quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

Pollux, I think you slightly misread that line of mine you quoted. Note the word "anthropogenic". The syllogism I am presenting is not "#1, therefore union(#2, #3, #4)" I am starting with premise #2. The reason I am comfortable starting there is - as I linked to - that every major US and international scientific body has arrived at this conclusion. I do not say (or have not meant to) that every last credentialled scientist on the planet agrees that we are driving most/all of the recent warming. Do you have any idea how unprecedented that would be, to have thousands (or tens of thousands) of scientists in lockstep on something fairly complex? Cripes, there are still reputable geologists (well, at least one at Cornell named Gold) who believe that oil isn't compressed and heated prehistoric life, and that it is still being created in the earth.

quote:

Do you know why there isn't a counterpart wiki page to your "dissenters" page?

quote:

It's because it already exists in another form - it's called the collective database of peer reviewed geological and atmospheric literature of the past decade. To put the names of the people whose research (and informed reviews) agreed with the current consensus (which their findings helped arrive at, of course), would take you several minutes to download with a DSL line.

quote:

I never said that Lindzen didn't have a credible background. I did say that he was getting consulting fees from the oil companies. Alternet often just reposts mainstream articles, so I didn't bother to look for a bigger source. I realize it's not your FoxNews, but perhaps PBS will be received better. You're going to have to accuse them of not just a liberal bias, but flat-out fabrication. (They actually source others, but the Harper's story seems to be subscription-only.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Affiliations & Funding: Dr. Lindzen has claimed in Newsweek and elsewhere that his funding comes exclusively from government sources, but he does not seem to include speaking fees and other personal compensation in this statement. Ross Gelbspan, who did some of the first reporting on climate skeptics' links to industry, wrote in Harper's Magazine in 1995: "[Lindzen] charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.

quote:

EldroRolod
WHO DECIDED THAT THE CURRENT AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH IS THE OPTIMAL TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IT WHERE IT IS?  Some liberal tree hugger, I suppose. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: EldroRolod

I'll throw my two cents into the ring!  LOL  not sure why...  mostly because I'm not a scientist, but you don't have to be one to know that the global warming issue is mostly driven by wealth and the desire for the UN to tax the US and redistribute the wealth elsewhere in the world.  The UN IPCC panel was made up of 400 scientist from around the world who reached a consensus on the issue.  Do you have any idea how many scientists there are in the world?  400 doesn't even count as a percentage, let alone a consensus.  In contrast, 19,000 (present for one conference) signed a petition in opposition to the science used to determine the IPCCs finding.  Not to mention that many of the scientists originally involved in the IPCC quit because politics, not science, was guiding their research.  Much of the input data was edited, changed, or left out if it didn't fit into the political viewpoint of the UN.  It's all a sham.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of this planet knows that the average temperature has been much higher in the past than it has been now, as well as much colder.  Every geologist knows that the earth is currently between ice-ages.  Yes, another one will come eventually, just like several have before.  The earths currently stable climate has occurred in a blink of an eye as far as the earths life is concerned, only the last 10,000 years, and is not, and never was, expected to last forever.

Did you know North America used to be tropical?  Did you know that the desert that covers egypt used to be a wet and tropical environment?  There were no SUVs around thousands of years ago to mess any of that up.  It just happens.  The earths climate has been changing continuously since the earth began.  Its a fact, its irrefutable, you can't stop it, it won't let you, and for anyone to assume that we tiny humans can make this ancient planet do anything it doesn't want to do is not only arrogant, but ignorant.

Climatologists have only been tracking global temperatures for about 100 years.  Their methods have not been reliable at best and are questionable at worst.  Which explains why some temperature sensors they use are located in unnaturally hot areas, like near exhaust vents on large AC units on rooftops, etc.  This so called melting arctic ice that will kill us all.. LOL  (trying to do my best Al Gore)  Wasn't always there in the first place.  They've found evidence of civilization in some of the areas just recently revealed by the retreating ice.  Who decided the ice had to be there for us all to not die?  Some liberal tree hugger, I suppose.

WHO DECIDED THAT THE CURRENT AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH IS THE OPTIMAL TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IT WHERE IT IS?  Some liberal tree hugger, I suppose.  During the time of the dinosaurs, the CO2 level in the atmosphere was higher than we could ever even intentionally make it due to volcanic activity.  The earth was hot, humid, tropical, and covered in lush, heavy vegitation.  Everyone was happy, fat, and grew incredibly large, (dinosaurs I mean) in that environment.  It was perfect for the development of life..... well, until that damned asteroid killed everything. 

Besides, .....  LOL  if we stop the earth from warming, most of us will die during the next ice age, or when the continents collide again and create the next super continent.  Oh, you didn't know that was happening?  LOL  Stick around for a couple billion years.  It's factual and inevitable.  A couple billion years after that, our entire galaxy is set to collide with our sister galaxy and form a massive super galaxy...  but, oh yeah, in the process, matter as we know it will be crushed and destroyed and remade into something new.  This is also factual, inevitable, and unstoppable.

Stop being afraid of things that are natural and temporary!  All life is both.  If you really want something to worry about, look out your window...  watch the news...  read something for christ's sake.  There is enough right here, right now, to keep you busy being afraid for the rest of your fearful, and considerably less enjoyable, life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux
Hey, 1.3 billion Christians can't be wrong.

quote:


But one does exist -- the one you cite in the OP. The link I posted was in the reference section of it. They are the yin & yang of the argument.

quote:


This is not a defense of your arguments in opposition to Lindzen's views.

quote:


And this claim that Lindzen is somehow in the pocket of Big Oil (insert scary leftwing music) is just... laughable, as anyone with the ability to see beyond the confines of alternet (puh-leeeze) can easily find out for themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EldroRolod

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of this planet knows that the average temperature has been much higher in the past than it has been now, as well as much colder. Every geologist knows that the earth is currently between ice-ages. Yes, another one will come eventually, just like several have before. The earths currently stable climate has occurred in a blink of an eye as far as the earths life is concerned, only the last 10,000 years, and is not, and never was, expected to last forever.

Did you know North America used to be tropical? Did you know that the desert that covers egypt used to be a wet and tropical environment? There were no SUVs around thousands of years ago to mess any of that up. It just happens. The earths climate has been changing continuously since the earth began. Its a fact, its irrefutable, you can't stop it, it won't let you, and for anyone to assume that we tiny humans can make this ancient planet do anything it doesn't want to do is not only arrogant, but ignorant.

Climatologists have only been tracking global temperatures for about 100 years. Their methods have not been reliable at best and are questionable at worst. Which explains why some temperature sensors they use are located in unnaturally hot areas, like near exhaust vents on large AC units on rooftops, etc. This so called melting arctic ice that will kill us all.. LOL (trying to do my best Al Gore) Wasn't always there in the first place. They've found evidence of civilization in some of the areas just recently revealed by the retreating ice. Who decided the ice had to be there for us all to not die? Some liberal tree hugger, I suppose.

WHO DECIDED THAT THE CURRENT AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH IS THE OPTIMAL TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IT WHERE IT IS? Some liberal tree hugger, I suppose. During the time of the dinosaurs, the CO2 level in the atmosphere was higher than we could ever even intentionally make it due to volcanic activity. The earth was hot, humid, tropical, and covered in lush, heavy vegitation. Everyone was happy, fat, and grew incredibly large, (dinosaurs I mean) in that environment. It was perfect for the development of life..... well, until that damned asteroid killed everything.

Besides, ..... LOL if we stop the earth from warming, most of us will die during the next ice age, or when the continents collide again and create the next super continent. Oh, you didn't know that was happening? LOL Stick around for a couple billion years. It's factual and inevitable. A couple billion years after that, our entire galaxy is set to collide with our sister galaxy and form a massive super galaxy... but, oh yeah, in the process, matter as we know it will be crushed and destroyed and remade into something new. This is also factual, inevitable, and unstoppable.

Stop being afraid of things that are natural and temporary! All life is both. If you really want something to worry about, look out your window... watch the news... read something for christ's sake. There is enough right here, right now, to keep you busy being afraid for the rest of your fearful, and considerably less enjoyable, life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

Just learn how to pronounce "pomme frites".

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux
Hey, 1.3 billion Christians can't be wrong.

I'm actually little afraid to go there with you. I hope that was a lighthearted injection.

quote:

quote:


But one does exist -- the one you cite in the OP. The link I posted was in the reference section of it. They are the yin & yang of the argument.

Great. So we have organizations representing tens of thousands of researchers on the consensus side, versus the 25 or 30 individuals I think I counted on your dissenters page (several of whom I've shown to have monetary conections to oil - granted that doesn't necessarily make them disingenuous, but it often does - in any field). Let me know when you find 100% consensus on something on this planet of 7 billion people.

quote:

quote:


This is not a defense of your arguments in opposition to Lindzen's views.

You're right. It was a direct response to your refutation of his oil connections.

quote:

quote:


And this claim that Lindzen is somehow in the pocket of Big Oil (insert scary leftwing music) is just... laughable, as anyone with the ability to see beyond the confines of alternet (puh-leeeze) can easily find out for themselves.

I'm sorry if my tone bothers you. I get a little tired of people who come on here (or other forums) stating dogmatically some specious canard that "disproves" manmade global warming, which they almost always heard misquoted on some rightwing radio show from someone who hasn't the foggiest idea about science (I have a mental list of them, I call them the Rotating Roster of Red Herrings). I have come to group them with a broad brush into the "clueless captive" bin. Some of your other political comments on here led me to think that you might get your news that way. And frankly, with all due respect, your belief that this is all still in some sort of nip-and-tuck could-go-either-way debate does make me think you are intelligent and educated (obviously) but also deeply immersed in some sort of highly conservative enclave (familial, social and/or professional) that has insulated you from... well, the last five to ten years (though if you worked on Landsat 7 data you had to be in the neighborhood, at least).

As for your family, I have met some highly educated people in (non climatology) fields who still think the thing is a hoax. They are almost always extremely right wing in political perspective (I mean several sigmas out there on the bell curve tail - even more conservative than I am liberal). They read mainly hard-right news, and their eyes and memory gravitate to whatever confirms their prejudices and validates their desires (no they're not the only ones guilty of that - it's a growing problem these days). They don't want to change their lifestyles, especially if the need to has been brought about by liberals who happened to be on the side of the science. There's chagrin at having pooh-poohed this all through the 90s, there's personal political prejudice and most of all reluctance to change -- all fueling the need to disbelieve. And there are plenty of websites willing to cater to them, who themselves are battling those same internal conflicts.

I'm glad to hear that you have a science background, and it sounds like you're pretty familiar with vocabulary and concepts related to this. I urge you then to drop in to the next large climate-related professional conference. You can often casually walk in to a poster session without registering (especially if it's in a hotel). Strike up a few conversations about the "open question on whether we are driving most of the recent temperature increases". Watch closely for their facial reactions. You're going to get a bunch of uncomfortable, avoidant gestures as they look from side-to-side thinking, "oh god, one of these, how do they get in here, and how do I get rid of this guy without outright insulting him, telling him that he's ten years behind? I hate this part..." until another curious attendee walks up to his poster and saves him from having to say something blunt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

Alright, back here for a few minutes. First the McIntyre thing. It sounds like we are ultimately going to agree to disagree on this one, but I think you, that blog, and the Herald are making a mountain out of molehill. The bottom line was next to meaningless scientifically (you acknowledge that, I realize). According to the realclimate.org page, the people who worked with Hansen graciously thanked him for the heads-up and credited him. Is it that he did not call a press conference about the changed US data point, or make it the topic of the keynote address at the next big meeting?

quote:

As for the "secrecy" (and keep in mind that the Herald is Boston's right-leaning tabloid - literally I mean, their format looks and folds like one, and its reputation isn't the same as the Globe's) it just does scream to me exaggeration to provide fodder for the followers of the "poor suppressed truthtellers of the Climate Change Hoax". Both the blog and the editorial make reference to some "codes" that Hansen supposedly absconded to Brazil with. I have to admit that I don't know what kind of "codes" they are talking about. Perhaps you do. Are they talking about computer code (i.e., programs), conversion factors from the one system to the other, position codes for coordinates in the measurement grid? What sort of nefarious thing could Hansen possibly be hiding here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

(Just to save me some time, Pollux we seem to be on opposite sides of this, but would you at least concede that ER's rambling about changes on geologic time scales are wildly irrelevant to the short-term temperature increase discussion? I suspect you at least see that.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

Hey, 1.3 billion Christians can't be wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

Hey, 1.3 billion Christians can't be wrong.

Thank you for letting the rest of us know that if 1.3 billion Christians told you to jump off a bridge, you would.

Sinergy

quote:

No, let's go there.  Let's debate Christianity.  I'll spot you all 1.3bn believers, and I'll take 25-30 atheists of my choosing.  Let's see if you'll put your money where your ad populum reasoning is.