Slashdot Mirror

...is there anyone still denying global warming?

Is the point of contention now whether or not pollution by people are to blame? I forget where we are on the issue.

Man made global warming is Junk Science and is as real as Manbearpig.

According to http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/sea_level_calc.html you're looking at like a 23 degree Celsius average temperature increase to raise sea level by 59cm. This is just an excuse to take more money from the people in the form of taxes.

http://www.junkscience.com/

Hardly harmless?

Care to cite any references that haven't been proven incorrect or politically motivated?

The worst offenders nowdays are public health "scientists" who pick out from vast patient databases (using statistical software which is a mysterious magic wand for most of them) some correlations on self-selected subjects, which could mean anything, then hand-pick one possible explanation as the "real" one (coincidentally, it is always the one benefiting financially the most their sponsors, pharmaceutical industry), declare pompously "science has spoken, debate is over" and then use it to drive policies, regulations and medical expenditures. Their "science" invariably ends up in more control over your life, worse health for you and your family (e.g. recent rapid rise of autism, asthma, allergies, obesity, diabetes, dialysis...) and more money going from your pocket to theirs and of their sponsors.

So... according to the first chart, CO2 levels have gone from 300 in 1930 to 366 in 1998. Yet the 1930's was the hottest decade in the last 200 years. Doesn't seem to be a connection. I think if everyone adopted the Kyoto treaty it was supposed to drop the CO2 in the air like a tenth of a percent.

I hope you have something better than this to work with.

You like graphs? Here are a lot of them. Not "cherry-picked" like yours.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html

>> Emission rate of 7 billion tons/year

Using numbers with no context. I mean, is that a lot? Is it too much? Just because CO2 is higher than it was 100 years ago does not make it "bad". Have you ever noticed that big ball of fire in the sky we call the sun? Don't you think that minor changes in the output of the sun would have a much larger effect than trace elements in our atmosphere? And I don't just mean visible light, ever heard of solar wind?

CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. I doubt it has any effect at all on our climate.

Here is another graph to feed your graph fetish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Scientists who are ADVOCATES for a particular position who also consistently ignore any potential effects of natural forces are suspect by definition.

>>Let the people who understand climate science do climate science.

Well, find me someone who understands the climate and I'll listen to them. Of course, observing the climate and studying it for a profession makes you into someone who knows a lot ABOUT the Earth's climate. Understanding it is another thing all together. There are no respectable climate scientists on either side of the issue who claim they understand what is going on; that is why making drastic changes to every facet of human life based of the latest "end of the world" fad is kind of stupid.

Remember, these are the same guys (literally in some cases) that in the last thirty years claimed that we were doomed unless we did something about: DDT, Population growth, nuclear power, the ozone layer, total depletion of oil (1970), nuclear proliferation, and global cooling. The three things that ALL of these had in common were: They all became Cause celeb with pointy headed liberals, they all were going to destroy the Earth, and capitalism was the cause and socialism was the cure.

So where are all these nutballs now? As these nutty theories/hoaxes were disproved through the efforts of REAL scientists, the nuts just faded away. Books were written by "experts" who would conclusivly "prove" that whatever was going to be the end of this. Movies were made. Politicions RAN on this stuff. All of these were taught in COLLEGE and UNIVERSTIES.

All the previous science scares are just forgotten; liberals never learn from the past.

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.junkscience.com/

sorry, wrong site. i thought im in /. cuz it says news for nerds i.e. smart people - none such here, just a bunch of joe sikspacks repeating what the media toldthem, idiots http://www.junkscience.com/

sorry did I fuckup entering the adress? this IS /. right? says news for nerds on top. nerds, as in smart people, where'd you find those? all the posts are from braindead/washed idiots taking mass media as-is.
back to the real world guys, plsss! http://www.junkscience.com/

So can you cite a reliable source for this story? It still sounds like an urban legend that has been contoured to fit Mr Lovins political theories.

Try googling for just "thin egg shells lead" instead of leaded gas. The DDT faq at http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html should be in the top 4. It supports my arguments and has all the citations to the appropriate science journals (not just the speech of some political activist). In particular, it cites amble evidence that DDT does not affect the egg shell thickness, although one study showed an impact on production of some species. There are references to studies showing other pollutants such as lead, mercury, etc have been associated with egg deformities.

The Cassini is plutonium powered so hopefully it does not crash and piss of ETs with the sort of scenario depicted here in this crack-pot attempt to stop the Cassini launch back in '97. http://www.junkscience.com/news/broad.html

Nope. Speeding does not cause accidents. This has been proven. Raising speed limits does not cause an increase in the number of accidents.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_19990425/ai_n11718981
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/peters2.html

As for alcohol, according to this 39% are alcohol are involved. "There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 - 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year."

So, I guess I need to revise my statement 61% of all accidents are caused by distracted drivers.

Lots of people worried about birds or "The Ecosystem". Very few seem to be worried about the millions of PEOPLE who die HORRIBLE DEATHS thanks to Dengue fever.

I guess it's to be expected from the "Silent Spring" crowd, who refuse to acknowledge that the REAL effect of banning DDT has been millions of deaths from malaria, against a hypothetical doomsday scenario. Sound familiar?

Now, some anecdotal evidence. My wife is from Zamboanga City, Mindinao, Philippines (you can look it up on a map; it's the extreme southwest corner). We have been married nearly 20 years, and I have made at least 9 trips to her city. It's not that big a city, and we generally go to a few select places for dining/swimming, etc. One hotel is right on the Sulu Sea, and their pool is built about 20 feet from the ocean. It was about 20 feet nearly 20 years ago, and it was about 20 feet on our last trip two years ago. The beach is very level; a rise of 2 inches would have cut it to about 10 feet, and left the concrete dock stranded at least five feet in the water. It wasn't. I can't believe that "sea level" some 1500 miles to the north is that much different than sea level around an archipelago like the Philippines. So, I call shenanigans on Mr. Gore, and his mis-statements on sea level rise.

Or this: According to The Tennessean newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management. a company he co-founded and serves as chairman: Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe... It gets better: As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

Finally, as a simple google search will show, Gore's Tennessee home uses between 17-20 times the national average for electricity - as much as 220,000 kWh/month. Meanwhile, "environmental criminal George Bush" has a ranch in Crawford, TX, that uses deep groundwater for cooling, heat pumps, and other energy efficient methods to maintain it. Sounds to me that Gore talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk, which makes him a major-league hypocrite in my book.

Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree.

What, five of them?

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

Also, JunkScience.com is offering $125,000.00 to anyone who can PROVE that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.

Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.

Sorry, but Republicans do not rule the world.
From HERE:
Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

and HERE:
In a paper issued Jan. 3, 2007, UCS accuses ExxonMobil of funding "front groups" opposed to the climate-alarmist agenda of groups such as UCS and of former Vice President Al Gore. The company, said the UCS report, had distributed $16 million to 43 advocacy groups from 1998 to 2005 "to confuse the public on global-warming science."
Let's leave aside the fact that $16 million over eight years can't match the $2 billion that the federally funded Climate Change Science Program spends each year on global warming, or even the $4 million annual budget of just one of the many well-funded global-warming advocacy groups, Strategies for the Global Environment (the umbrella organization for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change). Moreover, the UCS document is hardly an investigative breakthrough. ExxonMobil itself publishes its philanthropic contributions to nonprofit organizations online.

And HERE is where the state climatologist in Oregon gets fired for questioning global warming:
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist...

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

Then there is THIS one where a scientist was fired for correcting bad data:
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed on March 12 from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains...
Cliff Mass, a professo

A rebuttal:

a) The amount of incoming radiation DOES change though. The fluctuation does correlate to current trends, better then CO2 levels do. Current hypothesis show a direct link between cloud formation and solar output, and a direct link between cloud levels and energy available for absorption. Given that the highest guess for a doubling of CO2 (some guessed number) results in a increase of 2 wm2 (from 2 wm2 current hypothesis) potential warming, it is strong dwarfed by the change of 120 wm2 that can be the affect of a cloud. To the study concerning the affects of cosmic rays (still understudy, but very interesting, and marks a strong relationship): http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/sky-experiment_2.pdf Calling the Sun and it's actions, especially when Mars, Jupiter and several other planets are experiencing the same thing "irrelevant" kinda of a strong but incorrect statement.

b) Kinda wrong. According to the Global Warming Hypothesis, if CO2 was the major affect warming the atmosphere, it would affect the Troposphere the most, with the Troposphere being warmer then the surface. BUT, after the aforementioned satellite studies, they found that the Troposphere is 1C cooler then the surface. Link: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=1824

c) A large fraction. 14% of the increase. 85% is still natural, and that means a whopping total of 3-4% of the total amount of CO2 is from our fossil fuel release. A good page on the true amounts is laid out here: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Before you start trying to chop down the messenger, look at the references. The EPA and the IPCC. And the site adds in the amount of Water Vapor to the affect. Something you have not brought up, even though it is the largest greenhouse gas, amounting to 95% of the total affect.

d) The oceans absorb and release CO2 based on their temperature. There are both the largest absorber and largest releaser of CO2. 20 times what humans produce. And the ocean can easily absorb more CO2 then we, as human, have access to produce through all of our fossil fuels before it becomes noticeable acidic. You claim is correct, but with NO relative reference it is a worthless point. Gif from NASA: http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/casa/CO2-cycle.gif

e) Right on some, but in all dishonest by omission. Like I posted above, without the relative numbers, you are dismissing one part without allowing anything relative to be mentioned. I would like to see a link to what you say on C12/C14 ratios. Oh, if you google it be careful, because you just end up proving the earth is only 10,000 years old. Bad argument.

Summary:

a) Wrong
b) Wrong
c) Close. BUT: Still dwarfed by all other sources of CO2 emissions. And CO2 is still only the 3% of the total GHE.

Please, if you have some facts to rebut this, lay them down. With links please.

Josh

Do you really think it is paranoia Ashlie?

Yes, yes I do. I made a lot of posts on a topic that I care about and know a bit about. That they might be disproportionately directed to you could be because you meet the criteria of being (a) wrong about quite a bit, but (b) not loony wrong. (I tend not to waste my time with true crazies.)

But since I would have to Google for "global warming y2k bug" to find the articles, I will just leave it up to you to do so.

Canadian and amateur climate researcher Stephen McIntyre discovered that NASA made a technical error in standardizing the weather air temperature data post-2000. These temperature mistakes were only for the U.S.; their net effect was to lower the average temperature reading from 2000-2006 by 0.15C.

Or do you mean since many left wing think tanks decided they could push their rejected agendas by placing fear into the lives or people based around something that without errors would never have been plausible in the first place.

And if you think Fox news is right wing, then I guess you are more left then I originally thought.Fox news isn't right wing. The shows they have might be but the station, news, and channel itself isn't. But how would you know that, your probably just parroting what other agenda pushing liberals have told you.

In the US, we still don't have corrected numbers...

As many people know, cycles in earth often take longer then 40 years.

That's the thing. I would argue that "mass human suffering" is not what the environmentalists are out to prevent. Millions of people have died needlessly of Malaria in Africa because the US put pressure on African countries to ban the use of DDT. http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html

Environmentalism in practice is about preserving the environment regardless of the sacrifices it requires of man, not maintaining the environment for the benefit of man.

http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070809.h tml for the best article I have found so far.

• The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
• Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
• The Deniers
• New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual
• Global Warming as a Religion
• I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (By David Evans)
• GREENIE WATCH
• (Streaming video) The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film
• 'The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?'

DDT does thin eggshells resulting in a much lower rate of successful hatching, for example.

In the few studies claiming to implicate DDT as the cause of thinning, the birds were fed diets that were either low in calcium, included other known egg shell-thinning substances, or that contained levels of DDT far in excess of levels that would be found in the environment - and even then, the massive doses produced much less thinning than what had been found in egg shells in the wild. Reference: Steven Milloy of Junk Science writing for Fox News

You have a very strange idea about what is criminal. So presenting an opposing viewpoint from the doom and gloom hysteria in the main stream media is a crime? He presents very well thought out and documented arguments. You may well disagree with him,judge the evidence yourself ...Don't like what he's saying counter it with better arguments. I am also tired of the hackneyed argument that because someone ever had anything to do with an industry they are somehow disqualified from speaking about it. For being a somewhat scientific forum we have more dogma than any five religions combined. http://www.junkscience.com/ Don't let anyone do your thinking for you

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk-science expert and advocate of free enterprise, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk-science expert and advocate of free enterprise, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Ive seen this circulating the blog already, and did a little investigating. Turns out some aspects of this story are less then credible.

Lets start with the source of the article, one Steven Milloy - you can see his name is on that particular version of it, as well as some others. A quick background check, placing his name into google, reveals that Steven Milloy is a quite enthusiastic campagigner against climate-change reducing initiatives - ironicly, he labels it 'junk science' - as well as opposed to environmental concerns in general. His wikipedia page goes into more detail. He also runs junkscience.com - just your plain old astroturf site, that will label any part of science junk for a suitable fee. And yes, I checked its the same Stephen Milloy. The attribution at the end of the article confirms it.

I could spend a lot of time going into Milloy's record as a producer of scientific articles ranging from dubious to outright false, but lets not get distracted into the ad-homs here. Instead, how about a look at the criticism of the CFL scare from denialism.com - as the site points out, the level of mercury in a CFL is tiny - 5mg. Not to mention that CFL is just a new packageing for an old technology - the older tube-lights run on exactly the same princible and have been in use for a long time now. Have there been any major safety concerns about those? They contain much more mercury than a CFL, due simply to their larger volume. Thermometers contain a whole lot more than either - and who finds that they need to call in the hazmat squad if they break a thermometer?

The $2000 cleanup incident seems to be just an overreaction - an extreme case of 'better safe than sorry.' Or, this being america, perhaps 'better safe than liable.'

I am surprised that you haven't received a bigger reaction then you have. I would count it as either being lucky or your position actually made too much sense.

I think it is great that your daughter has taken an interest in the subject and sciences involved in this. I also think it is great that she is getting exposure to real objectiveness along these lines. Too often in this debate I am reminded of this cartoon

Best wishes to you and your daughter and whole family.

Yes, like I said, your a wanker and habitual liar who deliberately takes things out of context as I have done here. Define "evil"?

BTW: Interested readers can check your "facts" for themselves and I encourage them to do so.

Yes, like I said, your a wanker and habitual liar who deliberately takes things out of context as I have done here. Define "evil"?

BTW: Interested readers can check your "facts" for themselves and I encourage them to do so.

James Carville used to remind Clinton during the '92 campaign that "its the economy, stupid".

I (and many others far smarter than I am) say that on the subject of Global Warming: "its the SUN, stupid"

Our earth is warmed by a gigantic nuclear fireball, millions of times the mass of earth and a mere 8.5 light-minutes away. One hundred and nine Earths would be required to fit across the Sun's disk, and its interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths.

By the way, the sun has a total luminosity output of 386 YottaWatts thats 386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts, but we only get a tiny portion of that.

You can't just ignore that kind of power. But a lot of researchers do, and simply dismiss our solar irradiance and it's variability out of hand. It muddles up the GHG modeling study they are doing when you throw extra energy into the system.

The total luminous energy output (visible, IR) received by earth from the sun is 174 PETAWATTS (174,000,000,000,000,000) watts. Now lets just say the sun increases its output by 0.1% as its been measured to do. (And its gotten way more active this century.) That dumps an extra 174,000,000,000,000 watts into our atmosphere (174 trillion watts) 24/7.

See the plot of Solar Irradiance from NOAA data here
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.g if

Data source for graph: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_f orcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Note: In the graph above, the low flatline from 1645-1715 is the Maunder Minimum, a period of virtually no sunspots, where the historical reports from the northern hemisphere tell a story of dramatic climate change: harsh winters, cools summers, crop failures, famine and disease.

Now lets put 174 trillion watts into perspective:

Hurricanes: the heat energy released by a hurricanes category 1-5 equals about 50 to 200 trillion watts or about the same amount of energy released by exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes.

Katrina, released about 200 trillion watts over its life cycle.

Now imagine that approximate amount of extra energy being added to earth's atmosphere every second by small increases in the suns output that have been documented to exist.

Now lets look at us: 13.5 TeraWatts is the average total power consumption of the human world in 2001.

Do you think we could change the planets atmospheric energy balance with that if we squeezed all the power we made that year together and shot it into our atmosphere ?

Yeah, its the sun, stupid.

James Carville used to remind Clinton during the '92 campaign that "its the economy, stupid".

I (and many others far smarter than I am) say that on the subject of Global Warming: "its the SUN, stupid"

Our earth is warmed by a gigantic nuclear fireball, millions of times the mass of earth and a mere 8.5 light-minutes away. One hundred and nine Earths would be required to fit across the Sun's disk, and its interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths.

By the way, the sun has a total luminosity output of 386 YottaWatts thats 386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts, but we only get a tiny portion of that.

You can't just ignore that kind of power. But a lot of researchers do, and simply dismiss our solar irradiance and it's variability out of hand. It muddles up the GHG modeling study they are doing when you throw extra energy into the system.

The total luminous energy output (visible, IR) received by earth from the sun is 174 PETAWATTS (174,000,000,000,000,000) watts. Now lets just say the sun increases its output by 0.1% as its been measured to do. (And its gotten way more active this century.) That dumps an extra 174,000,000,000,000 watts into our atmosphere (174 trillion watts) 24/7.

See the plot of Solar Irradiance from NOAA data here
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.g if

Data source for graph: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_f orcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Note: In the graph above, the low flatline from 1645-1715 is the Maunder Minimum, a period of virtually no sunspots, where the historical reports from the northern hemisphere tell a story of dramatic climate change: harsh winters, cools summers, crop failures, famine and disease.

Now lets put 174 trillion watts into perspective:

Hurricanes: the heat energy released by a hurricanes category 1-5 equals about 50 to 200 trillion watts or about the same amount of energy released by exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes.

Katrina, released about 200 trillion watts over its life cycle.

Now imagine that approximate amount of extra energy being added to earth's atmosphere every second by small increases in the suns output that have been documented to exist.

Now lets look at us: 13.5 TeraWatts is the average total power consumption of the human world in 2001.

Do you think we could change the planets atmospheric energy balance with that if we squeezed all the power we made that year together and shot it into our atmosphere ?

Yeah, its the sun, stupid.

and the "Coming Ice Age" was so 1970's http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAg e_June241974.pdf

So, I've perused the article you referred to. It's a pretty good paper. It calls into question some of the conclusions of Mann et al., but mostly supports the IPCC TAR. I asked for a paper that disputes AGW. This doesn't appear to be one - if I've missed something (I scanned it rather quickly), let me know. I really liked Figure 3.

Huh. I just realized that it's hosted by junkscience. Since junkscience is funded by fossil-fuel companies, I guess they must see something that I don't see. Please tell me what it is - I'm genuinely interested.

I'm trying to understand how you went from a quote that says human-made factors should have an effect on climate to the proclamation that "They are in almost complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature".

You're drawing a connection where there isn't one. I never said the quote proved that they were almost in complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature. That I've never read an article by a climatologist who disputes this is why I said they're almost in complete agreement. Funny, I thought that was clear - I guess not.

The submitter has a link to JunkScience.com on his homepage. He also is a self-described "conservative" (not that there's anything wrong with that, but it lets us know why he chose to put so much negative spin on this story).

What is really wrong is this amazing belief system that is out there about Global Warming. Anyone who takes an hour and reads The Real Inconvenient Truth on Junkscience can get a glimmering of why we question the handwringing of the Global Alarmists. The data that makes everyone sweat has been massaged heavily. When you look at the rawer forms of data, you say, WTF! there ain't nothing to get your panties in a wad over. If anything we should be excited that it appears that Global Warming is available to Keep us from Freezing.

What is really wrong is this amazing belief system that is out there about Global Warming. Anyone who takes an hour and reads The Real Inconvenient Truth on Junkscience can get a glimmering of why we question the handwringing of the Global Alarmists. The data that makes everyone sweat has been massaged heavily. When you look at the rawer forms of data, you say, WTF! there ain't nothing to get your panties in a wad over. If anything we should be excited that it appears that Global Warming is available to Keep us from Freezing.

Actually, most of the DDT scare was based on bad science and politics. Current science and the track record of countries still using it, show that DDT is fairly safe and doesn't cause the bird reporductive problems that Rachel Carson claimed. For example in the widely cited study of 20% of eggs with DDT exposure failing to hatch, they neglected to mention that the control group had 40% bad eggs. A little more info at http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

Can global warming be attributed to this you ask? Well, it's a matter of sitting down and runnign the numbers. Luckily people have - it's not like people aren't bothering to measure and track the amount of solar radiation that actually reaches the surface of the earth. We can then calculate how much that might contribute to warming. The IPCC, in the Third Assessment Report, put it at about 30% of observed warming. They also concluded that the warming of the last 50 years cannot be explained without considering anthropogenic effects - that is, solar explanations alone are not enough.

And this from someone who feels it necessary to call me a "Knucklehead"? He didn't HAVE a counter-argument, unless you consider "You're wrong because I say so!" a counter argument.

Very well. Since neither you nor Waffle Iron can even be bothered to come up with a cogent counter-argument other than a "Neener neener, you're a big meanie" and "Watch me alter your argument in a nonsensical way to mock you with." I'll just pound you both into the ground with evidence. Apparently all you understand is Appeals to Authority, so here they are:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496781/p osts
The source page for that post - http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ ID=2319http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&A rticle_ID=2319

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.ht m

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05568.cfm

http://acuf.org/issues/issue71/061104cul.asp

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/ar ticles/V10/N3/C1.jsp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.st m

I can pull these links ALL DAY, but I've got work to do and a life to live.

The point is, the more evidence we gather, the more we realize that IF the world is warming (and it's a BIG if) then it's part of a natural cycle that has been taking place on our planet for Millenia, and there isn't a damn thing we can do to cause or stop it. All we would be doing by adopting the inane Kyoto accord agreements (or anything like it) would be to weaken our economy and society in such a way that should natural global warming actually happen, we wouldn't have the economic or social strength left to survive it! All it takes is an open mind and a little critical thinking and the "Global Warming" hysteria becomes just that. Hysteria not worth wasting our energy on.

If you can't see the evidence right in front of you, then you're a damn fool and I've got no more time to deal with you.

Good day sir.

Man made Global Warming is more of a myth then a theory. Al Gore's Inconvient Lies shouldn't be shown since it's full of holes you can drive a super tanker through.

See AGW challenge: http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm/ and
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html/

Dammy

Man made Global Warming is more of a myth then a theory. Al Gore's Inconvient Lies shouldn't be shown since it's full of holes you can drive a super tanker through.

See AGW challenge: http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm/ and
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html/

Dammy

It's not an argument of corporations/republicans bad, it's not even an ad hominem. This person is paid to write what he writes, by the oil industry and the tobacco industry. There's a huge amount of data out there, and easy to find something to support your claims if you cherry-pick. Which "thousand less-urbanized sites" did he collect his data from? It's almost certainly not averaging to a complete picture, because these variations in global temperature don't look like they are from a spherical planet. Only the hemispheres have summer and winter, you know, not the whole planet. It's not only incorrect as a presentation of "global temperatures", it's also insultingly stupid.

Quoting from http://www.junkscience.com/ on this article:

"s it happens we're just reformatting the thermometer graphic to give people a better idea of global mean temperatures and trends. Using a thousand less-urbanized sites from the METAR database suggests the last year (calendar date to calendar date, in this case) was about as near average as can be expected, within a tenth of a degree of the calculated mean without any enhanced greenhouse forcing.

Is the world really hot and getting hotter? That's a very good question but one to which no one has a good answer. The urbanized record is a little warm but that doesn't mean very much. The planet? Well, that's an open question as yet."

Dammy

What do you think if this. What constant does your model use to convert Watts sq meters to average temperature? I'm really curious about this.

On balance of available evidence then the current model-estimated range of warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide should probably be reduced from 1.4 - 5.8 C to about 0.4 C to suit observations or 0.8 C to accommodate theoretical warming -- and that's including F of 3.7 Wm-2 from a doubling of pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a figure we suspect is also inflated.

The bottom line is that climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin. The median estimate 3.0 C warming cited by the IPCC for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is physically implausible

Funny, all I'm reading in the majority of the major media is how doomed we all are by Global Warming. I don't see something like this on Yahoo:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/1 2/01/are-humans-involved-in-global-warming/ nor http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm/. Journalist like this issue because it will benefit their political (typically 80% of US Journals have answer polls showing they are somewhat liberal or very liberal in political ideaology). That spells out that only one side will be given to the public. Go ask a journalist major on what they want to do with their carreer, they are more then likely tell you they want to bring social justice to the world. Which of course is not what a journalist should be doing. They are suppost to be giving the public the facts and let us decide. Even if it's against their wished for political agenda.

Dammy

In 1974, Time magazine said there was an Ice Age approaching. Things like this were everywhere in the media.

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAg e_June241974.pdf

Climate change doesn't turn on a dime like that.

Last year, people were saying that the number of hurricanes we had were because of global warming. This year?
No named hurricanes hit the US.

I bet global warming caused them to go away too.

Sure would like to see all these Global Warming folks take this challenge: http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm/.