Snow in Dallas in March Global Warming

[frankeaton]

I have burned 1/8 of a rick of wood in 3 weeks, normally only 2-3 fires a year, usually in early January

[okstatepike]

Fuel on the fire: recent Canadian study found that the snow coverage of North America has increased over the last few years (i'll try to find a link...)

[GoPokes82sMom]

we are half way through our fourth cord of wood this winter

[panhandler62]

It has been a rough winter for many, but that is neither here nor there as regards the issue of global climate change. People keep wanting to make this a political issue but the Earth's climate really doesn't care about our politics.

I'm afraid it takes more than a single cold winter to refute general trends. People have short memories for such things (until they are being nostalgic) and tend to easily dismiss trends with spot data.

An overview from the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html)

Here is a brief (650 thousand years) look at CO2 concentrations:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2_concentrations-lg.gif

Here is 1100 years of temperture changes:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/surface_temps.gif

From here ( State of Knowledge (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html) ) we get the following:

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere.
Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.



No one wants to make major changes to our industrial infrastructure so it's easy to accept compelling rhetoric that argues off of spot data or "just so" scenarios, but the long term data and hard science unquestionably demonstrate that we are beginning to have a profound impact on the global climate.

[bleedorange]

No one wants to make major changes to our industrial infrastructure so it's easy to accept compelling rhetoric that argues off of spot data or "just so" scenarios, but the long term data and hard science unquestionably demonstrate that we are beginning to have a profound impact on the global climate.

You can certainly have that opinion, but this professor, along with plenty others say otherwise. The data does anything BUT demonstrate that man has a profound impact on the global climate.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/smaxwell/Page_4221/ImprimisAug07.pdf

[PokesFanatic]

It all hardly matters as all three remaining viable presedential candidates favor a cap and trade system to deal with emissions. With the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, we will very likely this sort of system in place (or at least voted on) by 2012.

[okstatepike]

Cap and trade is a terrible idea for our economy. There are better ways to go about fixing things than that... To be completely honest I could care less about "climate change" how about focusing on pollution control (real polution, not the stuff you and I breath out...) and actual conservation? I think the "environmental lobby" is too powerful and too wacko most of the time...

[panhandler62]

You can certainly have that opinion, but this professor, along with plenty others say otherwise. The data does anything BUT demonstrate that man has a profound impact on the global climate.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/smaxwell/Page_4221/ImprimisAug07.pdf

I agree with his stand against "chicken little" politics but his claim that there is no human impact is, at least in that paper, no more than a claim.

As you can see above; there is no question at all that global carbon dioxide concentrations are higher, by a significant margin, than any time in the last 600,000 years. You can also see that we are experiancing higher temps, overall, than any time in the last 1100.

We do have a number of cyclic conditions to consider as the Earth most certainly does have climatic variations.

In this graph of fluctuations taken from cores in Antartica you can clearly see that we are on a warming trend so whatever we do or do not do; it's going to get warmer for a while.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/domec/epica2d.jpg

There is no real question that we are impacting the situation and no real question that it is time to warm up anyway. The question in both cases is magnitude and more than a bit of an issue about throwing another log on the natural fire, as it were.

We need to avoid taking extream and iconoclast positions if we are going to make rational choices for our future. Screaming "It's not happening!" when it clearly is or "We're all gonna die!" when we probably won't is producing a mixture of policy denials and knee jerk legislation that is, respectively, trying to legislate the climate (I don't think it's listening) and doing something for action's sake with no real promisse of enacting genuine improvements.

[GoPokes83]

Global warming is a politicians dream come true. Tax something you cant see or measure, and pass laws on something that can't be changed.

Why is there no media coverage of the scientists who don't agree with the global warming alarmists. There is a huge conference going on in New York this week by those who disagree with the minority of scientists (That for whatever reason get the majority of the press) who insist that global warming is a fact, and is caused by man. http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/GrassrootPerspective/SkepticsConference020608.shtml
http://www.globalwarming.org/

[GoPokes82sMom]

Well, all this is way over my head. Keith's father spent the majority of his career researching this and working on it all over the world. He was in the Forest Service most of his career. Most of his work is in scientific papers in journals, not opinion papers on the internet. One of his big career accomplishments was the development of the system used to estimate fire danger. He called it the "fire danger, ground moisture rating system". After his death it was renamed the "fosberg scale".

Here's one of his last works: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/corvallis/mdr/mapss/fosbergetal1999.pdf

and here is another one: http://books.google.com/books?id=ng1xpeGCb74C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=fosberg+michael+climate&source=web&ots=eahXd0N2bJ&sig=NyEptf8Il62I_07xXMw8IWtu2PU&hl=en#PPA49,M1

another one: http://www.gcrio.org/library/1993/otareport/933801.pdf

one more: http://books.google.com/books?id=TOu4GmExgGAC&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=fosberg+michael+climate&source=web&ots=UlPJdaJ-vL&sig=ue2bC6YFCzNXicYVMTT42aR13jc&hl=en

Just thought I would enlighten some on the subject. lol

[panhandler62]

Global warming is a politicians dream come true. Tax something you cant see or measure, and pass laws on something that can't be changed.

Why is there no media coverage of the scientists who don't agree with the global warming alarmists. There is a huge conference going on in New York this week by those who disagree with the minority of scientists (That for whatever reason get the majority of the press) who insist that global warming is a fact, and is caused by man. http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/GrassrootPerspective/SkepticsConference020608.shtml
http://www.globalwarming.org/

That looks a tad agenda driven to me. I'll give that one a miss, right along with the Al Gore book signings.

If we are going to start using numbers of scientists.. there is always this:
New Scientist (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/)

[GoPokes82sMom]

Sorry, found this: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/firecomp/INFO/fosbinfo.html

I goofed it was changed to the Fosberg Index, not scale.

[panhandler62]

As a correction to myself (since I rattled off some stuff to my darling and misrememberated some detail) here is the correct detail on one of my father's developments. (I actually helped, a little, on some of the experiiments.)

Fosberg Index (http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/firecomp/INFO/fosbinfo.html)

"The Fosberg Index, orginially called the Fire Weather Index (Fosberg, 1978), was created to meet management needs for timeliness of weather information and for a meaningful interpretation of the short time and close space weather impacts on fire management."

I goofed .. not her... always blame the source... lol

[GoPokes82sMom]

Or your bad spelling! :D

[bleedorange]

I agree with his stand against "chicken little" politics but his claim that there is no human impact is, at least in that paper, no more than a claim.

...as are any claims that say human impact is more than negligible.

[panhandler62]

What do you base that on?

We can directly measure the changes we are making to the atmosphere and to large scale micro-climes such as the Amazon and the Mississippi.

A Dry Horizon for the Amazon (http://scienceline.org/2007/06/27/ipcc_environment_amazon_philllips/)

Mississippi Delta
(http://www.ucsusa.org/gulf/gcplacesmis.html)

It's not just an issue of CO2 impact (significant as that is) but also the impact of large scale changes to specialized biosystems.

[bleedorange]

What do you base that on?

To me it's as simple as looking at your top chart that shows CO2 concentrations.

It seems to me that for the last 600,000 years, the peaks and valleys are EXTREMELY predictable.

A cliff diver would have no problem timing his jump to hit the high points of those waves.

[frankeaton]

and what about the effect of the cow manure in the Texas panhandle vs cars in the US. Heard it was greater but don't quote me on this:confused:

[panhandler62]

To me it's as simple as looking at your top chart that shows CO2 concentrations.

It seems to me that for the last 600,000 years, the peaks and valleys are EXTREMELY predictable.

A cliff diver would have no problem timing his jump to hit the high points of those waves.

I think you should go back and look again. The current CO2 concentration is about 30% higher than any time in the last 600,000 years.

You are thinking of the chart of interglacial temperture maximums.

[PokesFanatic]

It's not just an issue of CO2 impact (significant as that is) but also the impact of large scale changes to specialized biosystems.

This is a very important point that is almost always lost in the bickering that goes back and forth on this issue. There is the very real potential (it's actually beginning to occur now) that a slight rise in temperatures on any of several special geographic regions could trigger an even bigger greenhouse gas release than by our activity alone.

For example, the boreal soils (permafrost areas) are composed basically of a layer of topsoil covering a layer of ice that has long trapped old topsoil. A lot of this is from glacial and volcanic activities over time. As the permafrost melts, a tremendous buildup of CO2 (and I'm sure methane as well) is released from the decomposed organic material in the trapped topsoil. These types of inadvertent releases contribute to the climate 'feedbacks' that represent the most potentially damaging aspect of climate change. These feedbacks pose a threat of a 'snowball effect' on atmospheric CO2.

Sea beds, and as panhandler62 pointed out, river deltas and other geographic regions hold similar potentials.

I'm afraid this is a very real situation and the involvement of man on current gas concentrations is basically agreed upon by all but a few malcontent emeritus professors that seem to want to prolong their day in the sun. There are too many decent people that have dedicated their lives to its study and the overwhelming majority of them agree at least in part that man has had an effect on gas levels and that there is a potential of adverse climatic consequences. It all comes down to the net activities of man equating to a force of nature. At the rate I've seen our landscape change in my lifetime, I don't have a hard time believing that at all.

[okstatepike]

Here is what I have always wondered about those graphs that show the arctic temperatures CO2 correlation. Using economic charts as my guide (this is what I am most familiar) typically to show causation between one event and another the proposed cause usually shows trend movement ahead of the proposed effect's movement.

With these two items so tightly coupled, I'm not sure why everyone is so sure the causation is the CO2. Who is to say that temperature cycles (maybe affected by solar or geothermal activity?) are causing the CO2 increases?

I'm not an expert, but all that I have read makes me think no one knows with certainty what is happening and why. Yet our politicians and citizens are running around like chickens with their heads cut off to "fix" this thing that we are sure about. What scares me is how many people are ready to cause unintended harm to our economy when we already have plenty of challenges in the global marketplace....

[panhandler62]

That higher parital presures of CO2 increase the thermal load is not something we determine by comparing CO2 levels from ice cores. You can reproduce the effect in your kitchen (http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/greenhouse.html) if you want to.

If we reference the temperture graphic for the last 1100 years we can see the corolation amoung a variety of methods of tracking past temperture. CO2 levels, which are used (in part) to estimate past tempertures over long periods in trapped gasses in ice cores can be compared tothese other means of estimating tempertures and, as we can see, the general trend is quite representative.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/surface_temps.gif

I can't repeat my agreement enough that action, for action's sake, is a terrible mistake, but countering this "chicken little" mentality by pretending that we don't impact the environment is just as bad. Both extream veiws prevent rational analysis and planning.

The most significant ecological hallmark of our species is that we adapt our environment to suit us. We build structures, we build vehicles, we reshape bays, inlets, rivers and lakes, in short; we force the Earth to conform to our will. Where most other species are forced to adapt, we turn the game on its head and remake our surroundings to suit us.

As much as we bear the obvious responsibility in our intentional modifications to the environment, we need to keep a weather eye (so to speak) on our unintentional effects.

[FloridaPoke]

What do you base that on?

We can directly measure the changes we are making to the atmosphere and to large scale micro-climes such as the Amazon and the Mississippi.

A Dry Horizon for the Amazon (http://scienceline.org/2007/06/27/ipcc_environment_amazon_philllips/)

Mississippi Delta
(http://www.ucsusa.org/gulf/gcplacesmis.html)

It's not just an issue of CO2 impact (significant as that is) but also the impact of large scale changes to specialized biosystems.


And there are very credible scientists (Yale and Oxford included....both by the way liberal institutions) who say all of the above is bunk.

Here is the problem with ALL of the human CO2 zealots theories:

1. All credible scientists in the area admit that the warming trend we are seeing has as many has hundreds (and probably thousands) of variables.....and to cherry pick one out and give it significant weighting in statistical modeling without having a scientific basis for the added weighting....makes the modeling worthless. Numerous credible physicists have said if you weight any one of the variables, you should weight cosmic rays from outer space, and not by just a little. Other very credible oceanographer scientists have said there is much more empiracle data that says if you weight ANY variable heavier than another, it should be the Ocean's currents which cyclically change dramatically from time to time and are doing so now. All of these scientists have been silenced.

2. The worst case models say we will warm 3-5 degrees Centigrade over the next century, and that is enough to melt the polar ice caps and cause coastal areas to submerge into the sea. There is only one problem with that scare tactic theory. There is irrefutable proof that the earth was 8 degrees warmer than it is today in the year 1000 AD. Folks that is not that long ago.

3. There is irrefutable proof that Mother earth's global ecosystem temps go through fairly material cycles.

4. Creating a financial system (effectively an ability to pay or receive cash any way you cut it) based on carbon generation WILL 100% of the time punish those who are spending billions in capital expenditures in scrubbing technologies and benefit those who do not make those capital expenditures. Why, because the only way to globally measure such things is based on inputs......not on CO2 released. So, If I burn a 100 tons of coal, but I invest $500 million to scrub the air clean, I pay out the nose.....while the guy in Africa burns 75 tons of coal with no scrubbing capital expenditures gets my cash (solely on my 100 versus his 75) NOW THAT MAKES A SHIT LOAD OF SENSE DOESN'T IT?

People, this has been NOTHING BUT an attempt at a global redistribution of wealth. They can't create a global socialism tax system......so they create something in the name of Mother Earth to achieve the same aim.

And this isn't my opinion.....I wish it was.

GWB has taken unmerciful crap globally for his stance against this crap. He is made out to be the environmental devil (I know, my business is in Europe and I spend much of my time there). But saying No to this stuff has been his greatest achievement for which he'll probably never get credit. And if Obama or Clinton crumble to the political pressure led by Al Gore, God help us.

I am NOT against being environmentally sound and friendly. I believe conservation, alternative energy and self sufficiency through technology are absolutely critical. Not because of Mother Earth (while those initiatives won't hurt her), but because we will run out of fossil fuel possibly in my Daughters' lifetimes.

Peace, love and save Mother Earth (who I believe by the way has her own immune system and will probably take care of any man made problems [if there are any] on her own.....without Al Gore's nobel prize winning theories)

FP

[FloridaPoke]

That higher parital presures of CO2 increase the thermal load is not something we determine by comparing CO2 levels from ice cores. You can reproduce the effect in your kitchen (http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/greenhouse.html) if you want to.

If we reference the temperture graphic for the last 1100 years we can see the corolation amoung a variety of methods of tracking past temperture. CO2 levels, which are used (in part) to estimate past tempertures over long periods in trapped gasses in ice cores can be compared tothese other means of estimating tempertures and, as we can see, the general trend is quite representative.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/surface_temps.gif

I can't repeat my agreement enough that action, for action's sake, is a terrible mistake, but countering this "chicken little" mentality by pretending that we don't impact the environment is just as bad. Both extream veiws prevent rational analysis and planning.

The most significant ecological hallmark of our species is that we adapt our environment to suit us. We build structures, we build vehicles, we reshape bays, inlets, rivers and lakes, in short; we force the Earth to conform to our will. Where most other species are forced to adapt, we turn the game on its head and remake our surroundings to suit us.

As much as we bear the obvious responsibility in our intentional modifications to the environment, we need to keep a weather eye (so to speak) on our unintentional effects.

By the way, that temperature graph is bunk too, based on scientific modeling as there was no such thing as a thermometer then.

The irrefutable knowledge I wrote about above is based on Agricultural Anthropology. One of hundredso fo examples, Northern Ireland and Scotland are too cool by about 10 degrees (today) to grow wine....yet we know it was one of the largest wine growing regions in 1000 AD. Wine genetic varieties have not changed over that period in terms of hardyness to cool temps. Go figure this chart saying something else from math models with intentionally weighted variables.

[PokesFanatic]

The irrefutable knowledge I wrote about above is based on Agricultural Anthropology. One of hundredso fo examples, Northern Ireland and Scotland are too cool by about 10 degrees (today) to grow wine....yet we know it was one of the largest wine growing regions in 1000 AD. Wine genetic varieties have not changed over that period in terms of hardyness to cool temps. Go figure this chart saying something else from math models with intentionally weighted variables.

You should reference your above statement about not giving one of many variables too much weight. Assuming everything you typed is correct (you cited nothing, therefore I can draw no comparison) what leads you to believe that the Ireland/Scotland warm period wasn't a localized effect? What tells you that wasn't due completely to some motility in the thermohaline belt? How does the something that is reported to have happened in the British Isles refute what is said to be a global phenomenon?

Also, I don't think everything rests on the extremely dumbed-down scenario of CO2 increases equate to global warming. That's simply one of the indicators and no one is denying natural climate cycles in the past (glacial ages) or that things besides gases cause warming. See panhandler's earlier statements on "throwing a log on the fire".

BTW, the graph isn't bunk. There are more ways to tell what temperatures were like other than to have had thermometers around at the time. Ice cores, tree rings, sediment layers, and stalagmite layering all hold useful and comparable information that both gives us a history of climactic conditions and a measuring stick to gauge other methods by. You might want to take a second look at the graph before making statements like that.

[frankeaton]

By the way, that temperature graph is bunk too, based on scientific modeling as there was no such thing as a thermometer then.

The irrefutable knowledge I wrote about above is based on Agricultural Anthropology. One of hundredso fo examples, Northern Ireland and Scotland are too cool by about 10 degrees (today) to grow wine....yet we know it was one of the largest wine growing regions in 1000 AD. Wine genetic varieties have not changed over that period in terms of hardyness to cool temps. Go figure this chart saying something else from math models with intentionally weighted variables.

now you have my attention, DOES IT AFFECT SCOTCH PRODUCTION????:eek::eek::eek:

[panhandler62]

And there are very credible scientists (Yale and Oxford included....both by the way liberal institutions) who say all of the above is bunk.


Could you cite them please? Specificaly on the river delta issues, since that is what you are trying to refute.

[panhandler62]

By the way, that temperature graph is bunk too, based on scientific modeling as there was no such thing as a thermometer then.

One of the tracks in that graph *is* instrument readings. The rest are quite reliable also.

[rodbakeriii]

I have burned 1/8 of a rick of wood in 3 weeks, normally only 2-3 fires a year, usually in early January



In all fairness, we had quite a few upper 70s days in DFW...in February!

[FloridaPoke]

You should reference your above statement about not giving one of many variables too much weight. Assuming everything you typed is correct (you cited nothing, therefore I can draw no comparison) what leads you to believe that the Ireland/Scotland warm period wasn't a localized effect? What tells you that wasn't due completely to some motility in the thermohaline belt? How does the something that is reported to have happened in the British Isles refute what is said to be a global phenomenon?

Also, I don't think everything rests on the extremely dumbed-down scenario of CO2 increases equate to global warming. That's simply one of the indicators and no one is denying natural climate cycles in the past (glacial ages) or that things besides gases cause warming. See panhandler's earlier statements on "throwing a log on the fire".

BTW, the graph isn't bunk. There are more ways to tell what temperatures were like other than to have had thermometers around at the time. Ice cores, tree rings, sediment layers, and stalagmite layering all hold useful and comparable information that both gives us a history of climactic conditions and a measuring stick to gauge other methods by. You might want to take a second look at the graph before making statements like that.

How many references do you want? How many credible scientists from leading Universities do you want? You want 25? 50? 75? More? They do exist.

Lets start by looking Here, which is Jim Inhof's US Senate compendium.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

Then, I will lead you through as many as you want, 100% of which are more credible than the software modelers who are guiding our collective global decision making. You let me know how many you want.....and I will keep it solely to leading research institutions and leading global Universities with household names you will recognize.

The conference in NY being held is NOT a bunch of self centered flakes on the fringe. The speakers include 98 (count them 98) leading scientists in the world....all from majore research institutions and Universities. These are the mainstream scientists who are fed up with their voices being squelched.

BBC produced a tv show titled the Great Global Warming Swindle, a DVD now available here and you should get if you care like you say you do....that is a devastating debunking of the entire GW hysteria. For everyone that has seen Al Gore's piece of crap, this should be required viewing. And for anyone that has read his piece of crap book with equal number of lies, a book called "Unstoppable Global Warming:Every 150 Years" should be required reading.

And for anyone that really cares enough to delve into the "detailed science" behind all this, I highly recommend spending some time on junkscience.com
The guys behind that site are not flakes. The title might imply to you that they use junk science, but to the contrary they are scientists are debunking the junk science used to get us to this point. AND it is not based on their opinion.....they back everything up with specific scientific references.

On your side you have a UN funded organization of politicians and Al Gore, who's movie has now been adjudicated by a UK court to be full of lies (all 35 of them and most of the movie detailed in court.)

The tide is rising my friend. Let me know how many scientific references you want or need to be convinced.

[panhandler62]

Language like this makes it clear that we are dealing with opinion:

An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.”

The opinion cited does reference science though so it's worth looking at.

The actual paper cited is: HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S
CLIMATE SYSTEM (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf)

Stephen Schwartz admits in his paper that his analysis is biased to short term sensitivity. His 5 year "time constant" is artificial and questionable. Empirical studies, that rely on data, not models, come up with very different indexes.

(article references obtained here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm) )
Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C. ( How Sensitive is the World's Climate? (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Hansen_etal_1.pdf)

Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C. ( Ice Core Record (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347139a0.html) )

Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5. ( An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/jmgregory0201.pdf) )

Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C. ( Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity. (http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf) )

On your side you have a UN funded organization of politicians and Al Gore, who's movie has now been adjudicated by a UK court to be full of lies (all 35 of them and most of the movie detailed in court.)


People interested in serious study find Al Gore at least as laughable, in scientific terms, as they do Martin Durkin.

You provide a great deal of bluster and rhetoric, but precious little substantial argument in that post. You are a really good writer but I *would* like some actual science, please.

[GoPokes82sMom]

We have a 70% chance of snow this Saturday.

[FloridaPoke]

Language like this makes it clear that we are dealing with opinion:

People interested in serious study find Al Gore at least as laughable, in scientific terms, as they do Martin Durkin.

You provide a great deal of bluster and rhetoric, but precious little substantial argument in that post. You are a really good writer but I *would* like some actual science, please.

I don't want to bore my friends here with such lengthy diatribes. Send me your email address and I will oblige.

[panhandler62]

I think the forum email works but you can also email me at panhandler62@yahoo.com

[PokesFanatic]

Floridapoke,

It comes of absolutely no surprise to me that the only thing you ever cite in all your fierce arguing (this after telling me that on my side are politicians) is a statement from the desk of Jim Inhofe.

Furthermore, the conference you refer to is being hosted by the Heartland Institute--a known front for the Oil and Gas lobby interests. Again, surprising in the least. Talk about 'junk science' ;)

Also, there's something you should know about this year's ICCC: it's far from a scientific conference. You can read all about it here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/).

[FloridaPoke]

Floridapoke,

It comes of absolutely no surprise to me that the only thing you ever cite in all your fierce arguing (this after telling me that on my side are politicians) is a statement from the desk of Jim Inhofe.

Furthermore, the conference you refer to is being hosted by the Heartland Institute--a known front for the Oil and Gas lobby interests. Again, surprising in the least. Talk about 'junk science' ;)

Also, there's something you should know about this year's ICCC: it's far from a scientific conference. You can read all about it here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/).

Rhetoric about Exxon being a sponsor of Heartland is very funny. You think Exxon gives a rats ass about carbon trading? Is their oil going to be sold and their profits taken regardless of any outcome. You bet it is.

Realclimate.org is MUCH WORSE of a political demagogue on this issue than Heartland ever thought about being. I will not read that dribble supported by Al Gore.

I was going to save all of my specific scientific basis for a private email, but if you prefer that I do it for all to see, I am ok with that too.

[FloridaPoke]

Since both of you have stated as fact that there is no credible science behind the anti-movement, lets start here (I now have amassed over 100 papers and articles from credible scientists.....again, you tell me how many you want to see and i will just keep them coming). Be sure to look at the list of 100 that signed this letter to the UN just 3 months ago, as they are all quacks :)

http://http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf (scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf)

[panhandler62]

Since both of you have stated as fact that there is no credible science behind the anti-movement

I said no such thing. I'm sure you wouldn't lie to forward your point so I'll just point out your error here.

Taking this letter on; numbers are meaningless, especially when the principal argument forwarded by those in opposition to the mainstream is that consensus is being over used. (IOW, you can't complain about consensus and then try to invoke it in the same sentence. :D )

We aren't arguing public policy. I have already state, numerous times, that "chicken little" policies are just as destructive as intentional ignorance. You have produced a letter here that complains of a potential bias in the IPCC, claims that climate change is unalterable and complains that the issue needs more detailed study.

I agree on points 1 and 3 but would point out that point 2 is contradicted by point 3.

Since it is simply a FACT that increased partial pressures of CO2 raises the heat retention potential in the atmosphere the question becomes how large this effect is, not if it exists.

When you add the atmospheric changes to natural cycles and consider the alterations we have made to large scale microclimes; the conclusion that we are altering the climate is inescapable. While I *do* agree that a general and catastrophic warming is not fully established, I see very little to convince me that "business as usual" is the best policy.

[PokesFanatic]

Since both of you have stated as fact that there is no credible science behind the anti-movement, lets start here (I now have amassed over 100 papers and articles from credible scientists.....again, you tell me how many you want to see and i will just keep them coming). Be sure to look at the list of 100 that signed this letter to the UN just 3 months ago, as they are all quacks :)

http://http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf (scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf)

I never said there was no credible science behind the 'anti-movement', just that you hadn't cited any by that point. You will throw out the name, 'Al Gore' in one sentence and then cite Jim Inhoffe in the very next one. How utterly convenient for you... I don't mind mentioning that you have a very hypocritical approach to argument. You claim I'm using Al Gore's information and I never have, and you supply industry shills and senate reports as though they hold any real weight.

Getting back to the point, even if you have a list of 100 papers, you're still in the minority by a factor of ten. You should really quit with the numbers game. You will lose and lose badly on this one.

On the side viewing man's contribution to the GCC threat:

(learned societies with active statements of endorsement)

-American Meteorological Society: 11,000 members
-American Geophysical Union: 45,000 members
-American Astronomical Society: 6,500 members
-American Physics Society: 40,000 members
-American Association for the Advancement of Science: 120,000 members
-Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Soc. of London: 9,000 fellows
-Geology Society of America: 21,000 members
-American Chemical Society: 161,000 members
-Institution of Engineers Australia: 79,000 members
-Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society: 1,1000 members

Total: 493,000 bona fide scientists whose academic societies actively endorse man-contributed climate change...among others.

[PokesFanatic]

When you add the atmospheric changes to natural cycles and consider the alterations we have made to large scale microclimes; the conclusion that we are altering the climate is inescapable. While I *do* agree that a general and catastrophic warming is not fully established, I see very little to convince me that "business as usual" is the best policy.

BINGO!

[bleedorange]

On the side viewing man's contribution to the GCC threat:

(learned societies with active statements of endorsement)

-American Meteorological Society: 11,000 members
-American Geophysical Union: 45,000 members
-American Astronomical Society: 6,500 members
-American Physics Society: 40,000 members
-American Association for the Advancement of Science: 120,000 members
-Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Soc. of London: 9,000 fellows
-Geology Society of America: 21,000 members
-American Chemical Society: 161,000 members
-Institution of Engineers Australia: 79,000 members
-Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society: 1,1000 members

Total: 493,000 bona fide scientists whose academic societies actively endorse man-contributed climate change...among others.

Are you claiming that ALL of the members of those Societies endorse that position simply because the decision making members have?

[panhandler62]

Are you claiming that ALL of the members of those Societies endorse that position simply because the decision making members have?

I would say not. It's all but certain that the few hundred or so that object to the position of these societies belong to these soceities.

Heck -- I can go to some creationist shill site and find hundreds of signatories endorseing young Earth creationism; that doesn't make that any less silly. It's meaningless because what matters is not how many "me too" endoresements someone can produce. What matters is the science.

Credible science demonstrates impact. The credible debate is how trends can and should be properly applied in predictive models. While the majority of people in this field are earnestly trying to improve our predicitve capabilities so we can prepare and, if needed, alter our ecological footprint; shills for both extreams (yes, Al Gore certainly qualifies as one of these) refuse to consider evidence that doesn't forward their agendas.

[GoPokes83]

Weather Channel founder says sue Gore (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx) But hey, what would he know...

[panhandler62]

I guess it's time to play "my advocate can kick your advocate's ass" again.

I'll wait till we start discussing evidence again if it's all the same to everyone.

[FloridaPoke]

I guess it's time to play "my advocate can kick your advocate's ass" again.

I'll wait till we start discussing evidence again if it's all the same to everyone.

Haven't forgotten about you :) Unexpected trip to Europe will have to take precedence over Debate Class

[panhandler62]

No problem -- I would be delighted to debate the science instead of the usual ideological rock slinging this subject seems to invite.

[frankeaton]

I will finish this threat with... it snowed again in Dallas and it is almost mid March where it should be 75 degrees