Climate not as sensitive as previously thought
Jim McGinn
There was a substantial warming trend in 1963-87, which was cited as
evidence for the human influence on climate, but the trend disappears
completely if all of the data (1958~95) are used. (5)
Other scientists are now busy trying to find reasons for the lack of
predicted warming. Soon we'll hear about tropospheric ozone, stratospheric
ozone, and gosh knows what else. And pretty soon, the skeptics will find
problems with these explanations. Clearly, we are rapidly approaching the
default solution: Climate is not as sensitive as was previously thought.
(Just wait until the skeptics argue that climate change is largely for the
better!)
Yet all the legislation, scare stories, and proposals for massive regulation
and taxation can only be supported if the climate threat is large and real.
Thus, by demonstrating that it has been overstated, the skeptics have done
the nation (including Congressman Brown), the world, and science, a big,
courageous favor.
Raymond Arritt
> http://www.sepp.org/misuse/envirltr.html
SEPP again?
You're not doing yourself any favors by citing such a source.
Jim McGinn
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rp_Wf.898822$xm3.93190@attbi_s21...
Why, because it discusses the evidence?
Jim
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Jim" <jimn4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143766775....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> And it's from May 1997. Thanks for being so up to date.
>
Thanks for cofirming your lack of impartiality.
Believers believe. Scientist consider evidence.
Jim
Coby Beck
news:Vh%Wf.54178$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
And you only consider evidence that you like. And you can only find it from
9 years ago.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> Believers believe. Scientist consider evidence.
>
> And you only consider evidence that you like. And you can only find it
> from 9 years ago.
So, let me get this straight. You don't dispute the facts I present. You
dispute them on the basis of when they were first presented.
Jim
James
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:2V0Xf.1878$gI1....@newsfe18.lga...
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Ah... the idiot brigade is on the job.
NobodyYouKnow
Since the scientific consensus on global warming only formed in 2001 or so,
( five years ago )yes. Dredging up speculations and misinformation from
several years before the facts were in is not useful or sane. I cannot fault
SEPP for putting crap on their website as that is their purpose, but I can
certainly point out that your use of old misinformation is pathetic, even in
you are a 'true believer' in your skepticism. You should at least be an
HONEST skeptic, and stick to the issues that are still in doubt.
>
> Jim
>
>
Raymond Arritt
No, I say you're not doing yourself any favors, because you're putting
yourself in dubious company.
I can accept people arguing over things like global warming, which is a
complicated issue. But Singer is beyond the pale. Among the many
objectionable things Singer has done in his career, the worst is that he
was one of those guys who wrote op-ed pieces supporting the tobacco
industry. (At least Singer has a minimal background in satellite
meteorology; his qualifications to pronounce on medical effects of
carcinogens escape me.) For his work with the Tobacco Institute he has
blood on his hands, and because of that I cannot afford him even the
most basic human respect.
Jim McGinn
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I can accept people arguing over things like global warming, which is a
> complicated issue. But Singer is beyond the pale.
So, for you the proper way to conduct a scientific investigation is to
dismiss facts based on the person that stated them. This is not how it
works for me. I'm concerned with content, not personality.
It's unfortunate that so many people mistake science for a popularity
contest.
Jim
Raymond Arritt
> "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> I can accept people arguing over things like global warming, which is a
>> complicated issue. But Singer is beyond the pale.
>
> So, for you the proper way to conduct a scientific investigation is to
> dismiss facts based on the person that stated them. This is not how it
> works for me. I'm concerned with content, not personality.
I am on a diet, so please do not put words in my mouth.
Singer is a special case. If you want to use him as your standard bearer
despite his track record, be my guest.
It does seem odd that you (properly) expect rigor and full disclosure
from mainstream scientists who support the anthropogenic global warming
hypothesis, but have no problem giving Singer a free pass despite his --
how shall I put this -- "dubious" history.
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>> Believers believe. Scientist consider evidence.
>>
>> And you only consider evidence that you like. And you can only find it
>> from 9 years ago.
>
> So, let me get this straight. You don't dispute the facts I present. You
Try me, present some.
> dispute them on the basis of when they were first presented.
I was showing you how you fail to live up to what you pretend to champion.
Scientists consider evidence, you copy and paste FUD.
Coby Beck
news:442c9bd0$1...@news.iglou.com...
Don't worry, there's room for you.
Mr McGinns? Can you shove over and let James into your cubicle?
Coby Beck
>
> "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> I can accept people arguing over things like global warming, which is a
>> complicated issue. But Singer is beyond the pale.
>
> So, for you the proper way to conduct a scientific investigation is to
> dismiss facts based on the person that stated them.
No, the proper way to investigate is to avoid wasting time on crap, your
fine self excepted.
> It's unfortunate that so many people mistake science for a popularity
> contest.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/
Learn something.
Michael Tobis
"Brown argues further that "science by consensus" is more reliable than
"science by individuals" or by small numbers of people. The
demographics of climate science dictate that the empirical scientists
be relatively few in number compared to the vast modeling community.
That's because it takes an army of Ph.D.s to spin up a GCM but only one
fellow with a computer to check the GCM results against the data. These
data. not the models, are the adjudicators of scientific truth."
Well, no. The observational and statistical community is in fact much
larger than the GCM community, even if you don;t count the satellite
observation community, which dwarfs them both and is usually counted
against the vastness of the "climate industry".
Making observations is in fact rather difficult and expensive, and
extracting meaningful trends is subtle business.
(This was even more true ten years ago when models were smaller and
NASA was bigger.)
Strike one . Now why should I go on reading stuff from people who MADE
SOME STUFF UP ten years ago? It's not the age of the material that is
the primary issue. It is the quality of it.
Anyway, the predictions you cite have been quite falsified. As James
Hansen suggested, we are seeing ever increasing temperatures, to the
point where a change is now casually obvious in many places. So the
"Soon we'll hear" has already proven false.
So why do you cite it? Either you or someone you work for owns some
coal in the ground and is acting selfishly, or you're just being
pointlessly stubbornly wrong.
I don't like the way people have responded to you. I don't think it's
productive. Still, they are right that you haven't come up with
anything that counts as evidence, just the usual mudslinging, and stale
stuff at that.
mt
Jim McGinn
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I am on a diet, so please do not put words in my mouth.
>
> Singer is a special case. If you want to use him as your standard bearer
> despite his track record, be my guest.
It didn't work the first time, what makes you think it'll work now.
Jim McGinn
Jim McGinn
"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote
> Anyway, the predictions you cite have been quite falsified. As James
> Hansen suggested, we are seeing ever increasing temperatures, to the
> point where a change is now casually obvious in many places. So the
> "Soon we'll hear" has already proven false.
Huh? What are you saying here, Michael? Does the evidence indicate
catastrophic global warming or not. It's said that there is a 70% increase
in Global CO2 as a result of GW. Where's the corresponding dramatic
increase in global temperature? It seems that it all consists of creative
interpretation of data.
>
> So why do you cite it? Either you or someone you work for owns some
> coal in the ground and is acting selfishly, or you're just being
> pointlessly stubbornly wrong.
I cite because it is true. And you are unable to dispute it and so, out of
desperation, you dispute my motives.
>
> I don't like the way people have responded to you. I don't think it's
> productive. Still, they are right that you haven't come up with
> anything that counts as evidence,
Why would I dispute a premise that has not yet been established.
H2-PV NOW
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enerprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Sing is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Kock and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
Michael Tobis
> catastrophic global warming or not. It's said that there is a 70% increase
> in Global CO2 as a result of GW. Where's the corresponding dramatic
> increase in global temperature?
About thirty years behind the forcing, just about in line with
expectations.
> It seems that it all consists of creative interpretation of data.
You are using "creative" sarcastically. There are a few propaganda
outfits out there trying to confuse people. They are the ones writing
fiction.
The IPCC is a formal process for bring the people who know the most
about the topic together to weigh the evidence.
There isn't a lot of doubt left within the informed scientific
community that the basic ideas of climate physics hold together very
consistently, and that they indicate that the climate IS going to
change rapidly as a result of the sorts of changes human activity is
causing, that it has started, and is proceeding more or less in line
with expectations.
If society were in better touch with its experts, we would handle this
problem without a population collapse or an economic collapse, but by
all appearances we lack the ability to identify real expertise and act
upon it.
I rather doubt you are sincere. We have had so many arrogantly
closed-minded people show up spouting this incedibly malicious noise
you yourself are spouting, that it's hard to give someone the benefit
of the doubt. Anyway, at best you are being willfully misled,
ultimately by people with fossil fuel inventory to protect.
A sane society would be willing to buy them out at a fair price, but
then a sane society would not have lawful economic interests lying
through their teeth at us and subverting the democratic process, would
it?
mt
Jim McGinn
"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143791283....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Huh? What are you saying here, Michael? Does the evidence indicate
>> catastrophic global warming or not. It's said that there is a 70%
>> increase
>> in Global CO2 as a result of GW. Where's the corresponding dramatic
>> increase in global temperature?
>
> About thirty years behind the forcing, just about in line with
> expectations.
How convenient.
>
>> It seems that it all consists of creative interpretation of data.
>
> You are using "creative" sarcastically. There are a few propaganda
> outfits out there trying to confuse people. They are the ones writing
> fiction.
>
> The IPCC is a formal process for bring the people who know the most
> about the topic together to weigh the evidence.
IPCC is a political bureacracy that, like all bureacracies, is mainly
concerned with justifying their own existence.
>
> There isn't a lot of doubt left within the informed scientific
> community that the basic ideas of climate physics hold together very
> consistently, and that they indicate that the climate IS going to
> change rapidly as a result of the sorts of changes human activity is
> causing, that it has started, and is proceeding more or less in line
> with expectations.
One of the indicator of an ideologue is that they tend to speak in terms of
vague generalities.
>
> If society were in better touch with its experts, we would handle this
> problem without a population collapse or an economic collapse, but by
> all appearances we lack the ability to identify real expertise and act
> upon it.
>
> I rather doubt you are sincere.
I doubt you have the slightest understanding of the scientific issues under
discussion here.
> We have had so many arrogantly
> closed-minded people show up spouting this incedibly malicious noise
> you yourself are spouting, that it's hard to give someone the benefit
> of the doubt. Anyway, at best you are being willfully misled,
> ultimately by people with fossil fuel inventory to protect.
Honestly, the problem is people like yourself who see this as an
ideological cause and not a scientific discussion.
>
> A sane society would be willing to buy them out at a fair price, but
> then a sane society would not have lawful economic interests lying
> through their teeth at us and subverting the democratic process, would
> it?
Blah, blah, blah. Who cares. I'm really not interested in your political
musings.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Honestly, the problem is people like yourself who see this as an
> ideological cause and not a scientific discussion.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> It's unfortunate that so many people mistake science for a popularity
> contest.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enerprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
Michael Tobis
vague generalities.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm
> I doubt you have the slightest understanding of the scientific issues under
discussion here.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~tobis/
> Blah, blah, blah. Who cares. I'm really not interested in your political
musings.
Fair enough, but why should we be interested in yours?
Is there a specific scientific issue you'd like to address? If not, I
suggest you start with Annan and Hargreaves recent and likely
influential result:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
mt
BlithelyAcceptTheDominantParadigm
I thought Pascal got us beyond science by authority a long time ago.
(Irony: citing authority on rejecting authority)
Anywho,
it is papers by Hansen, not Singer or Michaels that document the
decrease in the sensitivity number.
(from 1C to 0.75C to 0.66C per W/m^2).
Jim McGinn
"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote
> Fair enough, but why should we be interested in yours?
I'm here for science only.
>
> Is there a specific scientific issue you'd like to address?
Sure, the inability of GW whackos to address evidence in an intellectually
honest manner.
> If not, I
> suggest you start with Annan and Hargreaves recent and likely
> influential result:
Why?
>
> http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
>
> mt
>
Michael Tobis
>> Is there a specific scientific issue you'd like to address?
>Sure, the inability of GW whackos to address evidence in an intellectually
honest manner.
That's quite funny.
mt
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>http://www.sepp.org/misuse/envirltr.html
More industry lies.
>
>There was a substantial warming trend in 1963-87, which was cited as
>evidence for the human influence on climate, but the trend disappears
>completely if all of the data (1958~95) are used.
Lie, total lie.
>(5)
>Other scientists are now busy trying to find reasons for the lack of
>predicted warming.
No they aren't, because the warming is there in the data.
>Soon we'll hear about tropospheric ozone, stratospheric
>ozone, and gosh knows what else. And pretty soon, the skeptics will find
>problems with these explanations. Clearly, we are rapidly approaching the
>default solution: Climate is not as sensitive as was previously thought.
>(Just wait until the skeptics argue that climate change is largely for the
>better!)
>
Clearly you have the ethics of a snake.
>Yet all the legislation, scare stories, and proposals for massive regulation
>and taxation can only be supported if the climate threat is large and real.
>Thus, by demonstrating that it has been overstated, the skeptics have done
>the nation (including Congressman Brown), the world, and science, a big,
>courageous favor.
>
>
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rp_Wf.898822$xm3.93190@attbi_s21...
>>
>> You're not doing yourself any favors by citing such a source.
>
>Why, because it discusses the evidence?
>
>
>
Because it's an industry-shill site.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>> Believers believe. Scientist consider evidence.
>>
>> And you only consider evidence that you like. And you can only find it
>> from 9 years ago.
>
>So, let me get this straight. You don't dispute the facts I present.
So now we know you can't read.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Jim" <jimn4...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1143766775....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> And it's from May 1997. Thanks for being so up to date.
>>
>
>Thanks for cofirming your lack of impartiality.
>
>Believers believe. Scientist consider evidence.
>
>
>
And industry propaganda is not evidence, you blithering idiot.
Lloyd Parker
invitation.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Anyway, the predictions you cite have been quite falsified. As James
>> Hansen suggested, we are seeing ever increasing temperatures, to the
>> point where a change is now casually obvious in many places. So the
>> "Soon we'll hear" has already proven false.
>
>Huh? What are you saying here, Michael? Does the evidence indicate
>catastrophic global warming or not.
Yes.
> It's said that there is a 70% increase
>in Global CO2 as a result of GW.
Huh? No, CO2 is causing GW.
>Where's the corresponding dramatic
>increase in global temperature? It seems that it all consists of creative
>interpretation of data.
Or you're an idiot. The latter is more true.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Fair enough, but why should we be interested in yours?
>
>I'm here for science only.
Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that.
>
>>
>> Is there a specific scientific issue you'd like to address?
>
>Sure, the inability of GW whackos to address evidence in an intellectually
>honest manner.
>
>> If not, I
>> suggest you start with Annan and Hargreaves recent and likely
>> influential result:
>
>Why?
>
>>
Yeah, they aren't part of Cato, they didn't post on the sepp website, and they
aren't pals of Singer.
>> http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
>>
>> mt
>>
>
>
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> I can accept people arguing over things like global warming, which is a
>> complicated issue. But Singer is beyond the pale.
>
>So, for you the proper way to conduct a scientific investigation is to
>dismiss facts based on the person that stated them. This is not how it
>works for me. I'm concerned with content, not personality.
Then why would you believe someone who testified that tobacco doesn't cause
cancer?
>
>It's unfortunate that so many people mistake science for a popularity
>contest.
>
It's unfortunate that so many people who know no science post their stupid
opinions about it anyway.
>Jim
>
>
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1143791283....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Huh? What are you saying here, Michael? Does the evidence indicate
>>> catastrophic global warming or not. It's said that there is a 70%
>>> increase
>>> in Global CO2 as a result of GW. Where's the corresponding dramatic
>>> increase in global temperature?
>>
>> About thirty years behind the forcing, just about in line with
>> expectations.
>
>How convenient.
>
>>
>>> It seems that it all consists of creative interpretation of data.
>>
>> You are using "creative" sarcastically. There are a few propaganda
>> outfits out there trying to confuse people. They are the ones writing
>> fiction.
>>
>> The IPCC is a formal process for bring the people who know the most
>> about the topic together to weigh the evidence.
>
>IPCC is a political bureacracy that, like all bureacracies, is mainly
>concerned with justifying their own existence.
So add this to math and science that you know nothing about.
>
>>
>> There isn't a lot of doubt left within the informed scientific
>> community that the basic ideas of climate physics hold together very
>> consistently, and that they indicate that the climate IS going to
>> change rapidly as a result of the sorts of changes human activity is
>> causing, that it has started, and is proceeding more or less in line
>> with expectations.
>
>One of the indicator of an ideologue is that they tend to speak in terms of
>vague generalities.
>
>>
>> If society were in better touch with its experts, we would handle this
>> problem without a population collapse or an economic collapse, but by
>> all appearances we lack the ability to identify real expertise and act
>> upon it.
>>
>> I rather doubt you are sincere.
>
>I doubt you have the slightest understanding of the scientific issues under
>discussion here.
>
I doubt you can tie your own shoelaces.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>Believers believe. Scientist consider evidence.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
> And industry propaganda is not evidence, you blithering idiot.
If you believe that then why don't you stop whining and present an argument
to that effect? Or are we all suppose to take your word for it because your
motives are pure?
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>It's unfortunate that so many people mistake science for a popularity
>>contest.
>>
>
> It's unfortunate that so many people who know no science post their stupid
> opinions about it anyway.
It's regrettable that my efforts to understand the thinking that underlies
GW to be so troubling to you.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>> You're not doing yourself any favors by citing such a source.
>>
>>Why, because it discusses the evidence?
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
> Because it's an industry-shill site.
So, in your opinion truth is determined by the source, not the content.
Right?
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>Huh? What are you saying here, Michael? Does the evidence indicate
>>catastrophic global warming or not.
>
> Yes.
References?
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> More industry lies.
Evidence?
>>Other scientists are now busy trying to find reasons for the lack of
>>predicted warming.
>
> No they aren't, because the warming is there in the data.
References?
Roger Coppock
> References? [for warming data]
Every so often new members of this forum arrive with the
misconception that global warming is not happening. This
little post will serve as a reading for Global Warming 101,
our introductory course on the subject. The list is here is
certainly not all inclusive, some more esoteric topics like
Paleoclimatology, the structure of the industry financed lie
machine, and Biosociopathy: its causes and treatments
will be covered in upper division courses. Read the list
below carefully, you will be tested over this material.
1) That the surface of the earth has warmed over the last several
decades is a fact supported by many independent sources . . .
The global ground weather station network shows warming:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The balloon record shows this same warming:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Angell-Balloon.jpg
The satellite record, in all its current interpretations, shows
that the air near the surface is warming too:
The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
University of Alabama at Huntsville.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
The record of sea ice melting:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
The glacier retreat record:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
The bore hole record:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Rising sea level:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
2) The Sun is not warming, so something else must be warming the Earth:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
3) There are many other things that cause climate change.
Below, please find a graph of several of them. Note that
the green line, representing man-made greenhouse gas
emissions easily dominate all other potential causes of the
observed warming today and that they are growing the fastest.
Please see:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt