 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Where's the Global Warming
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 24 May 10 - 07:11 PM beardedbruce Global Cooling in the 1970's. Global warming in the early 2000's. Just so. The orthodoxy of the 1970's was overthrown by further research. Precisely the opposite of what Little Hawk is saying. Global warming in the early 2000's. Global Climate change now. What "sacrosanct" theory was "completely discredited" by this broadening of the terminology? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 24 May 10 - 06:36 PM Global Cooling in the 1970's. Global warming in the early 2000's. Global Climate change now. 8-{E |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 24 May 10 - 06:34 PM Little Hawk You are making sweeping generalistions which show little respect for the intelligence or integrity of scientists without producing any evidence of what you mean. There are some theories, though, that seem to become sacrosanct in the science community during certain historical periods.... Give us examples. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Little Hawk Date: 24 May 10 - 06:18 PM Yes, TheSnail, I realize that scientists are often quite competitive, and would enjoy disproving another scientist's theory. ;-) No doubt about that. There are some theories, though, that seem to become sacrosanct in the science community during certain historical periods....yet they become completely discredited later on. Interesting how that happens. I don't think there's just one simple explanation for why it does. As you say, if a majority of them agree on something it may well be right. Indeed. And yet...sometimes it has proven not to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Little Hawk Date: 24 May 10 - 06:12 PM We're all deficient in something, Amos. ;-) My point was, however, that it's not uncommon in the science community or the medical community or any other highly trained professional community that a majority of its members will enthusiastically back a current (scientific) orthodoxy, and will interpret evidence from that mental perspective and will stubbornly hold the line against an unorthodox viewpoint and even ridicule it. It has happened again and again in the past, and I'm sure it will happen in the future too. Police investigators tend to do the same thing once they have decided they've "got their man"...and that's why a good number of innocent people have been imprisoned and even executed for crimes they did not commit. It happens. There are times when the vast majority of qualified practitioners in any professional field will determinedly back a viewpoint that later proves to be false. A majority can be wrong. And that is what I was alluding to. It may prove to be the case in regards to the manmade global warming theory too. I agree with you that scientists are better trained to avoid making that sort of error than the layman is...but that doesn't mean they are immune to it. They too are under peer pressure, and it operates at levels that are instinctive and hierarchical as well as emotional. People can believe anything...if they want to. And if they believe it, well, then they will interpret the available evidence to support their belief. And they won't even realize how subjective they are being while they do it, because they are not usually conscious of their own subjectivity...only of that of people with whom they disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 24 May 10 - 06:10 PM Thanks Ebbie. For a horrible moment I had thought you were taking me seriously. Little Hawk fails to realise that scientists, on the whole, hate each other and are desperate to find ways of proving each other wrong. This is good. It's what makes science work. The corollary is that if they agree on something in large numbers, it may well be right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 24 May 10 - 06:00 PM LH: Your sweeping theory of human patterns is, I am sorry to say, deficient. Scientists are not blindly emotive line-joiners, as a rule, and they tend to inspect data for flaws as their instinctive approach is to disprove things. Mob think is a tendency because a lot of people don't have the discipline of thought or the education to avoid it. Scientists do it to some degree but are professionally far more proofed up against it than we humanists. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 24 May 10 - 05:56 PM OK, The Snail. Well done, Snail. Well done, Bearded Bruce. (Not very often does bb use humor, so I wanted to acknowledge it.) :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Little Hawk Date: 24 May 10 - 02:59 PM Come to think of it, here's what I suggest to people who want to learn to debate other people in a sensible and rational manner. Resist the temptation your ego throws up in front of your mind to begin the debate with the assumption that the other person is: an idiot a fanatic a Nazi a moron a fascist a fool a communist a racist a hypocrite a liar a moron a cheat an evil person a scumbag someone who is always wrong a loser and most of all (drum roll....) someone who believes something patently stupid that you would like him to believe so that you can be right and he can be wrong.... That last one is a very common strategem in use by most egos who argue. They assume that the other guy believes something idiotic that they just thought of. "He MUST believe something idiotic, after all, because he isn't agreeing with ME!" Avoid all of the above negative assumptions, begin the debate with respect for the other person, and begin prepared to admit that the other person may also be a sentient being with some reasonable ideas, and might even be RIGHT about something....and THEN you might actually have a debate worth having. Otherwise, you're just another yapping ego blowing off steam at somene else's expense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 24 May 10 - 02:55 PM Ebbie (Well done, Snail and BeardedBruce.:) I'm not sure that I want to be congratulated for anything in the same breath as BB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Little Hawk Date: 24 May 10 - 02:32 PM "I know quite a few of these guys and the idea that they are part of some global conspiracy would be insulting if it wasn't so laughable." Martin, I doubt that anyone is suggesting that the vast majority of scientists who support the theory of anthropmorphically caused global warming are part of a global conspiracy. I'm certainly not. When a popular idea is well-marketed by a few authoritative people in high places, and that idea becomes part of present orthodoxy...the vast majority of scientists and other people figure that it is right. They line up onside. They interpret existing information to support the idea, and they search diligently for any further evidence which appears to support the idea. They look skeptically on anything which doesn't appear to support the idea, and often simply dismiss it out of hand or re-interpret it to fit what they want to believe. This is what people do. And that is why virtually all of Christendom once accused thousands of people of witchcraft and burned them at the stake. It was a part of their present orthodoxy. And that's why Galileo was forced to recant. He went against present orthodoxy. And that's why the world of science has often backed a completely erroneous theory for decades or even generations, and scoffed at anyone who challenged it. Because anyone who challenged it went against present orthodoxy, and that is not tolerated by most people, including in the world of science. There is much historical evidence to support what I say about that. Now, there has been a very well organized media and science campaign for over a decade to promote the idea of human-caused global warming. That has its own weight of orthodoxy by now, and people tend to believe and support the orthodox, and so do scientists. In the case of the scientists, they go looking for evidence that further supports the theory...and they always find it. (even if the theory is wrong) Why? Because that's the evidence they're looking for! They don't tend to look for other evidence that doesn't support the theory, because they're not inclined to. The Christian Church found all kinds of compelling "evidence" to prove their accusations of witchcraft...and virtually everyone believed it at the time (except for the accused and their close friends and relatives). The "evidence" was not real evidence at all, but it certainly appeared to be absolutely real evidence to those who wanted to believe it was. You want to believe that the current theory of manmade global warming is correct. Fine. But it still may be a wrong theory anyway, and there's evidence that suggests that. One thing that is very clear is that we ARE experiencing climate change, and we are experiencing global warming...but I doubt that man's activities are a major cause of it. I have reasons for doubting it, just like you have reasons for believing it. Either one of us may be right or may be wrong...but you are trailing around a red herring (or a straw man) in suggesting that critics of the present theory think that your 1700 scientists who signed that paper are all in some giant conspiracy. They don't have to be in a conspiracy to line up behind a popular idea, for heaven's sake. I don't call it a conspiracy at all. I call it conventional thinking that is driving a presently popular theory...period. That presently popular theory may turn out to be a mistaken one in time. Regardless of whether it does or not, we still must deal with the global warming that is happening ANYWAY....so what the heck is everybody trying to prove here, just prove that you are "right" in saying it's manmade and that anyone who doesn't say so is a heretic????? If so, why? Is it that important to be "right" and have someone else be wrong, just so you can feel superior or something? If I can judge by most people's behaviour in these sort of debates...it is. ;-) I think it's a giant battle of egos that is going on here. And the real truth is, not one of us here knows for certain whether the current theory of manmade global warming is correct or not. We may think we know...but we don't. We just have opinions about it, and that is all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 24 May 10 - 10:47 AM Question: Since the impacts of climate change are, and will continue to be, global, what about the rest of the world? I know that I have read discussions taking place in the UK but are others as concerned as we are? (Well done, Snail and BeardedBruce.:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 24 May 10 - 10:40 AM "The effort to combat global warming has flagged as other crises have commanded the attention of politicians and the public. New reports from the National Academy of Sciences offer persuasive evidence that it would be folly to put off dealing with the problem any longer. Editorial Series Climate Change We hope the reports will jolt the United States Senate into moving forward on an energy and climate bill. They provide an authoritative rebuttal to skeptics in the Senate and industry who have pounced upon small errors in the 2007 report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to suggest that the whole thing is a hoax. The academy's conclusion is clear: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems." The reports acknowledge that while the magnitude of these risks — sea level rise, drought, disease, the destruction of marine- and land-based ecosystems — are difficult to predict, society would be wise to move swiftly and aggressively to minimize them. The academy says that between 2012 and 2050 the nation should produce no more than a total of 200 billion tons of greenhouse gases, ideally considerably less. (At the current rate of seven billion tons a year, the country would produce 266 billion tons.) The longer we wait to begin reducing emissions, the academy adds, the harder and more costly it will be to reach the target. It recommends putting a price on emissions as well as investments in energy efficiency, alternative fuels and developing cleaner technologies. A bill that would give this country a decent shot at achieving these goals passed the House last year. A companion bill, recently introduced in the Senate, is going nowhere. Indeed, the Senate continues to flirt with a retrograde proposal introduced by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska that would undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. That authority will become even more important if Congress fails to act. That the Senate would even think of undercutting it is astonishing. " Perhaps the New York Times, which published the above editorial, is too easily astonished at human perfidy and obtusity. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 24 May 10 - 10:32 AM Snailk, No, the increase of political spendingg is causing more energy to be generated and used, which increases the hot air from Washington. This is the only and triue cause of solar warming, and any who disagree are idiots, naysayers, and just plain ignorant. I have a whole list of emminent ex-congresscritters who will testify at length ( for a large fee) that this is so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 24 May 10 - 07:43 AM Can I just get this clear? Is the increase in solar activity causing the increase in undersea volcanic activity on Earth which is causing the changes on Jupiter and Mars or are the changes in the Red Spot causing the increase in undersea volcanic activity on Earth which is causing the melting of the Martian ice caps? I think that when we've got that cleared up, we can start moving towards a solution. (Move to Mars?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 23 May 10 - 12:34 PM PDQ -- are you proposing that the increase in global temperatures is caused by itchy volcanic action? If so are you asserting the increase in volcanic action is sufficient to account for it? Actually, interestingly the second great blowout of Krakatoa, between Java and Sumatra in Indonesia, occurred around the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1883. e explosions were so violent that they were heard 3,500 km (2,200 mi) away in Perth, Western Australia and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, 4,800 km (3,000 mi) away.[5] The pressure wave from the final explosion was recorded on barographs around the world, which continued to register it up to 5 days after the explosion. The recordings show that the shockwave from the final explosion reverberated around the globe 7 times in total.[9] Ash was propelled to a height of 80 km (50 mi). An earlier eruption of the same volcano, it is thought, in 535 was (coincidentally) the final death-knell of the Roman empire. According to some reports the eruption was so loud it was recorded as having been heard in China. But the explosion of Krakatoa in the nineteenth century actually depressed worldwide temperature readings for two or so years. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 23 May 10 - 10:56 AM Antarctica "The Pacific Ring of Fire is completed in the south by the continent of Antarctica, which includes many large volcanoes. The makeup and structure of the volcanoes in Antarctica change largely from the other places around the ring. In contrast, the Antarctic Plate is almost completely surrounded by extensional zones, with several mid-ocean ridges which encircle it, and there is only a small subduction zone at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, reaching eastward to the remote South Sandwich Islands. The most well known volcano in Antarctica is Mount Erebus, which is also the world's southernmost active volcano. In many respects the geology of the Antarctic Peninsula is an extension of the Andes, hence the name sometimes used by geologists: "Antarctandes". At the opposite side of the continent, the volcanoes of Victoria Land may be seen as the 'other end' of the Antarctandes, thus completing the Pacific Ring of Fire and continuing up through the Balleny Islands to New Zealand. The volcanoes of the Victoria Land area are the most well-known in Antarctica, most likely because they are the most accessible. Much of Victoria Land is mountainous, developing the eastern section of the Transantarctic Mountains, and there are several scattered volcanoes including Mount Overlord and Mount Melbourne in the northern part. Farther south are two more well-known volcanoes, Mount Discovery and Mount Morning, which are on the coast across from Mount Erebus and Mount Terror on Ross Island. The volcanism in this area is caused by rifting along a number of rift zones increasing mainly north-south similar to the coast. Marie Byrd Land contains the largest volcanic region in Antarctica, covering a length of almost 600 miles (960 km) along the Pacific coast. The volcanism is the result of rifting along the vast West Antarctic Rift, which extends from the base of the Antarctic Peninsula to the surrounding area of Ross Island, and the volcanoes are found along the northern edge of the rift. Protruding up through the ice are a large number of major shield volcanoes, including Mount Sidley, which is the highest volcano in Antarctica. Although a number of the volcanoes are relatively young and are potentially active (Mount Berlin, Mount Takahe, Mount Waesche, and Mount Siple), others such as Mount Andrus and Mount Hampton are over 10 million years old, yet maintain uneroded constructional forms. The desert-like surroundings of the Antarctic interior, along with a very thick and stable ice sheet which encloses and protects the bases of the volcanoes, which decreases the speed of erosion by an issue of perhaps a thousand relative to volcanoes in moist temperate or tropical climates." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 23 May 10 - 10:06 AM freda underhill, thanks for the decisive refutation of pdq's contention. Well done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 23 May 10 - 08:35 AM Good one, Martin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Martin Harwood Date: 23 May 10 - 08:18 AM Not sure this has been flagged before. It's a letter signed by 1700 UK scientists . I know quite a few of these guys and the idea that they are part of some global conspiracy would be insulting if it wasn't so laughable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 23 May 10 - 07:49 AM meanwhile, back at the ranch... The impacts of warming temperatures in Antarctica are likely to occur first in the northern sections of the continent, where summer temperatures approach the melting point of water, 32�F (0�C). Some ice shelves in the northernmost part of Antarctica—the Antarctic Peninsula—have been collapsing in recent years, consistent with the rapid warming trend there since 1945. Scientists are also concerned about future changes in the large West Antarctic ice sheet on the main continent because its collapse could raise sea level by as much as 19 feet (5.8 meters). Fingerprints 70. Antarctic Peninsula -- Warming 5 times global average. Since 1945, the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a warming of about 4.5�F (2.5�C). The annual melt season has increased by 2 to 3 weeks in just the past 20 years. 73. Antarctica -- Ice shelf disintegration. The 770 square mile (1,994 km2) Larsen A ice shelf disintegrated suddenly in January 1995. 74. Antarctica -- Ice shelf breakup. After 400 years of relative stability, nearly 1,150 square miles (2,978 km2) of the Larson B and Wilkins ice shelves collapsed between March 1998 and March 1999. 122. Southern Ocean - Strong warming trend. Measurements from data recorders in the Southern Ocean waters around Antarctica show a 0.3�F (0.17�C) rise in ocean temperatures between the 1950s and the 1980s. 140. Antarctica - Decreasing Ice-thickness. The permanent ice cover of nine lakes on Signey Island has decreased by about 45% since the 1950s. Average summer air temperature has warmed by 1.8�F (1�C). 141. Antarctic Peninsula - Collapsing ice-shelf, January-February 2002. The northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf, an area of 1,250 square miles (3,250 km2), disintegrated in a period of 35 days. This was the largest collapse event of the last 30 years, bringing the total loss of ice extent from seven ice shelves to 6,760 square miles (17,500 km2) since 1974. The ice retreat is attributed to the region�s strong warming trend - 4.5�F (2.5�C) in the last 50 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 23 May 10 - 06:52 AM well, Mudcat is hospitable to all sorts of life, and let the debate rage on :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 22 May 10 - 03:39 PM About 3/4 of all volcanic activity occurs under the ocean so that most people do not know it is happening. The Pacific Ring of Fire has been unusually active in the last 20 years or so and it accounts for about 3/4 of all such activity world-wide. The heat from submarine volcanic activities warms the ocean, and since the heat rises, it warms the surface area most. This activity produces in increase in atmospheric water vapor, a "greenhouse gas". It also softens the ice in Antarctica, at least the ice located over ocean water. The ice covering the Antarctic land mass has not changed in recent years. Here is a statement about hydrothermal vents, a continuous release of heat underwater: "A hydrothermal vent is a lot like an underwater geyser. Sea water seeps down into the cracks and fissures created by the spreading of the sea floor, sometimes as much as two or three miles into the earth's crust. As the water comes into contact with the veins and channels of superheated, molten magma, the sea water is superheated. Then the hotter sea water rises to the surface back through the fissures, carrying with it minerals leached from the crustal rock below. The superheated seawater then spews out of the holes in the crust, rising quickly above the colder, denser waters of the deep ocean. As the hot seawater and the cold seawater meet, the minerals suspended in the hot water precipitate out (clump together and drop out) right at the vent opening. This causes an accumulation, or build up, of the minerals deposited by the mineral rich water into some fantastic and geologically unique formations that have come to be called chimneys. One giant smoker discovered in 1991 reached 15 stories high! Scientists have gone down to explore and study these deep ocean hydrothermal vents and were completely surprised to find the areas immediately around the vents teeming with abundant life. The temperature of the water coming out of the vents has been measured at the source and it varies from just 68 degrees to as much as 600 degrees Fahrenheit. At sea level, water reaches the boiling point at 225 degrees Fahrenheit, but down in the deep ocean around hydrothermal vents where the water can reach well over the boiling point, the water coming out of the vents doesn't boil! What prevents the scalding hot seawater from boiling (turning into vapor) is the extreme hydrostatic pressure of all the overlying water. What surprised scientists was that there was an entire ecosystem, a community of diverse life forms, absolutely thriving in conditions that were previously thought to be inhospitable to any kind of life." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 May 10 - 02:19 PM ScienceDaily (May 21, 2010) Ñ The upper layer of the world's ocean has warmed since 1993, indicating a strong climate change signal, according to a new study. The energy stored is enough to power nearly 500 100-watt light bulbs per each of the roughly 6.7 billion people on the planet. "We are seeing the global ocean store more heat than it gives off," said John Lyman, an oceanographer at NOAA's Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, who led an international team of scientists that analyzed nine different estimates of heat content in the upper ocean from 1993 to 2008. The team combined the estimates to assess the size and certainty of growing heat storage in the ocean. Their findings are published in the May 20 edition of the journal Nature. The scientists are from NOAA, NASA, the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom, the University of Hamburg in Germany and the Meteorological Research Institute in Japan. "The ocean is the biggest reservoir for heat in the climate system," said Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and one of the scientists who contributed to the study. "So as the planet warms, we're finding that 80 to 90 percent of the increased heat ends up in the ocean." A warming ocean is a direct cause of global sea level rise, since seawater expands and takes up more space as it heats up. The scientists say that this expansion accounts for about one-third to one-half of global sea level rise. Combining multiple estimates of heat in the upper ocean -- from the surface to about 2,000 feet down -- the team found a strong multi-year warming trend throughout the world's ocean. According to measurements by an array of autonomous free-floating ocean floats called Argo as well as by earlier devices called expendable bathythermographs or XBTs that were dropped from ships to obtain temperature data, ocean heat content has increased over the last 16 years. The team notes that there are still some uncertainties and some biases. "The XBT data give us vital information about past changes in the ocean, but they are not as accurate as the more recent Argo data," said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. "However, our analysis of these data gives us confidence that on average, the ocean has warmed over the past decade and a half, signaling a climate imbalance." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 22 May 10 - 02:07 PM "Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas...it is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time horizon." For Christ's sake, folks, methane in only 1.7 parts per billion in the Earth's atmosphere. It has no effect on global atmospheric temperature that we can measure. It does not take a background in science, such as chemistry, to figure that out. It takes common sense. Water vapor is a "greenhouse gas" that can approach concentrations of near 5% over the tropical oceans on a nice warm day. H2O swamps all other "greenhouse gasses" and we (people) have little to do with its concentration. The figure of 1o F rise in temperature over the last 100 years is almost universally accepted by GW hawkers and skeptics alike. It is part of the normal cycle of changes and is so small as to be harmless. The average temps have actually dropped steadily since 1998 and that 1o F will, in a few decades, be reversed. This whole GW scare is a crock. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST Date: 22 May 10 - 05:33 AM beardedbruce 0.74 degrees over the last 100 years... From the Stanford Solar Centre - "The difference between global temperatures during an Ice Age and an ice-free period is only about 5ºC." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 22 May 10 - 12:22 AM Mighty day.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 21 May 10 - 06:45 PM Methane and water vapor are far more effective greenhouse gasses than C02- but the Goreists can't make as much money, nor grab as much power going after them. 0.74 degrees over the last 100 years... Lets destroy our civilization in order to stop this! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 21 May 10 - 06:41 PM now that's not a global info campaign, it's a well funded attack. I go with the views of Australia's government scientific agency, the CSIRO, which notes on its website: •Global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74 ºC over the past century •Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased since 1750, and now exceed pre-industrial levels •There is greater than 90 per cent likelihood that most of the global warming seen since the mid 20th-century is due to increases in greenhouse gas emissions •Sea level is projected to rise further by the end of this century It's tough not being a climate change denier, because there's no justifiable reason to avoid responsibility. But there are things that can be done. Three universities in the UK have jointly published a study Methane and Climate change on methane which notes: Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and is estimated to be responsible for approximately one-fifth of man-made global warming. Per kilogram, it is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time horizon. Previous books on climate change have tended to neglect the topic, instead focusing on carbon dioxide. This book shows how numerous point sources of methane have the potential to be more easily addressed than sources of carbon dioxide and therefore contribute significantly to the climate change mitigation in the 21st century. There is hope, thanks to the work of scientists who shine a light in the dark of political ignorance. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 21 May 10 - 01:21 PM Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJInhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony. (Click here for the just-released Senate Environment and Public Works report behind Inhofe's announcement.) February 23, 2010 - by Charlie Martin Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called "the greatest scientific scandal of our generation" — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. "In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted," Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress. Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today's hearing, alleges: [The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes. As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate files has led to a reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency's Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Since the Climategate files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway "purely to put political pressure on world leaders." Based on this minority staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state attorneys general (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration's attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report "strengthens the case" for the Texas and Virginia attorneys general. Senator Inhofe's announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved. The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations: 1 The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence. 2 They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions. 3 They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the "consensus." 4 They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity. The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation: 1 It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000). 2 It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties. 3 The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice. If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties. By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves. Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be "let go" from their posts "for the good of the institutions involved." The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration's stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 21 May 10 - 12:41 PM ...more about the 255 NAS politically-motivated scientists: by WALTER E. WILLIAMS Syndicated columnist Stephen Dinan's Washington Times article "Climate Scientist to Fight Back at Skeptics," [March 5] tells of a forthcoming campaign that one global warmer said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics. "Climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of 'being treated like political pawns' and need to fight back ..." Part of their strategy is to form a nonprofit organization and use donations to run newspaper ads to criticize critics. Stanford professor and environmentalist Paul Erlich, in one of the e-mails obtained by the Washington Times said, "Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules." Professor Thomas Sowell's most recent book, "Intellectuals and Society," has a quote from Eric Hoffer, "One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation." Environmentalist Professor Paul Erlich, who's giving advice to the warmers, is an excellent example of Hoffer's observation. Ehrlich in his widely read 1968 book, "The Population Bomb," predicted, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." Erlich also predicted the earth's then-5 billion population would starve back to 2 billion people by 2025. In 1969, Dr. Erlich warned Britain's Institute of Biology, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Despite these asinine predictions, Erlich has won no less than 16 awards, including the 1980 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' highest award. Stanford University professor and environmentalist activist Stephen H. Schneider is another scientist involved in the warmer retaliation. In a 1989 Discover Magazine interview, Professor Schneider said, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Former Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth, now president of the United Nations Foundation, in 1990 said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Environmental activist predictions have been dead wrong. In National Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, "... the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." In the same issue, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization warned, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." George Woodwell's, founder of the Woods Hole Research Center, comments suggest that the warmers are gearing up for a big propaganda push. In one of his e-mails, Woodwell said that researchers have been ceding too much ground. He criticized Pennsylvania State University for their academic investigation of Professor Michael Mann, who wrote many of the e-mails leaked from the Britain's now disgraced Climate Research Unit. Stephen Dinan's Washington Times article reports, "In his e-mail, Mr. Woodwell acknowledged that he is advocating taking 'an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach' but said scientists have had their 'classical reasonableness' turned against them," adding, "'We are dealing with an opposition that is not going to yield to facts or appeals from people who hold themselves in high regard and think their assertions and data are obvious truths.'" Fortunately, for the American people, Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., is considering asking the Justice Department to investigate whether climate scientists who receive taxpayer-funded grants have falsified data. He has identified 17 taxpayer-supported scientists who have been major players in the global warming conspiracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 21 May 10 - 11:42 AM Within the last two weeks, a group of 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences came out with an unusually nasty attack on people they called "global warming deniers". If "the majority of scientists" support the "global warming alarmist" side, why did they get only 255 members to agree? The National Academy of Sciences has at least 2000 active members in the U.S. The ones mentioned represent only about 12% of total. Just for fun, I checked the background of six of the 255 listed. They were called "some of the most esteemed climate scientists in the country", but the ones I checked were an entomologist, an anthropologist, a research biologist, a member of Dr. Leaky's archiology team, ect. No climate experts at all in my random sample. What they represnt are Left-wing activists who see GW as reinforcing all their political beliefs about business, Capitalism, and a host of other issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Stringsinger Date: 21 May 10 - 09:51 AM OK you global warming deniers. You can go on ignoring the majority of scientists who know what they're talking about or you can go back to the Flat Earth Society. You can ignore gravity and the Heliocentric view of the world, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 21 May 10 - 07:24 AM Of course it's due to man made gases. And the ones responsible, the big polluters, have emitted a global info campaign to the contrary (easier than having to clean up their act). and the world's flat.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 20 May 10 - 08:41 PM beardedbruce Yet you still claim it is all due to man-made greenhouse gasses. Do I? Please show me where I have made any such claim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 10 - 07:31 PM Ebbie, The temperature increase of the wildest claims is just a few degrees over the next hundred years- I think Midstate NY will be more than cool enough. Flooding is more of a problem, so I am moving up a thousand feet or so ( MD coastal plain to Mohawk Vally ( Susquehanna headwaters) The largest rise in sea level ( if the ice melts EVERYWHERE) is under 8 ft. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 20 May 10 - 07:28 PM Bruce, I have never heard anyone claim that it's "all due to manmade greenhouse gasses'. That has never been the contention, rather, we talk about the people-caused exacerbation of what may be a natural cycle. Conceivably the natural cycle was/is survivable, man's added effects may not be. And I don't think that anywhere in New York state will be far enough north... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 10 - 07:19 PM Snail, Changes to the climates of Mars and Jupiter, as well as the Earth. Martian icecaps are observed to be melting, for the first time in history ( several hundred years of observations) The Red spot on Jupiter has recently been changing, for the first time in 3 to 4 hundred years. In addition, there has been a major change in that a whole band has disappeared. Yet you still claim it is all due to man-made greenhouse gasses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 20 May 10 - 07:14 PM beardedbruce Previously - If the sun, which is a variable star, has changed t's output, as all evidence indicates, it is a waste of effort, and futile, to expect any changes in MAN-MADE greenhouse gases to STOP CLIMATE CHANGE Later - Also, since we have accurate data on solar output only over the last 35 years or so, and several solar cycles are thought to be 100- 600 year cycles, the conclusion thst there is no correlation is a bit... premature? Er, so what is the evidence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Joe Offer Date: 20 May 10 - 06:46 PM What was offensive, TIA? Did you think something was deleted? The only posts deleted from this thread were no-name Guest posts. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 May 10 - 06:29 PM Wow. Somebody found that offensive?!? I was even logged in as me. Oh well, at least I don't SHOUT in every post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 10 - 06:02 PM 1300. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 10 - 06:01 PM "are you suggesting that everyone, residents and businesses, should be forced to leave coastal cities and move farther north, hopscotching over. into and among the people already there " BTW, I've bought property in upstate NY ( 300+ miles north, and inland) to build into a home to retire to in 14 years. I don't believe in FORCING anyone else- but I will take steps for my own safety |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 10 - 05:32 PM Ebbie, And if it is going to happen in 50 years, wouldn't it be a good idea to look at it NOWE, and try to make it as easy as possible, instead of making falsde promises to prevent it, and cause a war in 30 years or so???? I DO NOT KNOW how to adapt- but at least I am willing to consider that we should be looking at the problem instead of ignoring it and hiding my head in the sand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 20 May 10 - 05:21 PM Bruce, by 'adapting', are you suggesting that everyone, residents and businesses, should be forced to leave coastal cities and move farther north, hopscotching over. into and among the people already there or just to install air conditioning or build subterranean cities or are you perhaps advocating installing domes over cities or all of the above? Or do you think that buying more shorts and sandals would do it? Some continents, of course, will have to be abandoned and the people of the north will have to move over to accommodate the influx of the millions coming in. Fortunately, that will mean lots of jobs. It's going to be fun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 May 10 - 03:52 PM No Bruce. You are wrong (not entirely, but you are conflating and obscuring very cleverly). But I am not going to correct you. Your use of capitals makes you too annoying to converse with. And, I don't need to prove my point to you. I get to prove it another batch of students during the summer term, and that will have a far larger effect on the futrue of Earth than wasting time responding to your shouting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 10 - 02:36 PM Also, since we have accurate data on solar output only over the last 35 years or so, and several solar cycles are thought to be 100- 600 year cycles, the conclusion thst there is no correlation is a bit... premature? WHen you show me solar output values from , say the last 1200 years, THEN you can try to claim the solar output is not significant. Good Luck! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 10 - 02:31 PM No, I have been working with satellite data since 1978, and have some idea of what it is saying. The point is that IF GW was a problem, the PRIORITY should be to ADAPT to it. IF there is addition resources to waste, THEN we can work on possible means to reduce it- BUT UNTIL we have insured the saftey of PEOPLE we are wasting effort to try to prevent the tide from coming in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 20 May 10 - 02:26 PM beardedbruce "However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. " Thirteen minutes to find one line that suited your position while totally ignoring everything else. Impressive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 10 - 01:50 PM "However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. " 1975... Gee, that is when we STARTED to get accurate SOLAR FLUX data from spacecraft. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE it to earlier, Earth-based measurements? You have changes the instruments, and have to recalibrate to make any statements such as you are putting forward. I have yet to see any serious look at why the DATA being used DOES NOT reflect the solar output, after 1150 years of doing so- The CO2 increase FOLLOWS the increase, and the increase itself is based on bogus values ( weather stations that 40 years ago were in an open field, and have been in a bank parking lot for the last 30 years or so, etc.) IF THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING, why isn't ANYONE trying to ADAPT to it? ALL that the Politicions are doing is saying they can stop it IF we just do what they say. |
