See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: No smoking hot spot
Source:
The Australian
URL Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a ... /0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Published: Jul 18, 2008
Author: David Evans
Post Date: 2008-07-18 13:33:59 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 1791
Comments: 126
David Evans | July 18, 2008 I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts: 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot. Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming. 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling. 4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance. The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise. The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
No smoking hot spot
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
Two out of three ain't so bad.
We have just discovered an important note from space ... In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? ... "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
ping
Fox News Channel is the television version of Free Republic
Ah yes, the same "journal" that published the rants of some fool who claimed we were heading into global cooling because he claimed there were only two sunspots this year, where there had been close to or a little over a hundred from January up to the day he wrote the article. He also forgot to mention that we are at the minimum point in the solar cycle, where it was EXPECTED that there would be very little activity. I'd like to see a respected group of scientists make the claim that this present author makes. I don't believe the rants of those who are biased in favor of their pet theory.
So, do you dispute the evidence presented or simply wish to disparage personally people who hold a contrary viewpoint? You know my point of view - I am a Missouri kind of guy. I don't jump on any bandwagon just because "everybody else is on board". Does that include the proponents of Global Warming?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I'd believe a team of NASA scientists before I'd believe a random quack that collects his pay from Exxon/Mobil.... The source you are quoting from is known for it's pro big-oil stance, and offers a biased view on things with little or no valid scientific evidence to back up its positions.
Uh, WHAT evidence?
Excellent article. And the man is correct--the burden of proof is, or should be, on those who posit the theory, not those who doubt the validity of what appears to be a swindle that is making Al Gore a very wealthy man.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. There's plenty. How about ice cores that show CO2 ALWAYS follows temperature? BTW there is NO evidence of AGW. None. Remember correlation does not equal causation. There has been some correlation with recent warming and CO2 increase but there has also been correlation between recent warming and an active sun. The clincher comes when you look at the recent cooling. Despite continued increases in CO2 you have cooling temps. There is still the correlation between a quiescent sun and cooler temps. It's the science you should be looking at, not who pays the paycheck. I know one of the scientists you disparage as having been paid by an oil company was a consultant for them in an area having nothing to do with oil or science for that matter. I guess government lackies are more trust worthy though.
Sadly their "proof" is fading like sun spots.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's plenty. How about ice cores that show CO2 ALWAYS follows temperature? BTW there is NO evidence of AGW. None. Remember correlation does not equal causation. There has been some correlation with recent warming and CO2 increase but there has also been correlation between recent warming and an active sun. That is exactly the point among others. The ice cores all show two things. Historically higher levels of CO2 in the atmospheric mix. (Which actually has a variety of beneficial effects such as faster plant growth and an INCREASE in Oxygen levels resulting from plants metabolizing CO2 and giving off an increased amount of waste i.e., OXYGEN.) And the time lag between CO2 level increases and warming temperatures which shows CO2 level increases trailing global temperature increases. We know from both the Geologic and the Paleontologic records that the earth has, at different eras, sustained a much higher average global temperature. Atmospheric Chemist J. E. Lovelock in the "Gaia Hypothesis" has suggested, and produced evidence to support it (which really annoyed Global Warming advocates) that the earth is a self correcting system which fluctuates between different points in an equilibrium range. There is no sound evidence linking CO2 levels and global warming. There are models and theories but nothing which proves it beyond the hypothesis level. From what I have been reading as of late the numbers of scientists willing to speak out against the global warming hysteria appears to be increasing. Global Warming is an UNPROVED hypothesis.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
The author of the article makes that CLAIM, but provides ZERO evidence to back up his claim. Try again? The clincher comes when you look at the recent cooling. A) A short term trend is irrelevant and has nothing to do with long term trends. It's the science you should be looking at, not who pays the paycheck. Try taking your own advice.
The atomic bomb was just a theory before they actually put one together and blew it up.
Oh, so your "consultant" friend who works on the RNC hit team who's resume includes leading the swift boat attacks agaisnt Kerry, who has also shilled for big oil, and who gathers dirt for Rush Limburgh can be considered an honest sort of guy who cares about his fellow citizens, while scientists at the FDA that tried to warn people against Aspartame, and the EPA scientists that were against water fluoridation, they are "government lackeys", eh?
And even MORE sadly people such as you try to misrepresent the current situation by claiming the sky is falling because there are fewer sunspots than usual, while failing to mention that it is NORMAL for there to be fewer at this time as we are at the MINIMUM point in the solar cycle. Now what sort of person would misrepresent scientific data in order to scare people and/or pacify them with false conclusions and misleading statements, eh? You are doing exactly that which you accuse NASA scientists of doing, except in reality they ARE concerned for mankind, whereas YOU are concerned about oil company profits. Do you get a commission on those?
Al Gore. That b@$tard is making a fortune on this global warming scam. And if he found out tomorrow that there would be more money in yammering about "the coming Ice Age" (which was what they were claiming in the 70's) you can bet your @$$ he would be on that bandwagon.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Now what sort of person would misrepresent scientific data in order to scare people and/or pacify them with false conclusions and misleading statements, eh? You are doing exactly that which you accuse NASA scientists of doing, except in reality they ARE concerned for mankind, whereas YOU are concerned about oil company profits. Do you get a commission on those? This from someone who has analyzed NASA's latest release Nasa’s announcement that there is nothing wrong with the sun needs in this frame a little investigation. (By the way how can sun be "wrong"?). Nasa says that "The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle." I assume that they mean past behavior by their "historic norms". To be able to assess the value of this claim I counted the length of the cycle minima beginning from the second month below 10 Wolfs to the second last month below 10 Wolfs. I compare this time frame to the cycle that is beginning. Below 1 year: 2 cycles (2 1766- and 18 1944-). 1.0-1.9 years: 12 cycles (includes all the five cycles 19-23 (1954-, … ,1996-). 2.0-2.9 years: 2 cycles (1 1755- and 17 1933-). The cycle 24 will be at least in this category, because in July 2008 the lull preceding the cycle 24 has lasted already 2.4 years. 3.0-3.9 years: 3 cycles (5 1798-, 12 1878- and 15 1913-). 4.0-4.9 years: 3 cycles (7 1823-, 13 1889- and 14 1901-). 5.0-5.9 years: none. 6.0-6.9 years: none. 7.1 years: cycle 6 (1810-). 1810 is the only year after 1713 that has been wholly spotless. In August 2008 there will be 16 cycles with shorter minima and 7 cycles with longer minima than the on-going minimum. Still more important is that the longer minima are in two consecutive groups: cycles 5-7 (Dalton minimum) and 12- 15 (1878-1913) and that all the cycles 16-23 (1923-1996) have shorter minima than will be due to the cycle 24. Nasa continues: "This report, that there’s nothing to report, is newsworthy because of a growing buzz in lay and academic circles that something is wrong with the sun." Probably Nasa means that our observations/hypotheses/theories, not the sun, is wrong. What is newsworthy is that since 1913 not one minimum has lasted as long as the on-going one. And the end is not in sight. What is newsworthy is that after a period of 76 years or one Gleissberg (1923-1996) of short minima we are back to periods like the 25-year Dalton (1798-1823) or the second part of the Maunder minimum (1675-1699) or the cycles 12-15 (1878-1913). The active part of the long minima cycles lasted 7-8 years and of the short minima cycles about 9 years. So there is a phase shift going on with the cycle 24 and that is what is newsworthy. The climate changes to cool and warm in step with the solar phase shifts. Nasa continues: "Decaying solar cycle 23 has so far lasted 142 months – well within the first standard deviation and thus not at all abnormal." (Why don’t they tell is their SD .95 or .98?). But in theory this is true in a mathematical sense, but unfortunately it has no relevance in this context. The reason is that we have here no socalled normal distribution, where you could use the standard deviation in a statistically and logically meaningful way. Instead we have here a series of phase shifts: 1798 (1796) to long minima, 1833 (1832) to short minima, 1878 (1876) to long minima, 1923 (1922) to short minima and now again (from 2005/2006) again to long minima. Nasa continues: "The current minimum is not abnormally low or long." But that’s not the point. The point is the ongoing phase shift with cycle 24. Nasa compares this minimum also with Maunder minimum ("the longest minimum on record"), which is not a valid comparison because the on-going minimum is between cycles (could be also between super-cycles, but that we can’t know) and the Maunder minimum was a super-minimum where we can (barely, but still) see five cycles. Nasa: "The quiet of 2008 is not the second coming of the Maunder Minimum, believes Hathaway. We have already observed a few sunspots from the next solar cycle, he says. This suggests the solar cycle is progressing normally." I take this as an overstatement. Three very tiny spots lasting 1-2 days during the last half year. Normal? Surely not. 10.7cm flux going down to some 65 during the same period. Normal? Maybe if we put together Maunder, Dalton and the hyper-active sun of the 1900’s. So this leads to the conclusion that however the sun behaves, it is normal. But there is really some point to that. The sun really behaves always normal (according to physical laws), but the various ways and many surprises in which it shows its normality is really fascinating. I'm not really sure if that is true or not, as I don't really pay Al Gore much attention. How is he making a fortune?
When sunspot activity rises again later this year, what will be your next most favorite scare tactic?
That's a crock of shit BTW... There's nothing all that remarkable about the current cycle. Why are you and your pals so desparate to push this "global cooling" idea of yours?
That is a total and complete lie. Here's the current year's daily sunspot numbers. As anyone can see, there have been far more than just THREE. Do you really think you can pull off your scams here this easily? From ftp://ftp.ngd c.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2008
DAILY SUNSPOT NUMBERS 2008
===============================================================================
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr Day
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 11 0 16 0 0 2008 01
7 9 0 9 0 0 2008 02
7 9 7 9 0 0 2008 03
12 8 0 7 7 0 2008 04
10 0 0 0 8 9 2008 05
11 0 8 0 0 0 2008 06
11 0 0 0 0 0 2008 07
9 0 0 0 0 0 2008 08
0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 09
8 0 9 0 0 9 2008 10
8 0 0 0 0 8 2008 11
0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 12
0 0 0 7 8 8 2008 13
0 0 0 7 0 0 2008 14
0 0 7 0 9 7 2008 15
0 0 7 0 14 7 2008 16
0 0 7 0 12 7 2008 17
0 0 0 0 15 8 2008 18
0 0 0 8 11 7 2008 19
0 0 0 0 7 8 2008 20
0 0 0 0 0 8 2008 21
0 0 0 8 0 8 2008 22
0 0 0 8 0 0 2008 23
0 0 19 7 0 0 2008 24
0 8 32 0 0 0 2008 25
0 8 36 0 0 0 2008 26
0 8 35 0 0 0 2008 27
0 0 34 0 0 0 2008 28
0 0 30 0 0 0 2008 29
8 31 0 0 0 2008 30
8 25 0 2008 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4 2.1 9.3 2.9 2.9 3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values are preliminary after Dec 07.
You still don't understand the concept of cycle 23 and 24 do you?
If you are FormerLurker you have a shit fit.
God is always good!
The guy is a troll for the global warming scam. He must be on the payroll. No one would defend such utter garbage unless they were.
God is always good!
A person like you?
God is always good!
Al Gore is not the only one making money off of the global warming scam, many scientists are too. Anyone that thinks that just because a person has the knowledge and intelligence to be scientist that they would not put money above the truth is nuts. Scientists are no more moral than any other person is.
God is always good!
Are you serious? You should pay attention to crooks and thieves who tell you the sky is falling but they will keep any of the big pieces from hitting you if you will just make an "investment" in one of their companies or buy some of their bs "carbon credits." LOL! As NewsBusters reported here, here, and here, there are huge dollars to be made from global warming alarmism. However, conceivably no one is better positioned to financially benefit from this scam than Dr. Global Warming himself, former Vice President Al Gore, a fact that the media will surely not share with Americans any time soon. Yet, if America’s press would take some time out of their busy schedules covering the earth-shattering details surrounding Anna Nicole Smith’s demise, they might find a deliciously inconvenient truth about the soon-to-be-Dr. Gore that is significantly more fascinating and diabolical than anything likely to emerge from that courtroom in Broward County, Florida. As reported by Dan Riehl (emphasis mine throughout): Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years. Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be all over this tonight? Regardless, that was just the tip of the questionably melting iceberg as reported by Bill Hobbs in Nashville, Tennessee: [H]ow Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management: Gore is chairman of the firm and, 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. Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he’s buying carbon offsets, he’s actually purchasing these investments from himself. Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science. Isn’t that special? Yet, it is not clear that Gore’s money is going to purchase carbon offsets at all. Riehl reported: Here's a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore's control. And, as you'll see below, Gore's selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well. According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns. More at Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. And many of them are completely immoral. They are just people, some of them good and some not so good.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Don't play that game with me. I know, and you know, the impression the following sentence conveys; "Three very tiny spots lasting 1-2 days during the last half year." Most people could care less if it's solar cycle 0 or 999,999, the words, "Three very tiny spots lasting 1-2 days during the last half year", to most people mean ONLY THREE VERY TINY SPOTS DURING THE LAST SIX MONTHS. And you know, and I know, and I'd bet even RickyJ knows, that is ONE BIG HUGE F'ING LIE.
Fuck you pal. I bet you're taking money from AIPAC and the ADL, you certainly play the role of the forum Jew hater quite well. People that care about the safety of the world and the environment are your enemies, where you pretend to care about the future of America so much, yet loathe those that actually try to fix what is wrong. I bet you are one of those that posts on other forums against "Paultards" and suck up to Obama.
So what would you rather do, sell all your worldly possessions in order to put gas in your tank and heat (or cool) your house, then cry about what went wrong, or try to realize that by enriching those whose only concern in life is making MORE money will simply make those people richer, and the rest of us poorer. Those who are AGAINST alternative energy and power have an agenda, and that is to derail any serious consideration of those alternatives in order to ensure the oil companies will continue to monopolize the world's energy supply for the forseeable future. I truly believe that those scientists who are the pioneers in the global warming theory are simply reporting the facts, and have not taken sides on the issue due to politics or promises of future fortunes. When you look at exactly WHO IS behind the ANTI-global warming cabal however, you'll see those that DO stand to make enormous profits if the status quo stays the same. I don't buy into this "carbon credit" idea, and think there has to be better and more realistic solutions to the problem. But just because the solution isn't perfect, or that there are those who are trying to profit from the problem that confronts us, doesn't mean that there is no problem. So far, I've seen mostly bullshit and outright lies coming from global warming critics, yet have not seen ANYTHING like that coming from REAL scientists who have studied the matter over decades. I am also surprised and saddened that I have seen those I once trusted and thought of as friends behave in ways I wouldn't have expected. I would have thought the few people that that I've thought of as friends across both forums to be more skilled at discerning between facts and bullshit. Apparently I was mistaken.
I would rather not be taken in by Al Gore's stupid scam like so many have been. Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective I don't buy into this "carbon credit" idea, and think there has to be better and more realistic solutions to the problem. But just because the solution isn't perfect, or that there are those who are trying to profit from the problem that confronts us, doesn't mean that there is no problem. There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. If you look at who is pushing the AGW you will see the same folks who are pushing NAU and the NWO and for the same reasons. This has nothing to do with the environmrnt or saving the world. It has everything to do with global control.
So you're trying to tell us that the Rockefellar's and the other oil tychoons are NOT trying to bring us the NAU and the NWO? How is Dr. James Hansen involved with the NAU? What I HAVE noticed is that those who ARE involved with the NWO are painting their victims with the NWO brush, and projecting thier own crimes onto their targets.
And that is precisely what your pals are doing. He who controls the world's energy controls the world. The oil companies control the world's energy, so THEY are the ones who control the world. It is those oil companies that are the biggest critics of global warming, and it is they who pay "consultants" to spew their anti-global warming propaganda.
Global warming would have happened with or without Al Gore. Have you ever read about Dr. James Hansen?
I don't find an editorial from a UK newspaper to be valid scientific evidence.
No, I'm trying to tell you that is who is behind AGW. I've even pointed it out to you in web sites and articles yet you refuse to see. You have bought into the NWO kool-aid with AGW. And yes, Hansen is not righteous in this by any stretch. Understand, it is not the evil oil companies against the environment and science. It never has been. That's the NWO disinformation you are swallowing hook line and sinker. AGW is part of Agenda 21, funded and pushed by the same foundations and for the same reasons.
BTW, here's a little info on the author of that editorial you linked; From Wikipedia You can tell me martians are behind it, but that doesn't mean I have to believe you, especially when you provide ZERO evidence. You have bought into the NWO kool-aid with AGW You're the one selling the kool-aid here sweetie, and I'm not buying it.
Comments (41 - 126) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSoon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created.
The Martians plan to throw a dance for all the human race
#2. To: farmfriend, FormerLurker (#0)
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. ...
#3. To: Original_Intent, *libertarians* (#2)
#4. To: Original_Intent (#2)
Source: The Australian
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#5. To: FormerLurker, farmfriend (#4)
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
I'd like to see a respected group of scientists make the claim that this present author makes. I don't believe the rants of those who are biased in favor of their pet theory.
#6. To: Original_Intent (#5)
Does that include the proponents of Global Warming?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#7. To: Original_Intent (#5)
So, do you dispute the evidence presented
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#8. To: farmfriend (#0)
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Lord Acton
#9. To: FormerLurker, Original_Intent (#7)
Uh, WHAT evidence?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#10. To: James Deffenbach (#8)
And the man is correct--the burden of proof is, or should be, on those who posit the theory, not those who doubt the validity
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#11. To: farmfriend, FormerLurker, all (#9)
Uh, WHAT evidence?
#12. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent (#9)
How about ice cores that show CO2 ALWAYS follows temperature?
B) We are the solar cycle MINIMUM, so cooler temperatures can be expected.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#13. To: Original_Intent (#11)
There are models and theories but nothing which proves it beyond the hypothesis level.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#14. To: farmfriend (#9)
It's the science you should be looking at, not who pays the paycheck. I know one of the scientists you disparage as having been paid by an oil company was a consultant for them in an area having nothing to do with oil or science for that matter. I guess government lackies are more trust worthy though.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#15. To: farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#10)
Sadly their "proof" is fading like sun spots.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#16. To: FormerLurker (#15)
Now what sort of person would misrepresent scientific data in order to scare people
Lord Acton
#17. To: FormerLurker, James Deffenbach, Original_Intent (#15)
And even MORE sadly people such as you try to misrepresent the current situation by claiming the sky is falling because there are fewer sunspots than usual, while failing to mention that it is NORMAL for there to be fewer at this time as we are at the MINIMUM point in the solar cycle.
The cycle 24 will start a new phase shift in the sun.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#18. To: James Deffenbach (#16)
Al Gore. That b@$tard is making a fortune on this global warming scam.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#19. To: farmfriend (#17)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#20. To: farmfriend (#17)
What is newsworthy is that since 1913 not one minimum has lasted as long as the on-going one.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#21. To: farmfriend (#17)
Three very tiny spots lasting 1-2 days during the last half year. Normal?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#22. To: FormerLurker (#21)
That is a total and complete lie. Here's the current year's daily sunspot numbers. As anyone can see, there have been far more than just THREE. Do you really think you can pull off your scams here this easily?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#23. To: farmfriend, FormerLurker (#0)
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
#24. To: farmfriend (#22)
You still don't understand the concept of cycle 23 and 24 do you?
#25. To: FormerLurker (#15)
Now what sort of person would misrepresent scientific data in order to scare people and/or pacify them with false conclusions and misleading statements, eh?
#26. To: James Deffenbach (#16)
Al Gore. That b@$tard is making a fortune on this global warming scam. And if he found out tomorrow that there would be more money in yammering about "the coming Ice Age" (which was what they were claiming in the 70's) you can bet your @$$ he would be on that bandwagon.
#27. To: FormerLurker (#18)
I'm not really sure if that is true or not, as I don't really pay Al Gore much attention. How is he making a fortune?
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...
AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC
Lord Acton
#28. To: RickyJ (#26)
Scientists are no more moral than any other person is.
Lord Acton
#29. To: farmfriend (#22)
You still don't understand the concept of cycle 23 and 24 do you?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#30. To: RickyJ (#24)
The guy is a troll for the global warming scam. He must be on the payroll.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#31. To: James Deffenbach (#27)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#32. To: FormerLurker (#31)
(Edited)
So what would you rather do
Lord Acton
#33. To: FormerLurker (#31)
(Edited)
When you look at exactly WHO IS behind the ANTI-global warming cabal however, you'll see those that DO stand to make enormous profits if the status quo stays the same.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#34. To: farmfriend (#33)
If you look at who is pushing the AGW you will see the same folks who are pushing NAU and the NWO
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#35. To: farmfriend (#33)
It has everything to do with global control.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#36. To: James Deffenbach (#32)
I would rather not be taken in by Al Gore's stupid scam like so many have been.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#37. To: James Deffenbach (#32)
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#38. To: FormerLurker (#34)
So you're trying to tell us that the Rockefellar's and the other oil tychoons are NOT trying to bring us the NAU and the NWO?
What I HAVE noticed is that those who ARE involved with the NWO are painting their victims with the NWO brush, and projecting thier own crimes onto their targets.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#39. To: James Deffenbach (#32)
Carter is a prominent global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming [1]. A March 2007 article by Sydney Morning Herald environmental reporter Wendy Frew said that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [2] While Carter is a frequent commentator on climate change, he has no published peer reviewed papers providing evidence to discredit the climate change consensus.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#40. To: farmfriend (#38)
No, I'm trying to tell you that is who is behind AGW.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
.
.
.