) don't cool off as quickly at night, leaving people wondering why it seems hotter here than it was just a few years ago. The Phoenix metro area has this effect going on for sure... The bottom line is that there's more research that needs to be done. Obviously, we should take steps to eliminate excess CO2 output and cut down on other pollutants, but to blame them solely as the culprits for climate change is irresponsible.

Here's the hard part: Hold down that left mouse button and highlight what you think might be the title of the paper. Then let go of that mouse button.

After a nap, try Control-C to copy the title. Go to Google and use Control-V to insert the title. Put it inside quotation marks ("). Click Search.

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation.
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: new evidence.
Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate.

Note that the Greening Earth Society is founded and financed by companies with an interest in unrestricted CO2 emissions (the Western Fuels Alliance is mostly coal-mining interest). If you are looking for scientific truth-seeking or even fairness and balance, don't look to them.

Remember to ask for support of claims that the temperature history resembles a hockey stick, that there is significant warming, and that climate simulations show how the real world behaves.

Here and here and here and here.

Especially this one -- states that they finally got a model that doesn't use a fudge factor, but it doesn't predict as much global warming, either.

Google is your friend. The above links all came off the first page of searching for ""climate models" "fudge factor".

On page 18 of the PDF file of the report found here, there is a graph of temperatures that struck me as odd. So, I went and dug up some other information.

Starting sometime between 1350 and 1450, the Northern Hemisphere at least (and indications are that the entire world did, see this reference article for more information) experienced an extended period of cooling known as the 'Little Ice Age'. This extended until somewhere around 1850. However, the graph in the paper shows the period from 1400-1500 to be the warmest period experienced, even warmer than the 20th century (with peaks about 1425 and 1485).

So how did these folk come up with this, when climatologist using different methods (tree-rings, ice cores, isotope deposition in stalactites, etc) and cross-checking each other come up with an entirely different answer.

The paper appears to have som valid points, but without an explanation of this serious anomaly, I must suspect that their data is 'spun' to match pre-conceived needs.

Of course, when one considers the existance of the Little Ice Age, one must also wonder if the 'Global Warming' phenomenon is simply a return to a more normal average temperature. Is the 28% increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere attributable to the intervention of mankind? Do the other Greenhouse gases that are released by mankind (particularly Methane) the real cause? Is it a combination of causes?

All I can say for sure is that, if there is any significant chance that mankinds actions have caused the change in temperature, and that this increase will continue as projected, then expenditures now to limit or reverse these changes will be more economical than will letting the projected changes occur. If, for example, reductions in CO2 emissions for the next century would cost a projected 100 billion dollars, but would potentially prevent one trillion dollars in damages (how much would have to be expended to replace all seaside cities liable to oceanic flooding if the ocean's average level is raised by 5 feet?), then a 10% chance of the CO2 explanation being the true one is a break-even cost. If the change is 25%, then the CO2 reduction is, on the whole, a winner. Expend now to minimize your costs later.

Not so much debunked as it has never been proven by the environmentalists to start with. Nevertheless, read on (you asked the question, now I'm going to answer |grin|).

It's pretty much accepted by all scientists that WE are harming the environment and causing global warming with our use of fossil fuels.

It is often said that the "vast majority" of scientists belive in the greenhouse effect--this is often misunderstood by the public to mean that the vast majority of scientists believe that humans are causing global warming and that we should reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

The "greenhouse effect" refers to the theory that certain gases, such as CO2 and water vapor, form a kind of "blanket" around the earth that allows the sun's energy to get to Earth but doesn't allow it to escape back into space. This causes the Earth to be warmer than it would be without these greenhouse gases. This theory IS generally accepted by everyone.

However, not everyone that believes in the greenhouse effect believes in human-induced global warming.

Human-induced global warming is a theory that suggests that human production of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, are overwhelming the planet. Since so much CO2 is being produced, the theory states, we are essentially building a thicker blanket around the Earth which traps more heat on Earth--thereby raising temperatures.

These are two very different theories. Almost everyone believes in the first theory, but not nearly everyone believes in the second. That is not to say that the second theory is wrong--it makes sense, in theory, to believe that if we produce more greenhouse gases that the earth will tend to warm. However, we have virtually no information as to how much our CO2 production affects the earth's climate and most respected scientists recognize this. They don't discard it as a possibility, they don't reject that more study is needed--but no self-respecting scientist that follows the scientific method would be willing to make predictions or suggest solutions to a phenomenon that hasn't yet been proven, let alone understood.

That said, "global warming" itself hasn't even been proven.

Neither of the two most accurate methods of monitoring the atmosphere's temperature, climate satellites and traditional radiosondes (weather ballons), show any warming in the last 23 years. In fact, both satellites and radiosondes indicate a slight cooling trend since 1979. Radiosondes indicate a change of -0.07 deg. C per decade, satellites indicate a change of -0.01 deg. C per decade, neither indicate a warming trend--this while the surface record suggests a +0.15 deg. C per decade warming trend. Source: NASA, Greening Earth Society

Groups that suggest that global warming has been observed during this time inevitably use this "surface record" which consists of data obtained at small weather stations distributed throughout the inhabited world. Compared to satellite readings, the surface record is less consistent, subject to more human and machine errors, changes in recording procedures, and are in the vast majority of the cases located near large urban centers where the station temperature can and is affected by "heat islands" created by the nearby city. In many cases, stations that used to be located in open farmland far from human activities are now located within the limits of growing cities. A surface record only exists for land positions and doesn't contain any information about the 77% of the earth covered by the planet's oceans.

While the satellite and radiosonde record doesn't span as many years as the surface record, they are invariably much more accurate than the surface record. Satellites are our most accurate method of measuring worldwide temperature without any bias from local heat islands, inconsistent temperature readings, and which also covers almost all of the planet. While the surface record only records the temperature at the surface where the weather station is located, satellites take the temperature of all the atmosphere in the column below the satellite providing a more complete temperature of the atmosphere.

Interestingly, most environmental groups and the IPCC ignore the technically superior satellite record and prefer to use the surface record despites its many potential and obvious errors.

The ONLY people who say and think otherwise are on the payroll of those whose interests lie in with the Big Oil companies.

Prove that. That's your perception based on what the environmentalist and the media have been feeding you. I have absolutely nothing to gain from not believing in global warming. I have no stocks, interests, etc. in anyone or anything that stands to gain or lose from any of this. But I call bunk when I see it.

And fossil fuels ARE a finite resource... we may not know when we are going to run out but we WILL DEFINITELY run out.

Prove it.

The fact is, it sounds logical. But many others have already posted messages in this thread citing references such as the Washington Post that report that previously "empty" oil sources are "mysteriously" filling up again. We're not just talking about better technology getting at more oil--we're talking about oil returning to where it had been previously depleted.

I will agree that your belief that we would one day run out of oil sounds logical. But the facts of the matter, given reports of oil wells "refilling," is that it's far from proven that we will run out of oil--and certainly doubtful that we will run out of it so quickly so as to justify abandoning it before we have a viable alternative.

And people like yourself who are just so poorly educated, it's frightening.

Well, I've answered your questions. I've provided links to NASA and other big oil companies.

So, now, you prove to me that global warming is happening and that we are the cause. Don't point me to some IPCC or other politcal report that uses flawed data to come up with flawed conclusions that suggest political solutions. Point we to real, SCIENTIFIC, proof that proves that global warming is happening and that we are the cause.

I'll be checking for your reply. Most environmnetalists tend to shut up at about this point, so I'll be pleased if you actually come back with something we can debate.

Bzz, wrong, try again. Better yet, check the following links for your own personal intellectual growth:

Corrected Satellite Record still doesn't shown global warming
Ice caps have been melting since last ice age
Satellite record shows no warming in NA, Europe, neither does surface record

I highly recommend the last article. It shows that, among other things:

• Of the 0.9 degrees that the temperature has risen since 1890, 2/3rd of the increase occured before 1940.
• The majority of the the remaining 1/3rd of heating actually occured in 1998, and is attributed to an El Nino effect that year.
• The satellite record and the surface record tend to coincide quite nicely (and show no significant warming, except for above mentioned El Nino) in N. America, Western Europe, and Australia where the surface record is more reliable. Most of the "global warming" is occuring in areas of the world where the surface record is not as reliable, such as S. America, Africa, Asia. That is, the surface temperature record only shows a deviation from the no-warming satellite trend in those areas with unreliable stations.
• Since 1979, there has been no warming except for an El Nino event in 1998. In fact, were it not for the El Nino event there would have been global cooling since 1979.
• There was also global cooling of -0.2C from 1940 to 1975.

The question is not whether or not the earth is warming up, we *know* it is.

Again, wrong. We don't know that. In fact, the evidence disproves your assertion. Please review the above sites, including NASA, which contradict your belief.

The only debate left is what is *causing* it, whether or not it is "natural", and whether or not it is cause for alarm (which is not necessarily the same as whether or not it is natural - even if it turns out to be an entirely naturally-caused warming, if it might harm millions (or billions) of people, we should damn well do something about it anyway).

Again, I stress that the evidence cited above (and available elsewhere if you spend some time in google) shows that global warming is far from proven.

Even if there is global warming, again you make the assumption that it is bad. The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the last 4 billion years. The mini-ice age some 500 years ago cooled things off and, since then, earth has been rebounding to its pre-ice age temperature.

Are we really so arrogant as to believe that we can know whether global warming is bad? Especially if it's naturally occuring, who are we to alter that course just because we are used to things the way they are? Every species has to adapt... We are no exception. If the seas rise, we will move. If the seas fall, we'll extend our beaches. If there is more severe weather we'll build stronger homes.

I think the most important thing here, though, is that you review the above links. You seem to believe that global warming is an undebated fact. While many people have chosen to believe it due to rather one-sided reporting in the media, it is far from proven. Even if you consider some of the sources biased, at least they will balance the other bias you've been reading so far. PLEASE READ THE LINKS.

Sure, sir.

Climate Model Uncertainties
Cliamte models still wrong
Show me the Evidence: A tale of Two Whoppers
No More Fudge Factor: Unfluxed Model Cools Warming

Now, I leave further research as an excercise to the reader.

I would strongly recommend you do a little research before you attack someone in the way you did. At worst it's slander in and of itself and, at best, it makes you look like an uninformed ass.

BTW, the US has also blocked a U.N. resolution that would have defined what IS terrorism

And as I recall, it also clearly defined Israel as a terrorist state, and so the American government fought to kill it. As for the one banning torture, I would have to read it before I accepted it as a good thing. Sure the main premise might have been to define and outlaw torture, but what other stuff did it do? If it had anthing like the silly attempt to ban land mines in it, I would be glad that the US resisted it. Which leads to the anwser to the question:

So, I guess you support the U.S.'s decision not to support the resolution that would have banned torture...does that mean that you condone the use of torture?

This is like the dumb argument that our polititians here use: Its for the kids! And if you don't support it you are hurting our kids. This is utter, illogical, bullshit. There is usually a hell of a lot more inside one of these documents than the media's tag lines. If I don't support it, it doesn't necessarally mean I am against the tag line, it means that there is something in there I don't like, which probably would do more to harm than the other bit would do good. If you want to deal with real politics, don't buy in to media tag lines.

Yes, it's great for a citizen to be able to be able to criticize the U.S. government...though if you do that right now you could possibly lose your job or be labeled a traitor...

Nope, I do this on a daily basis. And still employed and free. I won't say that we have the best government ever here. But it does at least do the basics. It serves the people, as you said, public opinion does have a lot of power and that keeps it from getting too far out of hand. It also protects its people and thier intrests, sure, its not 100% but that is impossible to achieve in a society that allows for a moderate level of freedom. As for its forgien policies, ya, some of them suck(king building, etc.). But in a world that is incresingly trying to push its beliefs on us, I'm glad to see that our govenment is willing to push back.(I like having my small arms, thank you very much. If you don't want to have them, that is your choice, leave me with mine! Also, I don't want to spend 2% of this countries GDP to maybe lower the temperature of the world 1.5C in 100 years, if human induced global warming is even true. Or if current warming is just a natural cycle.)

The important thing is that the U.S.'s foreign policy is unjust, and concerned only with American interests.

And this would be different from?... Every govenment was setup to serve its own people.(Even though the US government often likes to spend tons of money helping people from other countries out, which I don't like, we have enough problems of our own, we should fix them first.) And no government ever pleases everyone, and could be called unjust. Ya, ours has problems, and I do what little I can to fix them(vote, talk, and listen) Problem is, our government is very vocal in the world forum, and so gets decried an awful lot. But I would rather my government was called names, than have it just roll over for the UN and accept whatever world crisis they made up this week.

Hey, I found the TOPEX data before you did. Look for TOPEX in here and you'll see that the sea level rise was mostly due to an El Nino. Oh, wonderful..the TOPEX site data has been adjusted to match tide gauges, but no mention whether they used the IPCC adjustments or just raw tide gauge data.

The source of the paper about the 'problems with sea-level predictions' is written and endorsed by a groups called Greening Earth Society who purports, on their front page to promote the scientific view that carbon dioxide is beneficial for human kind and all of nature. While CO2 is certainly part of our ecosystem, the GES seems to think that if a little is a good thing, a lot is going to be better. I think it's also relavant that their front page has a link (the only off-site link on their front page) to http://www.fossilfuels.org/ a site that claims that fossil fuels are one of "The Creator's greatest gifts to humankind". Pardon me if I'm mildly skeptical. These sites don't seem to be very unbiased.

Incidentally, TOPEX cycle 1 was in 1992. And as it can only measure with a precision of 3-5 cm, those must have been interesting calculations to derive a change in millimeters. Do you have a link?

Read A Few Things Wrong With The Above Sites.

we can make educated guesses that are reliable enough to base policy on. Those guesses/predictions include rises in sea level and the disruption of long-established weather patterns

We won't know if they are reliable until time passes. Those predictions don't include the recent discoveries of the power of soot and heat-caused cirrus depletion cooling, much less other unknown factors.

There is no global sea level change -- that's only another prediction. Read about the problems with sea-level predictions and see how confident you then are about them. For that matter, the recent IPCC sea level prediction includes mention that southern oceans will rise somewhat less than elsewhere -- the IPCC doesn't explain how water rises differently there. For that matter, El Nino was discovered by climatologists only a few decades ago...it's amazing how the same science which is still discovering smaller oscillations can be used to make longer-term predictions.

Dude, we don't even know for sure if global warming is happening. This isn't just random bullshit on the web, either. The True State of the Planet, ed. Robert Bailey, has similar data, (only up to 1992, unfortunately), and it shows a cooling trend. Bailey's book gives all its references, so you can fact-check to your heart's content.

There also happens to be a few dissenting voices in the scientific community--15,000 of them, in fact.

Finally, the steps we have taken to curtail global warming (Kyoto Accord, for instance) are really just a joke. To seriously cut back greenhouse gas emissions, we'd have to go back to the stone age, and that would come at a serious cost in standard of living and ultimately human lives. The burden would be especially heavy in developing countries, where modern pollution control technologies simply aren't available.

That's why not much has been done.

Western Fuels Association, founders of the Greening Earth Society, continues to engage this issue at a leadership level. One way we do this is by partnership with the National Mining Association (NMA). Western Fuels and NMA will dedicate substantial resources in resisting the EPAs initiative to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Western Fuels also continues to defend Americans reliance on fossil fuels through grassroots mobilization.

Folks, I won't even bother making fun of this. The "Greening Earth Society" is a joke of an astroturf campaing fronted by a coal mining cartel. Couple the link to obvious astroturf site with nonsense sentences like "Further, the technology developed to help handle global warming, such as more energy efficient devices, would be useful just in the context of on an expanding popular", and you've got a rather sad troll. But at least Mr. Alien54 is indirectly helping to spread the word of Greening Earth's astroturf status.

-Isaac

Your reasoning is completely flawed, I have to say. Yes, computers cannot accurately predict short-term (1 to 5 etc.) weather trends, that is, they can't calculate how such and such ocean currents will affect meteorology.

However, in the long run these short-term events cancel out. Computers are capable, with a limited degree of accuracy, given chaos and the data available, to extrapolate on long-term trends. This is completely different than a 2-week or even 2-year weather forecast.

The climate is a chaotic system, meaning that the future becomes exponentially more difficult to predict the farther forward you look. While there are some trends that we can use to make predictions (i.e., it probably won't snow on July 4 in Texas), placing too much faith in these models is silly.

It's also worth noting that the models have, so far, been completely wrong in pretty much everything. For instance, predictions made in 1990 of warming by 2000 haven't happened. Aside from the El Nino blip, we haven't seen any warming. Check out this link.

Now understand, I do think that Global warming might be a problem. But I do think that there may see people fear-mongering for fun and profit. Just like some people would muddy the waters to protect their interests.

If there is no global warming, then there are just the usual problems of politics as usual. If there is global warming, then we will have a problem, in addition to all of the usual problems of politics as usual.

Further, the technology developed to help handle global warming, such as more energy efficient devices, would be useful just in the context of on an expanding popular.

So I see that it would be better in the long run to treat global warming as a real problem.

Now understand, I do think that Global warming might be a problem. But I do think that there may see people fear-mongering for fun and profit. Just like some people would muddy the waters to protect their interests.

If there is no global warming, then there are just the usual problems of politics as usual. If there is global warming, then we will have a problem, in addition to all of the usual problems of politics as usual.

Further, the technology developed to help handle global warming, such as more energy efficient devices, would be useful just in the context of on an expanding popular.

So I see that it would be better in the long run to treat global warming as a real problem.