Government Study Reconciles Data In Measuring Climate Change

[geerair]

A government study released yesterday undermines one of the key arguments of climate change skeptics, concluding that there is no statistically significant conflict between measures of global warming on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere.

The report also concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse emissions.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201677.html

[James 3528]

Oh god, you're one of those idiots too. Sell your car, ride a bike and close down those polluting golf courses and those gas powered golf carts

[player89]

Heard a report on the radio just this morning that lawnmowers are one of the biggest polluters on the planet. Must be mowing all those golf course acres with that Briggs & Stratton, Kohler, and Tecumseh engines without any emissions controls.

Put that catalytic converter on that lawnmower!

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
Oh god, you're one of those idiots too. Sell your car, ride a bike and close down those polluting golf courses and those gas powered golf carts [/B]Gas powered golf carts? Haven't seen or ridden in one in years.

[scrogdog]

This is a very important study. Because they are right... if we could not make the data agree, then we had the more difficult task of deciding which was the most relevant.

Now we can assuredly say "the Earth is warming" by ALL measurements.

However, these things tend to be a bit misleading. How does correcting a discrepancy in how warming is measured improve the scientific case for C02 as a causal factor? Answer: it does not. However, there may be more to this study than is being reported by the Post, so I'll have to look in to it on my own.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by scrogdog
However, there may be more to this study than is being reported...

Ya think?

It IS from the Washington Post, after all. They're good at adding or deleting facts.

[scrogdog]

I do not blame the Post. This is the same phenomena as "no good news from Iraq". The Post is in the news reporting business, not the science business. This is precisely why I urge everyone to check out other sources before accepting.

By and large, it is media outlets that muck up science, not scientists themselves. However, global warming is a special case where we DO find several highly capable scientists offering opinions and the results of agenda-laden models to state the case as an absolute.

The C02 alarmists may well be right. But let's not say they are until we know. Logical extrapolation is not science... and we adhere to the scientific method for a reason.

[geerair]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by scrogdog
However, there may be more to this study than is being reported...

Ya think?

It IS from the Washington Post, after all. They're good at adding or deleting facts.
Here you go, the press release put out by the government on which the article is based. Judge for yourself.



http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/pressreleases/pressrelease2may2006.htm

[scrogdog]

Well, thanks for the link, but I still don't see how the case for C02 has been strengthened, except for them SAYING that it has been.

I do not agree that the use of models is a proper substitute for testing. Feynman did not eiher... but, of course, that simple fact does not make me right. :)

It is not enough to simply SAY that "the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone", because I have heard it before and so far, the reasoning behind this claim does not satisfy me.

Perhaps it is a lucky thing for the world that global warming policy does not rest on my shoulders. lol

[geerair]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Well, thanks for the link, but I still don't see how the case for C02 has been strengthened, except for them SAYING that it has been.

I do not agree that the use of models is a proper substitute for testing. Feynman did not eiher... but, of course, that simple fact does not make me right. :)

It is not enough to simply SAY that "the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone", because I have heard it before and so far, the reasoning behind this claim does not satisfy me.

Perhaps it is a lucky thing for the world that global warming policy does not rest on my shoulders. lol My view is that the report, coming from a less than enthusiastic global warming supporter administration speaks volumes about the validity of the study and is a sign that the Bush administration can no longer support the contention that global warming is not a reality and that man does not contribute to it.


The discrepancies between the surface and atmosphere temps. were a big question for me and now it appears these discrepancies,for the most part, have been resolved.


I'm still not 100% convinced on this issue but the weight of evidence is building into a case that is hard to ignore.

[daytonafan]

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
-Mark Twain

"Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss."
-George Orwell

[Hughbat]

Wow! - I seem to have landed into a hot-bed of climate-change deniers...!!

If that is true - then the prospects for this world are grim indeed.

HVAC activities are sadly one of the major contributors to climate change/ global warming - in just about any country you can name. Release of fluorine based refrigerants (ironically called 'containment failure') is thought to contribute about 10% of the effect - as fluorine refrigerants are all potent greenhouse gasses (up to 13,000 x CO2 - so 1 kg of R12 is roughly equivalent to 1 ton of CO2) - and of course chlorine containing refrigerants destroy the ozone layer - and contribute to the greenhouse effect through that mechanism as well).
And you thought the Montreal protocol was effective?? Ha!

How many pounds of refrigerant have YOU discharged into the air lately - whoops! - I thought that pipe was disconnected...

( At least the Australian (and some European) governments have seen the light and are starting to promote Hydrocarbon refrigerants (over the ferocious protests of the Fluorine lobby and DuPont). HC's have about the same warming impact as CO2 (1000's of times LESS than fluorine compounds) - sure they are inflammable - tough luck - change your work practices - think of how many 10 lb barbecue bottles of propane are in people's houses - and we don't hear too many complaints! Sure HC's won't work for everything yet...)

The other way, is of course through escalation of energy demand, - guess what happens on a very hot day - on goes the A/C. What happens on a cold day - on goes the furnace and/or reverse cycle A/C. Wonder why we have brownouts!

Yes Al Gore is right - and climate scientists feel that he soft pedals things far too much.

We now have the very large, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (2007) is about to be released.


If you think they (the IPCC members are a bunch of wankers - then I suggest you go to your local ostrich farm and get a job...as an ostrich.

If you don't want to be an ostrich - get modern - develop compressor based refrigeration systems with COP's of 6 (they already exist) - and use HC's. Collect all FC's and send them to the destruction plant (cement plants are great).


Global warming: the final verdict
A study by the world's leading experts says global warming will happen faster and be more devastating than previously thought
Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday January 21, 2007
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html

Global warming is destined to have a far more destructive and earlier impact than previously estimated, the most authoritative report yet produced on climate change will warn next week.

A draft copy of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by The Observer, shows the frequency of devastating storms - like the ones that battered Britain last week - will increase dramatically. Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre; snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heatwaves will become more prevalent.

'Mankind cannot stand very much reality'. TS Eliot.

[James 3528]

wonderful:rolleyes:

[Roscoe]

Oh boy..:eek:

[coordinatesales]

Wow! .... TS Eliot.

Wow! What a way to introduce yourself! Welcome to the debate.

[coordinatesales]

I haven't seen near as much argument against global warming as I have regarding the source of the warming. That is what is really the question. Are we really responsible as people or is that just arogance talking?

[Hughbat]

Hi folks - thanks for the responses - I guess as one who is a bit "outside the sacred HVAC circle" - and a biologist (albeit a 'tecchie' one) to boot, - I see things from a more 'global' perspective. Unfortunately it is real...all too bloody real, I'd far rather be getting on with the things that really interest me, than rabbiting on about climate change.

'Nuff said...

Unfortunately we ARE the cause...not much wriggle-room there. :mad:

It's all fairly simple arithmetic - called the tyranny of numbers.

The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was established in the late 1800's as I remember, and the growing human population (0.5 billion 1890's to 6.5 billion today) and its escalating energy demands, has caused the undeniable massive increase in CO2 emissions (from fossil sources), it has also caused the rapid release of CO2 from natural sources - chiefly forests - which have locked it up (in their pristine state) as effectively as coal and oil - but are being cleared/burned at unprecedented rates now. Remember the famous jagged curve.

http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/current2.html

We tend also to ignore the other sources of greenhouse gases - Methane (not just cow and sheep farts - but man-made bogs and now permafrost melting in N Hemisphere).

Refrigerants (called Synthetic Green House Gases) are up there very high on the list - don't forget they are also used for foam blowing (big time still). Lots of industrial fluoro-chemicals are serious SGHG's - sulfur hexafluoride for one.
They are just not on our 'radar' as we concentrate on CO2.

Sure we have countervailing effects - aerosols, pollution etc - but they have short lifespans - and as they fade - the real impact of Greenhouse gasses will show itself.

It's all very depressing - but only by informing ourselves as to reality - and not getting our 'knickers in a twist' about human arrogance - hey we're as arrogant as hell by nature it seems....:rolleyes: - can we do anything to fix the problem - it affects Republicans, Democrats, Undecided, and Commies alike! - oh, and it affects the world, too. :(

[bootlen]

Hi folks - thanks for the responses - I guess as one who is a bit "outside the sacred HVAC circle" - and a biologist (albeit a 'tecchie' one) to boot, - I see things from a more 'global' perspective. Unfortunately it is real...all too bloody real, I'd far rather be getting on with the things that really interest me, than rabbiting on about climate change.

'Nuff said...

Unfortunately we ARE the cause...not much wriggle-room there. :mad:

It's all fairly simple arithmetic - called the tyranny of numbers.

The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was established in the late 1800's as I remember, and the growing human population (0.5 billion 1890's to 6.5 billion today) and its escalating energy demands, has caused the undeniable massive increase in CO2 emissions (from fossil sources), it has also caused the rapid release of CO2 from natural sources - chiefly forests - which have locked it up (in their pristine state) as effectively as coal and oil - but are being cleared/burned at unprecedented rates now. Remember the famous jagged curve.

http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/current2.html

We tend also to ignore the other sources of greenhouse gases - Methane (not just cow and sheep farts - but man-made bogs and now permafrost melting in N Hemisphere).

Refrigerants (called Synthetic Green House Gases) are up there very high on the list - don't forget they are also used for foam blowing (big time still). Lots of industrial fluoro-chemicals are serious SGHG's - sulfur hexafluoride for one.
They are just not on our 'radar' as we concentrate on CO2.

Sure we have countervailing effects - aerosols, pollution etc - but they have short lifespans - and as they fade - the real impact of Greenhouse gasses will show itself.

It's all very depressing - but only by informing ourselves as to reality - and not getting our 'knickers in a twist' about human arrogance - hey we're as arrogant as hell by nature it seems....:rolleyes: - can we do anything to fix the problem - it affects Republicans, Democrats, Undecided, and Commies alike! - oh, and it affects the world, too. :(

So get rid of your HVAC and walk everywhere you go.

There now. You have done your part. Feel better?

[glennac]

Where is the proof that man has signicantly increased global warming other than a bunch of pc scientists and anti American politicians preaching it to the masses to start a crusade to “save the planet” and screw the US and let Red China plow ahead with their unchecked pollution. This is similar to the hysterics of the old pacifists who wanted “unilateral disarmament” of the US at the height of the cold war so the Soviets could nuke us at will. Now it is so the Chinese can out pace the US and we would be become a “humble” 3rd world country. :eek: :eek: :cool:

[James 3528]

There is no proof.

[Roscoe]

So the global changes that happened thousands of years ago that was attributed to methane could have been from dinosaur farts..:D Guess we better stop eating bean burritos and drinking beer :D :D :D

[bootlen]

I blame it on pickled eggs.

[k-fridge]

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e364/kcdcsc/glbalwarming.jpg

[engineerdave]

Global warming? Bring it on. I'm not afraid of money.:cool: :D :cool:

[renaissanse man]

Lets buy into the kyoto treaty, give communist china a free pass to pollute as freely as they like, let them build their economy on capitolist concepts while staying true to their oppressive communist ways and let them come to be the main influence on the rest of the world. At least we can have cheap ramen noodles to eat. Global warming and cooling has been going on for thousands of years. Even if mankind is to blame, what would you do to fix it? With a global economy and dirt cheap foreign labor, do you think we can afford to cut consumption without drastic technologic advances?

[RoBoTeq]

What this all proves is that more bureaucrats have figured out how to benefit from supporting "the sky is falling" scientists and goofballs.

If we let this get out of hand, we could all be wearing methane nuetralizers stuck up our butts by the next decade.

[renaissanse man]

Funny, I have wondered from time to time how many cubic feet of nat gas my a$$ makes every year.:D I bet I could deep fry a turkey at the very least! :D

[Hughbat]

Hum...

Serious pockets of resistance here! - I suggest you go an borrow Al's Inconvenient DVD - from your local video store - put it in a 'Debbie does Dallas' cover (or plain brown paper bag) so no one knows you have it and watch it (secretly).

Go on

do it!

you may be surprised.

[James 3528]

What this all proves is that more bureaucrats have figured out how to benefit from supporting "the sky is falling" scientists and goofballs.

If we let this get out of hand, we could all be wearing methane neutralizers stuck up our butts by the next decade.Yep, it is called bureaucrat welfare. They keep getting a big salary to say the ozone hole is getting bigger, then smaller then bigger.

Then you have Atheist that don't believe in God but want to believe in something else so bad they go to the extent of being disciples of the Global Warming God.

[Hughbat]

OOK, cut the old-boy cynicism. The responses to this posting sound like locker-room posturing...

Unfortunately, while you may be excellent HVAC folk, and I (seriously) salute you for that,
some of you are, as we say in Aussie lingo, complete DRONGOS in the area of global climate.

It is unbelievably arrogant and stupid to say 'There is no proof' - utter whistling crap.

You BELIEVE there is no proof that global warming exists and that it is caused by man. That is your BELIEF. You might also BELIEVE that little purple men are kept in a New Mexico cordoned area too.

No relation to reality required - just a fervent wish that it should be so...

Sadly belief and reality rarely have much to do with each other. One of the distinguishing characteristics of humans, that sets us apart from all other animals, is our capacity to construct complete 'castles in the sky' on the basis of belief, go to war to protect that belief, kill non-believers of that belief...and yet it is ALL a construct of our minds.

So with global warming - it is real, and no amount of BELIEF that things are not as they most manifestly are, will change anything.

Unfortunately the effects of global warming will impact believers and non-believers about equally.

Cheers - drink up...

[glennac]

OOK, cut the old-boy cynicism. The responses to this posting sound like locker-room posturing .........................
.................................................

So with global warming - it is real, and no amount of BELIEF that things are not as they most manifestly are, will change anything.

Unfortunately the effects of global warming will impact believers and non-believers about equally.

Cheers - drink up...

Perhaps you don't understand American dialog, when we say that we don't believe that global warming is caused by man that does not mean that we do not believe in global warming. We believe that it is caused by the sun, volcanoes, etc. and that man is only an insignificant player in this phenomenon. There is even a valid argument that global warming will increase the food supply by lengthening and expanding the growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere (Canada, Siberia, etc.). Let’s all have a drink to that and go watch the Super Bowl where real “football” is played American style. :D :D :D ;)

[acmanko]

How would one go about measuring the whole worlds temperature and averaging it in the first place?

[James 3528]

AL Gore says we have 10 years left. 15 years ago, Ted Danson said we had 10.

We heard the same thing in the 70’s. We’ve been told that Earth was speeding towards ecological disaster if we didn’t dramatically change our ways. Simply put, the environmental extremists have predicted the end of the world as we know it so many times that it isn’t credible anymore. Sad part is that this lunacy isn’t confined to the celebrity morons. It’s rampant in the ’scientific community too.

This was part of a testimony in front of congress by Michael Crichton

To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann’s results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.’s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.

Mann’s work was immediately criticized because it didn’t show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann’s study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann’s work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.

Why did the UN accept Mann’s report so uncritically? Why didn’t they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn’t do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work.

In other words, reports predicting doom and gloom have been with us for ages because whatever study ‘reports’ global warming as fact isn’t examined with a critical eye; it’s simply accepted as Gospel fact. Crichton’s testimony is powerful proof that global warming can’t be supported with verified facts.

It’s time that we reached consensus that we should ignore the environmental extremists that produce such reports.


These people should only be seen as entertainment. Funny Gore kicked off his Global Warming crusade in a city on the very day they had a record low tempt. Now we have a billion dollar loss in the California orange crop due to a freeze last month and the Moose in Alaska is having a hard time feeding because of huge snow falls.

[bluestone]

Lets buy into the kyoto treaty, give communist china a free pass to pollute as freely as they like, let them build their economy on capitolist concepts while staying true to their oppressive communist ways and let them come to be the main influence on the rest of the world. At least we can have cheap ramen noodles to eat. Global warming and cooling has been going on for thousands of years. Even if mankind is to blame, what would you do to fix it? With a global economy and dirt cheap foreign labor, do you think we can afford to cut consumption without drastic technologic advances?

Amen

[geerair]

AL Gore says we have 10 years left. 15 years ago, Ted Danson said we had 10.

We heard the same thing in the 70’s. We’ve been told that Earth was speeding towards ecological disaster if we didn’t dramatically change our ways. Simply put, the environmental extremists have predicted the end of the world as we know it so many times that it isn’t credible anymore. Sad part is that this lunacy isn’t confined to the celebrity morons. It’s rampant in the ’scientific community too.The 70's scare was a creation of the media which sensationalized and took out of context a scientific study.







This was part of a testimony in front of congress by Michael Crichton

[/i]To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann’s results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.’s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.

Mann’s work was immediately criticized because it didn’t show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann’s study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann’s work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.

Why did the UN accept Mann’s report so uncritically? Why didn’t they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn’t do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work. [/i]

In other words, reports predicting doom and gloom have been with us for ages because whatever study ‘reports’ global warming as fact isn’t examined with a critical eye; it’s simply accepted as Gospel fact. Crichton’s testimony is powerful proof that global warming can’t be supported with verified facts.

It’s time that we reached consensus that we should ignore the environmental extremists that produce such reports.


These people should only be seen as entertainment. Funny Gore kicked off his Global Warming crusade in a city on the very day they had a record low tempt. Now we have a billion dollar loss in the California orange crop due to a freeze last month and the Moose in Alaska is having a hard time feeding because of huge snow falls.Let's review: James is quoting the testimony of a Hollywood screenwriter, who has no training in climatology, which is based on an article that was refused by climatology journals because of grievious mistakes and omissions written by two Canadians, one who is an economist and one who is an executive in the mining industry, who have no training or background in climatology.

Mann's work has been confirmed by peer-reviewed climatology papers and remains a valid work in climatology.


So, we have a Hollywood screenwriter, two people with no climatology training and a group of scientists bought off by the energy industry who are the main deniers of anthropogenic global warming.


The consensus on this issue, the IPCC Report, is due out soon and it is grim and confims anthropogenic global warming to a 90% certainty.

In scientific terms, the argument is over.

[bluestone]

So basically our childrens children are going to die a hideious death when the atmosphere evaporates and there is not much we can do to stop it. But in the mean time it is beholden on the American people to disintegrate their economy to assuage our guilt while the rest of the world goes blithely about there buisness. (lib logic in a nutshell).

We need to have a vibrant economy to carry on the research and lead the world to a solution.

We have an aging nuke plant nearby that is a favorite "cause celeb" to the loony left, i.e.greenpeace supporters. Last week one of the big poobahs at greenpeace showed up here to tell the these loons we need to support nukes because it will take the pressure off the atmosphere. My jaw hit the floor and now all the lefties are running around holding their a$$es serching for their wallets. GREENPEACE mind you.

I've been saying that for 30 yrs, imagine the technology we'd have now if we'd been supporting nuclear power all those years.

[glennac]

The consensus on this issue, the IPCC Report, is due out soon and it is grim and confims anthropogenic global warming to a 90% certainty.

In scientific terms, the argument is over.

I guess we need to repeal the 1st amendment and have a communist government seize all publications that prove the theory of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming wrong. Al Gore is preaching the same thing. With no proof you and your commie loving friends want to destroy the US and let Red China conquer the world. What a lovely future. I’ll take global warming any day. :eek: :eek: :rolleyes:

[James 3528]

The 70's scare was a creation of the media which sensationalized and took out of context a scientific study.






Let's review: James is quoting the testimony of a Hollywood screenwriter, who has no training in climatology, which is based on an article that was refused by climatology journals because of grievious mistakes and omissions written by two Canadians, one who is an economist and one who is an executive in the mining industry, who have no training or background in climatology.

Mann's work has been confirmed by peer-reviewed climatology papers and remains a valid work in climatology.


So, we have a Hollywood screenwriter, two people with no climatology training and a group of scientists bought off by the energy industry who are the main deniers of anthropogenic global warming.


The consensus on this issue, the IPCC Report, is due out soon and it is grim and confims anthropogenic global warming to a 90% certainty.

In scientific terms, the argument is over.

Then we have you, a actor that plays a scientist on the Internet

[geerair]

I guess we need to repeal the 1st amendment and have a communist government seize all publications that prove the theory of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming wrong. Global warming deniers have no trouble getting their word out especially seeing as how that word is financed by the energy industry. GW deniers are more than free to publish their version of reality in whatever form of media will have it.







Al Gore is preaching the same thing. With no proof you and your commie loving friends want to destroy the US and let Red China conquer the world. What a lovely future. I’ll take global warming any day. :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: No proof?

Who told you that?

Let me guess, the self described climatology expert Mr. Rush Limbaugh.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[geerair]

Then we have you, a actor that plays a scientist on the InternetWe have a person who follows and understands the evidence presented by mainstream science and actual climatologists as opposed to you who gets his views on climatology from Hollywood screenwriters and Exxon-Mobil.

[Hughbat]

Geerair said

"Let's review: James is quoting the testimony of a Hollywood screenwriter, who has no training in climatology, which is based on an article that was refused by climatology journals because of grievious mistakes and omissions written by two Canadians, one who is an economist and one who is an executive in the mining industry, who have no training or background in climatology.

Mann's work has been confirmed by peer-reviewed climatology papers and remains a valid work in climatology.

So, we have a Hollywood screenwriter, two people with no climatology training and a group of scientists bought off by the energy industry who are the main deniers of anthropogenic global warming.

The consensus on this issue, the IPCC Report, is due out soon and it is grim and confims anthropogenic global warming to a 90% certainty.

In scientific terms, the argument is over"

Dead right - thank you geerair!

And Michael Crighton is definitely a member of the loony right, along with professor Limbaugh.

Geerair also said

"The 70's scare was a creation of the media which sensationalized and took out of context a scientific study".

right-on too

- and unfortunately, had we as a culture and country (I was living in the US at the time) followed some of the many good suggestions that were aired then - we probably wouldn't be in this pickle now - but it came slap-up against a growing commercial sector, growing Republicanism in the US and a staunchly pro-natalist Pope and Catholic hierachy world wide - oh yes, and the pushing of the 'free market' philosophy. Population issues were then at center stage (ZPG) - now you can't mention them - how fashions change!

Rising to the challenges of global warming will have very considerable economic impacts - many conventional industries will go bust....and others will blossom and expand - sounds like the capitalist system to me... it is just if you are a member of the collapsing industry - you'll cry 'foul' and those in the growth phase will shut up and keep growing..

Oh - global warming has nothing to do with the atmosphere boiling off... but the snow-bound moose and frozen orange trees do..as do the washed-out trees on our coast here, it will happen more and more frequently.

A sentient (?) beings we have a responsibility to look after this planet - it's all we have.

http://www.meta-library.net/cqmedia/earthrise-body.html

Choruses of denial will get us nowhere, and your kids willl have plenty of time on their hands to hate you fo not doing anything when you could have.
:mad:

[James 3528]

And you counter no proof.....with no proof.

[Hughbat]

Bluestone's little by-line-

"The answer to everything is "more Throttle" "

pretty well encapsulates the attitude that has given rise to the problems we have today...

think about it...

[Roscoe]

The Sky is Falling


The Sky is Falling, also known as Chicken Little, Chicken Licken or Henny Penny is an old fable of unknown origin about a chicken who believes the sky is falling. The phrase has also become used to indicate a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent.


Sound Familiar :D :D :D

geer can be Henny Penny and huggy can be Licken Chicken

[glennac]

As James said you counter no proof with no proof. It's all hot air to put the US down and Red China will march ahead. Also I checked the internet dictionary and "No results found for natalist'. Making up words to create a fog I see. We are not arguing that there is no warming but that it is caused by sun, earth etc without our input. Where is the proof that we are responsible? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[James 3528]

It's not about "global warming" at all. It's about "capitalist cooling" the socialist left has in mind.

Example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

[Hughbat]

http://www.answers.com/topic/natalist

better check your online dictionary - it sucks!

[chillbilly]

A government study released yesterday undermines one of the key arguments of climate change skeptics, concluding that there is no statistically significant conflict between measures of global warming on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere.

The report also concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse emissions.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201677.html


DUH. Why don't you stop breathing greer? Then, we won't have to read the obvious and you can contribute something meaningful to less emissions.

Like a good little boy, greer believes the government study when it suits his arguments and ridicules government studies that don't.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Roscoe]

Not in the dictionary there licken chicken, but you can buy the site ...:D


NATALISTS.NET
NATALIST.COM

FOR SALE

[bluestone]

Hey Hughbat, my signature line is supposed to be "tongue in cheek" when the building season ends here I supervise a grooming dept. at a destination resort (i.e. sno-cats) it's a line we use to rib our "rookies" because if they have difficulty they usually just mash the throttle to make things worse, therefor just the opposite is true in the real world. Your point I might add.

I am a conservative, and I also believe in human activity caused global warming. I also believe all the fuss lately has more to do with the subject being the latest " flavor of the week". If human impact on our global condition is as dire as we are led to believe we can all kiss our a$$es goodby now.

Human impact on the global ecosystem should not be dismissed, but as a country we are the cleanest industrialized nation on earth period. We also drive the world economy, at least at this point in time. When we no longer do so it will be impossible for the USA to have the impact to make changes on as global scale that may help to rectify many of these issues.

Trust me I know liberals, by statistics I live in the most liberal county in the country, one town over from the most liberal town in the county. We have Dem representitive, a Dem senator, a socialist senator, and 85% Dem lstate legislature, most of whom are ultra left wing. Vermont is a microcosm of what this country will become if the alarmists have their way. You can't move up down or sideways without 5 layers of permits, we've driven any industries out wages are pitiful kids are fleeing after high school, we have no tax base left, we are near the top in tax burden, we have socialized school funding (robin hood stile) our economy is near collapse, I gotta stop because it's endless.

Anyway if the alarmists have their way, this is what this country will look like and no solutions to our global crisis (if it's as bad as you will have us believe) will be found, it will be about immediate survival not long range, sorry for the rant, your komrad from the United Soviet Socialist Republic of Vermont

[Roscoe]

Geez that was well said :D

[James 3528]

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/DrudgeSiren.gif

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/GOREZILLA.jpg

[Hughbat]

James - you are hilarious! (well, sorta)

Actually the timing of my postings were more coincidental with the IPCC report than linked - I just happened on this forum looking for information on 'frostback'. So there you are.

Bluestone says

I am a conservative, and I also believe in human activity caused global warming. I also believe all the fuss lately has more to do with the subject being the latest " flavor of the week". If human impact on our global condition is as dire as we are led to believe we can all kiss our a$$es goodby now.

Human impact on the global ecosystem should not be dismissed, but as a country we are the cleanest industrialized nation on earth period. We also drive the world economy, at least at this point in time. When we no longer do so it will be impossible for the USA to have the impact to make changes on as global scale that may help to rectify many of these issues.

Question 1 - why is being 'liberal' being equated in the Modern American Psyche to being the equvalent to a (closet) "commie"?? So must we now preface our statements with "I'm a Conservative" - no reddish fringes there...

Unfortunately the situation is probably as dire as it is painted - and we better get used to it fast. The earth's atmosphere is not half as big or forgiving as we fondly thought, and our activities are much more impacting than we fondly thought - and there are at least 10x more of us than when we started.

I wouldn't worry about the Chinese or the Russkies taking over the world - they are going to have enough problems of their own. We - 'the West' have to clean up our act PDQ (pretty damn quick) - regardless of WHAT the rest of the world does or does not do. An opportunity to be a leader. If we don't it will be quite horrible - (there will be BIG changes on the GA coast! :D )

On an immediate basis -

Question 2 - how much Fluorocarbon refrigerant (any of them) are you releasing as you service systems?? - what happens if a pipe blows?? cut-off valves - or just let it blow?? -do you test pressurise with N2 while there is still refrigerant in the system (so you can't scavenge the refrigerant). Do you use a scavenging pump and container? What happens to the scavenged refrigerant?? Does the collection agency pay you? Do you know?? do you care?? What happens when a client decides to renovate and there's a split system in the way? Psssssst - out it goes...

Rather than suggest that a client install A/C in an obviously poorly insulated building - do you rather suggest that they fix up the insulation and so something about appropriate shading! (yew mad or sumpthin'??)

This is just the beginning - every 2 -3 lb of FC refrigerant that isn't released to the atmosphere is about 1 ton of CO2 equivalent that isn't up there.

That's why - despite our industry being 'clean' - in that it emits minimum particulates, it is incredibly "dirty" - pollution wise - though our use of synthetic greenhouse gases. (that can of 'aerosol duster' for your camera etc - is probably pure 134a.- think about that...) - that foam mattress, packing foams etc...all use refrigerants for blowing the foam, and it all leaks out. Car A/C - the charge takes about 1-2 years to leak out.

There are other refrigerants - hydrocarbons, ammonia, etc - only the HC's will have much future impact, and it's all a case of too little too late unless we pull our collective fingers out fast.

And you in the HVAC industry can be leaders in this cleanup. (there's definitely money in it!) :)

Maybe Chicken Little was right after all...:eek:

[Hughbat]

Maybe Amazon has it already

but, of course, you guys know they don't know what they are talking about!

Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons

Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Bert Metz, Lambert Kuijpers, Susan Solomon, Stephen O. Andersen, Ogunlade Davidson, José Pons, David de Jager, Tahl Kestin, Martin Manning, and Leo Meyer (Eds.)

Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 478.

Available from <http://www.cambridge.org/ipcc>Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2RU ENGLAND
Full Report in English


Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available from the IPCC Secretariat in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian.

http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SROC-final/SROC_SPM.pdf
SPM TS I Full Report in English

Also soon available on CD-ROM

[James 3528]

Friday - Februgly 2, 2007

WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard all this before.

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

* The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

* Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

* Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

* The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

* It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

* It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

* How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
* Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

* The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

* The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

* Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

* Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

* What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

* Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

* Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

* In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

* There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

* Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

* Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

* Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

* Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

* During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

* Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

* Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

* On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Hey ... I could go on. There's much more where that came from. But I need to get ready to go on the air. Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States.

[MikeJ]

Friday - Februgly 2, 2007

WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?




A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On
Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as
expected, it's predictions are dire.

"I think you misread. Was probably a 21 page press release. The
actual report....from CNN's website:
The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said
top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages
of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is
compelling."


But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do,
global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries,
according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar
ice caps melt.

"You are drawing your own biased conclusions again. I haven't read the
whole report of course but everything I have read on this subject says
it can be slowed and even a small change in the warming rise can be
beneficial to millions of people and countless cities.



Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a
few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming
scare:

* The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short ..
I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any
enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

Wasn't the United Nations publishing this report. I believe it was
something like this:
"This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by
another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries,
includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the
climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

* Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism
many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental
movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of
the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed
anti-capitalists.

"More stupidity or is it paranoia driven?"

* Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem
to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global
warming.

"You will have to dig up some facts to back this up. How do you know
the sun is warmer? "

* The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions
get all the way to Mars?

"Are they water ice? I don't think so. And since we have been
observing Mars, I believe they change by seasons, not atmospheric heat
trapping like we got."

* It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

"And you learned this where? We have about a 1.5 degree increase now
(since about 1900) but that doesn't mean that in 2100 it will be 3
degrees warmer. It doesn't work that way."


* It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were
warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

"I don't remember over a thousand scientists from over 100 countries
stating this theory. I must have been busy that day."



* How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree.
Now that's frightening.

"What is frightening is that the graph rises sharply. It is not like
when you play with blocks and stack them. One on the other and then a
next one and......."


* Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a
sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It
ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph
altogether.

"You should watch the discovery channel more. They use lots of graphs,
ice core samples, tree rings and so forth. They make a pretty good
replication of the past. I don't remember them using 'hockey sticks'
tho."

* The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2
polluters, including China and India.

"Kyoto was a beginning, not an end."

* The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt
to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

"Or an attempt to wake a sleeping giant?"

* Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish
those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science
you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

"Feeling persecuted lately?"



* Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is
getting warmer?

"Snow fall? But why are the glaciers down there breaking off?
Remember they don't melt like an ice cube on a counter. They crack,
and surface water melts and seeps into these huge cracks, freezes, and
breaks apart huge chunks the size of states. These then disappear in
the warmer ocean. If the cracks go all the way to the bottom, the
water then helps the glacier to 'slide' thus increasing it's movement
down the slope. This has been measured many times in many places."

* In the United State, the one country with the most accurate
temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by
0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is
twice that.

"Show me your facts to back this up. Do we use a Fluke?"

* There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never
been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers
are growing, not melting.
"Again, melting on the spot is not the only way a glacier disappears. They break apart and land in the sea where they melt. Prove that more glaciers are growing than melting."

"You sure about that 160,000? And NEVER been measured. You sure about
that too? Thought we measured them by satellite also. And photos from
aeroplanes?
Don't think all are measured with a stick and string anymore.
A glacier forms when snow accumulates over time, turns to ice, and
begins to flow outwards and downwards under the pressure of its own
weight."

In polar and high-altitude alpine regions, glaciers generally
accumulate more snow in the winter than they lose in the summer from
melting, ablation, or calving. If the accumulated snow survives one
melt season, it is considered to be firn. The snow and firn are
compressed by the overlying snow, and the buried layers slowly grow
together to form a thickened mass of ice.

The pressure created from the overlying snow compacts the underlying
layers, and the snow grains become larger ice crystals randomly
oriented in connected air spaces. These ice crystals can eventually
grow to become several centimeters in diameter.

As compression continues and the ice crystals grow, the air spaces in
the layers decrease, becoming small and isolated. This dense glacial
ice usually looks somewhat blue.



The glacier story continues as the glacier, now grown, begins Moving
Forward.
=



* Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the
West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This
reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000
years.

"Huge chunks of antartica have been photographed by satellite. Then in
later photos, they are not there? Melting? No, they broke off and
went seaward to a melt down."

* Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last
ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that
time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea
levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but
natural CO2 emissions.

"You can calculate the amount of water in a land based glacier.
(Remember, a glacier or ice sheet floating on water, does not change
the level of the water when it melts. Try it in a glass and you can
see. But add more ice, (a land based glacier) to the glass of ice
water and the level rises."

* Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

"Where are the Greenland glaciers going? :
Under the pressure of its own weight and the forces of gravity, a
glacier will begin to move, or flow, outwards and downwards. Valley
glaciers flow down valleys, and continental glaciers (ice sheets) flow
outward in all directions from a central point.

Greenland glacier almost triples speed in less than two decades
"Dramatic discovery" confirms scientists' predictions of accelerated
impact of climate change 21 July 2005


* Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is
settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they
afraid of additional information?

Four volumes, and tens of thousands of pages of studies are not
enough? Further studies will be needed to find out if measures to slow
a perceived warming are having an effect. Also, remember your grant
money? Someone will want it.

* On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled
"Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

Read the whole article. But remember, it is 30 yrs old. Data was not
that reliable, or at least as reliable as it is now. And less people
were getting those huge grants to study the phenomenon of global
warming/cooling.

[glennwith2ns]

Here you go, the press release put out by the government on which the article is based. Judge for yourself.



http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/pressreleases/pressrelease2may2006.htm

Ah Geer, The title of your thread is "Government Study Reconciles Data In Measuring Climate Change "


Then you tell us to judge for ourselves, so I read the report/press release and it says....


" One issue does remain however, and that is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict an amplification of surface warming higher in the atmosphere. However, this greater warming aloft is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known. "


I'm having trouble judging, can you help?:confused:


Ya know my daughter just compleleted a science project at school.

First she came up with an hypothesis, collected data, to come up with a conclusion as to whether her hypothesis was correct.


Seems like here they have a conclusion first, then are trying to make the data support it.

[dw1]

Hughbat, one of the problems with Al Bore is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201539.html

[geerair]

Ah Geer, The title of your thread is "Government Study Reconciles Data In Measuring Climate Change "


Then you tell us to judge for ourselves, so I read the report/press release and it says....


" One issue does remain however, and that is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict an amplification of surface warming higher in the atmosphere. However, this greater warming aloft is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known. "


I'm having trouble judging, can you help?:confused:

Ya know my daughter just compleleted a science project at school.

First she came up with an hypotenuse, collected data, to come up with a conclusion as to whether her hypotenuse was correct.


Seems like here they have a conclusion first, then are trying to make the data support it.How so?

[Hughbat]

Hi

Thank you MikeJ, that was a great response - I was dreading having to spend a while refuting James' diatribe. In fact you have done a better job than I could have. I can only hope that everyone else takes notice.

The critical issue - is NOT barnying about the whys and wherefores - it is to accept that the situation is real and go like the clappers (of a bell) to start turning things around. This is where the HVAC crew have a particular responsibility - as you are 'on the ground' in a hugely (if invisibly) polluting industry - probably one of the worst.

You will have to work on your bosses - and risk all sorts of issues from being yelled at for not following 'established procedures' to being sacked.

Awareness carries considerable social responsibility, you have to lobby every damn person of influence to get legislative changes, that really force the HVAC industry to change gears - and to force their customers to demand the changes.

A/C, as an example, has become a cheap and easy alternative to good house and building design .... " the answer to everything is "More Throttle"" - or as the farmers here say - "Pour a bit more diesel in it". - we grotesquely misuse petroleum/easy energy to overcome our design laziness. And we are paying for it. Right now.

Were America to say ......

"Whoops, we stuffed up...Big-time...but we've learned from our stuff-ups and we are going to change, and Sir, can we help you to change too?"

you'd be amazed at the change in global attitude (to the better) towards the US. The damage Bush and the neocoms have done to the USA at home and abroad is mind-boggling. But still not enough to justify this "They are Anti-American" attitude which has to be the ultimate in screaming paranoid crapola.

Damn - I'm dreaming again - better hit the ritalin. - Oh James - that's a real cutie you have as your "atavar" - why don't you just spend time with her and let us get on with fixing the place??
:D

[Hughbat]

http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/

* Myron Ebell is an intellectual terrorist whose sole objective is to sabotage public and political understanding of climate change by lying about the soundness of the science and promoting the work of seriously flawed reports and researchers. Listen to this BBC interview with Ebell in 2004 (begins 3:55) for the best introduction to his style.

* No news reporter should ever interview him. If you want to hear an honest view from the other side of the debate you can contact ExxonMobil directly for a statement, rather than encourage them to pay men like Myron Ebell to conduct unaccountable smear campaigns on their behalf.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2

FACTSHEET: Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI DETAILS
1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-547-1010
Fax: 202-546-7757

Founded in 1984, CEI is a Washington-based conservative think tank "whose research on public policy reflects the principles of free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government." CEI is at the center of the global warming misinformation campaign.

CEI has tackled tough and contentious scientific issues such as global warming, carbon dioxide and fuel-economy standards, most recently expanding into the politics of food. It has become the go-to think tank in the fight against excessive federal government regulations, supporters say. (Beyond the Theories: Think Tank Debunks Popular Myths; Audrey Hudson, May 18, 2004, Washington Times)

The organization mixes free-market ideas with the antiregulation and environmental movements, but unlike most institutes that are content just to think and speak, the CEI does not shy away from forcing action through the courts or the legislative process.

CEI, among many other statements denying the seriousness of global warming, has argued that climate change would create a "milder, greener, more prosperous world" and that "Kyoto was a power grab based on deception and fear" (R. Brunet, "It Just Ain't So, Say These Reputable Scientists" Alberta Report, 10 November, v.24(48) 1997 p20-21).

In addition to leading the campaign to convince the public that global warming is uncertain, CEI has weighed in on pesticide risk and endocrine disrupting chemicals - both of which pose no threat to human health, in CEI's view - and has supported regulatory "takings" measures. CEI supports eventual elimination of the Superfund and has advocated the complete privatization of the Endangered Species Act, arguing that species protection would meet the level of "demand," based on how much citizens are willing to pay for habitat preservation (CLEAR fact sheet). CEI has a long anti-environmental pedigree. CEI is a member of the State Policy Network and the Cooler Heads Coalition. CEI was a sponsor of the first Wise Use conference in 1988 and has had membership in the Get Government Off Our Backs coalition, the Wise Use umbrella group. CEI is also a network member of The Heritage Foundation, Alliance for America, and the anti-Endangered Species Act group, Grassroots ESA Coalition. CEI was also a co-sponsor of the 1998 NY State Property Rights Conference.

With more than a $3 million annual budget, CEI is supported by both conservative foundations and corporate funding. Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil include the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM. One of CEI's prominent funders is conservative Richard Scaife who has provided money through the Carthage and Sara Scaife Foundations. CEI is also heavily supported by the various Koch brother foundations. (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute)


Great to have as friends - don't you think??:mad:

[James 3528]

WINDCHILL 30 BELOW: CHICAGO

http://www.wunderground.com/US/IL/Chicago-O'Hare_International.html#WIN

[bootlen]

Hooooooooiieeeeee! Man that's hot!

[hvac_superman]

All that CO2 and chlorine just magically disappears and has no adverse effect on anything, right.

Dumping garbage in the ocean is good, it feeds the fish right.

Just keep pissing in the lake, one day you will be drinking it. :confused:

[James 3528]

Just keep pissing in the lake, one day you will be drinking it. :confused:
Where do you think the fish piss?

[bootlen]

They have toilets with air tanks, don't they?

[hvac_superman]

Where do you think the fish piss?

They sure cant piss down your well now can they?

[bootlen]

All that CO2 and chlorine just magically disappears and has no adverse effect on anything, right.

Been around for eons.

Dumping garbage in the ocean is good, it feeds the fish right.

Who's dumping "garbage in the ocean"? I take mine to the county drop off.

Just keep pissing in the lake, one day you will be drinking it.

You musta been absent the day they taught about evaporation and condensation.

[hvac_superman]

All that CO2 and chlorine just magically disappears and has no adverse effect on anything, right.

Been around for eons.

So lets just keep making more at alarming rates

Dumping garbage in the ocean is good, it feeds the fish right.

Who's dumping "garbage in the ocean"? I take mine to the county drop off.

And then where does it go?

Just keep pissing in the lake, one day you will be drinking it.

You musta been absent the day they taught about evaporation and condensation.

What is left in the bottom of the glass after the water evaporates? And im not talking about di water either.

[bootlen]

Fish poop.

[hvac_superman]

Fish poop.

I gotta go get a drink!

[bootlen]

Lol!

[bootlen]

Ya know, super, I'd accommodate ya but a girl, just a few days ago, died 'cause she didn't take a leak. Her rotting body will do more harm than a leak in the lake.

[hvac_superman]

Everyone has their beliefs, some of us very strong. I just hate hearing people defend polluting and making no effort to improve or leave this planet a better place for our kids.

[bootlen]

Well, I don't think anyone is defending pollution. What I do think is that there are those who are paranoid.

[hvac_superman]

Ya know, super, I'd accommodate ya but a girl, just a few days ago, died 'cause she didn't take a leak. Her rotting body will do more harm than a leak in the lake.

How stupid was that. Great contest huh?

Now I heard she was creamated soooooo, the lake actually made out.

[bootlen]

Yeah, but what about the atmosphere?

[hvac_superman]

Well, I don't think anyone is propmoting pollution. What I do think is that there are those who are paranoid.

I'll give you that, but how long do we have to wait until we all believe? Maybe when Manhattan is under water we can debate this more. Until then goodnight.

Mom may still be awake!:D

[hvac_superman]

Yeah, but what about the atmosphere?

Just can't win with you. LOL

[bootlen]

Maybe when Manhattan is under water we can debate this more.



I saw that movie, too. Didn't give much credence to it though. ;)

G'night.

[MikeJ]

WINDCHILL 30 BELOW: CHICAGO

http://www.wunderground.com/US/IL/Chicago-O'Hare_International.html#WIN


A daily temperature anywhere on the planet has nothing to do with global warming. The Earth is still tilted away from the sun (Northern Hemisphere that is) and therefore less radiant energy from the sun strikes that part of the planet. Winds still blow colder air from the polar regions. Here we call them Alberta Clippers and right now it is -10 degrees outside with a windchill like -30. Westerly and Northerly winds are the norm here. What we don't have is those weeks in January where you prayed for the daily temp to top 0. Even with global warming these days will return here, but probably not for three weeks straight. Are you following me or did I lose you?

[Hughbat]

Hey Bootlen,James (et al)

Can we please get back in the sandbox?? If you want to play silly buggers - Macdonalds have a nice colored plastic play area for you....bye...!

Can we PLEASE have some serious discussion about what to do next?? _ you guys are clever - what technologies are available, what can we change? what do we need to lobby for??

If we can't get our heads around this we are f****d!!

[acmanko]

one simple energy saving solution would be to turn the lights out at night in cities around the world. why does an empty building need to be lit up.

[PrestonPierce]

Hey Bootlen,James (et al)

Can we please get back in the sandbox?? If you want to play silly buggers - Macdonalds have a nice colored plastic play area for you....bye...!

Can we PLEASE have some serious discussion about what to do next?? _ you guys are clever - what technologies are available, what can we change? what do we need to lobby for??

If we can't get our heads around this we are f****d!!

There is nothing to fix other than your understanding of the problem, tell us how to fix it.

[bluestone]

James - you are hilarious! (well, sorta)

Actually the timing of my postings were more coincidental with the IPCC report than linked - I just happened on this forum looking for information on 'frostback'. So there you are.

Bluestone says

I am a conservative, and I also believe in human activity caused global warming. I also believe all the fuss lately has more to do with the subject being the latest " flavor of the week". If human impact on our global condition is as dire as we are led to believe we can all kiss our a$$es goodby now.

Human impact on the global ecosystem should not be dismissed, but as a country we are the cleanest industrialized nation on earth period. We also drive the world economy, at least at this point in time. When we no longer do so it will be impossible for the USA to have the impact to make changes on as global scale that may help to rectify many of these issues.

Question 1 - why is being 'liberal' being equated in the Modern American Psyche to being the equvalent to a (closet) "commie"?? So must we now preface our statements with "I'm a Conservative" - no reddish fringes there...

Unfortunately the situation is probably as dire as it is painted - and we better get used to it fast. The earth's atmosphere is not half as big or forgiving as we fondly thought, and our activities are much more impacting than we fondly thought - and there are at least 10x more of us than when we started.

I wouldn't worry about the Chinese or the Russkies taking over the world - they are going to have enough problems of their own. We - 'the West' have to clean up our act PDQ (pretty damn quick) - regardless of WHAT the rest of the world does or does not do. An opportunity to be a leader. If we don't it will be quite horrible - (there will be BIG changes on the GA coast! :D )

On an immediate basis -

Question 2 - how much Fluorocarbon refrigerant (any of them) are you releasing as you service systems?? - what happens if a pipe blows?? cut-off valves - or just let it blow?? -do you test pressurise with N2 while there is still refrigerant in the system (so you can't scavenge the refrigerant). Do you use a scavenging pump and container? What happens to the scavenged refrigerant?? Does the collection agency pay you? Do you know?? do you care?? What happens when a client decides to renovate and there's a split system in the way? Psssssst - out it goes...

Rather than suggest that a client install A/C in an obviously poorly insulated building - do you rather suggest that they fix up the insulation and so something about appropriate shading! (yew mad or sumpthin'??)

This is just the beginning - every 2 -3 lb of FC refrigerant that isn't released to the atmosphere is about 1 ton of CO2 equivalent that isn't up there.

That's why - despite our industry being 'clean' - in that it emits minimum particulates, it is incredibly "dirty" - pollution wise - though our use of synthetic greenhouse gases. (that can of 'aerosol duster' for your camera etc - is probably pure 134a.- think about that...) - that foam mattress, packing foams etc...all use refrigerants for blowing the foam, and it all leaks out. Car A/C - the charge takes about 1-2 years to leak out.

There are other refrigerants - hydrocarbons, ammonia, etc - only the HC's will have much future impact, and it's all a case of too little too late unless we pull our collective fingers out fast.

And you in the HVAC industry can be leaders in this cleanup. (there's definitely money in it!) :)

Maybe Chicken Little was right after all...:eek:

Q1- Because libs have a way of blaming eco damage on the republicans, i.e Bush- big oil

Q2 None-I live in Vermont, we don't have AC here. Second part, if you read my posts here you will see I'm all over the insulation and envelope issue. I've been a 5 star energy rated builder since 1987, first in So. Vt. And yes I'm appaled how we treat home construction in this country. I don't have all day to expound on it, but I could. I live at 1900' in the mountains of vemont and own a 4000' home including my shop. Roof insulation Corbond closed cell R 48, Wall insulation 6" urethane SIPS R 32, no fossil fuel heating equipment at this point, all thin slab radiant, wood boiler.

[bluestone]

Oh yeah, one more thing, calculated heat loss, all 4000'= 68,000 btu p/hr.:p

[bootlen]

Hey Bootlen,James (et al)

Can we please get back in the sandbox?? If you want to play silly buggers - Macdonalds have a nice colored plastic play area for you....bye...!

Can we PLEASE have some serious discussion about what to do next?? _ you guys are clever - what technologies are available, what can we change? what do we need to lobby for??

If we can't get our heads around this we are f****d!!

Ya know, hugh. I've seen people with there bowels in an uproar and I've seen people with their kidneys in a downpour. But you are the first I've seen with both problems.

Man. Take a good dose of salt and cheese.

[James 3528]

A daily temperature anywhere on the planet has nothing to do with global warming. The Earth is still tilted away from the sun (Northern Hemisphere that is) and therefore less radiant energy from the sun strikes that part of the planet. Winds still blow colder air from the polar regions. Here we call them Alberta Clippers and right now it is -10 degrees outside with a windchill like -30. Westerly and Northerly winds are the norm here. What we don't have is those weeks in January where you prayed for the daily temp to top 0. Even with global warming these days will return here, but probably not for three weeks straight. Are you following me or did I lose you?

My point. We have "Global Warming" and Global Cooling" . Otherwise know as "The Weather"

And people are calling a single degree rise over a long period of time "Global Warming". If the single degree was a drop below average, would they bring r-12 back and encourage leaking?

We have Dice up the page blaming this on Bush. No doubt his erectile dysfunction is Bush's fault also. Maybe he can explain why the Clinton Administration never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification and none of these old hippies even mention China who is the number two emitter of green house gases and soon to be number one. The left needs to make up their minds. When it is politically expedient they ***** about jobs going over seas. Now we hear the air is worse in Pittsburgh. How can they tell?

[ozone drone]

Michael Crichton is not a "flake" . He's a novelist who has a MD degree from Harvard no less. He's a noted science fiction novelist who's known for having a knack for explaining complex scientific concepts such as genetic engineering and quantum physics in terms understandble to an average person. I've read his speeches on his website and he comes across as a sane, intelligent, reasonable person who expresses valid arguements for his beliefs. In fact he sounds like a beacon of reason in a sea of doomsday hysteria.

Read his writings for yourself and seriously try to tell me he's a flake with some type of sinister agenda.

www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/index.html

[tonys]

jimbo - do everyone a favor and read-up a little;

wacky subjects such as the earth's Energy Balance, and how 1 - 3 deg. C will result in SIGNIFICANT changes.

do everyone a favor

[MikeJ]

Hey Jim does read up quite a bit.
He interprets his facts a little differently than I, but I still agree with most of what he says.

The Earth is too big for any certainty about it's future right now. But the projections being delivered again by knowledgeable scientists are a warning that I happen to believe in. Something is happening that hasn't happened for a long time in the history of climate.

The thing I have read and which is most disturbing is what could happen if the Gulf STream were to falter. It has happened before with severe consequences if one is to believe past records imbedded in the Earth.

People like James are not going to get carried away by hysteria. But one day they may take ...........no, I won't go there.

[acmanko]

If the gulf stream falters we will have another ice age. go figure.

[James 3528]

jimbo - do everyone a favor and read-up a little;

wacky subjects such as the earth's Energy Balance, and how 1 - 3 deg. C will result in SIGNIFICANT changes.

do everyone a favor

Benzine!


I see you got someone to post bond.

Sure Einstein, one degree will mean the end of the world as you know it.

[Sam-the-man]

so we've got maybe 150 years of reliable data to study. How many hundreds of million years old is the planet? 150 years isn't even a blink of an eye. So, the temperature has gone up a few degrees. Is it normal? Is it abnormal? Who can say? The sky isn't exactly falling. Sure it bears more study. But I think the doomsday prophets may be extrapolationg too much from their limited numbers.

[bootlen]

That is an interesting point, sam. People who believe in an "old earth" typically are the ones who are on the "global warming" wagon while those who believe in a "young earth" think global warming (or cooling) is hooey.

[tonys]

so, we're now on different bandwagons?
is it that simple boo-tle-neck?


yes indeed, Jimbo - It's great to be on the outside again.

[Hughbat]

Bootlen said...

I live in Vermont, we don't have AC here. Second part, if you read my posts here you will see I'm all over the insulation and envelope issue. I've been a 5 star energy rated builder since 1987, first in So. Vt. And yes I'm appaled how we treat home construction in this country. I don't have all day to expound on it, but I could. I live at 1900' in the mountains of vemont and own a 4000' home including my shop. Roof insulation Corbond closed cell R 48, Wall insulation 6" urethane SIPS R 32, no fossil fuel heating equipment at this point, all thin slab radiant, wood boiler.

Right on - home energy consumption is a major draw on the global enegy supply - there are many 'passive' solar homes in New Mexico, Colorado, and California which do not use ANY additional power for heating their houses - and some of these are in very cold areas. For lots of ideas and discussion go to..

http://www.homepower.com

Additional reading..

Scientific American Sept 06 'Energy Future beyond Carbon'
http://www.sciam.com

[bootlen]

Bootlen said...

I live in Vermont, we don't have AC here. Second part, if you read my posts here you will see I'm all over the insulation and envelope issue. I've been a 5 star energy rated builder since 1987, first in So. Vt. And yes I'm appaled how we treat home construction in this country. I don't have all day to expound on it, but I could. I live at 1900' in the mountains of vemont and own a 4000' home including my shop. Roof insulation Corbond closed cell R 48, Wall insulation 6" urethane SIPS R 32, no fossil fuel heating equipment at this point, all thin slab radiant, wood boiler.

Right on - home energy consumption is a major draw on the global enegy supply - there are many 'passive' solar homes in New Mexico, Colorado, and California which do not use ANY additional power for heating their houses - and some of these are in very cold areas. For lots of ideas and discussion go to..

http://www.homepower.com

Additional reading..

Scientific American Sept 06 'Energy Future beyond Carbon'
http://www.sciam.com

Nope. I didn't say that.

[bootlen]

Here's yer "global warming".

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=0D15AB3F-B6B3-497B-BDA7-649E75390498&t=c156&f=06/64&p=Source_ifilm&fg=&GT1=9033

[royc]

That is an interesting point, sam. People who believe in an "old earth" typically are the ones who are on the "global warming" wagon while those who believe in a "young earth" think global warming (or cooling) is hooey.


Why do you always have to put a religious spin on everything.


Roy

[royc]

That is an interesting point, sam. People who believe in an "old earth" typically are the ones who are on the "global warming" wagon while those who believe in a "young earth" think global warming (or cooling) is hooey.

Ahhh I see you must be talking about "The Genesis Device, I get it now Boot.

Roy

[geerair]

People who believe in an "old earth" typically are the ones who are on the "global warming" wagon while those who believe in a "young earth" think global warming (or cooling) is hooey.There you have it, fundy science in a nutshell. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :p :p :p

[bootlen]

Why do you always have to put a religious spin on everything.


Roy

Why do you always cry when I do?

[acmanko]

I believe in the 'old earth' therory but I don't believe in global warming harming us. as far as i'm concerned the coast line of the US should be emptied of people and returned to its natural state. as for the people displaced, let them live in the deserts of the SW or ME

[bluestone]

Oregon climatologist, told to conform to human caused global warming philosophy or be terminated.

[RoBoTeq]

All that CO2 and chlorine just magically disappears and has no adverse effect on anything, right.

Dumping garbage in the ocean is good, it feeds the fish right.

Just keep pissing in the lake, one day you will be drinking it. :confused:

I agree. It's just irresponsible and reckless to foul our air, water and food sources with pollutants that are known to be bad for our health. I'm with you on this aspect of our behaviour and agree that we should become much more responsible.

I also will not argue that the earth is not in a warming period.

What is very suspicious is the allegations that little ole mankind is so significant that we can alter the life ecpectancy of the earth.

The earth has been doing the changes in global temperature long before man ever passed gas from eating too much vegetation for the first time.

What concerns me is that it is not because peeing in our own pool will harm us that we are suddenly wanting to jump on the global warming bandwagon, but because some have figured out how to govern the masses while making a lot of money doing so that is fueling this current scare trend.

Yes; we need to stop being so abusive to our environment because it is doing us harm. Just as millions were adversely affected by lead poisoning during the reign of the Roman Empire and arsenic put down more then a few being "cured" during the Renaissance, we are once again harming ourselves with products we so arrogantly believe are making our lives better.

So; what's the solution that will allow us to maintain the lifestyle we have while at the same time getting us to stop poisoning ourselves?

The global warming chant is a major red herring. We are not so significant as to have that much influence on this planet. This planet will bury us long before we bury it. At the same time, if we want to live better, we are going to have to stop doing damage to ourselves.

For those who are chanting about man causing global warming;

If you smoke; shut up!
If you burn candles; shut up!
If you burn scented candles; rip your throat out!
If you drive any vehicle not powered by your own muscle; shut up!
If you live in a controlled temperature home; shut up!
If you use any paper products; shut up!
Basically; if you are not living as a wild ape lives; shut up!

Just because you are not as much a part of the problem gives you no right to point the finger at others.

[Hughbat]

RoBoTeq said...

"What is very suspicious is the allegations that little ole mankind is so significant that we can alter the life ecpectancy of the earth".

Oh for heaven's sakes!.... it's simply a numbers game -

as was pointed out in the Al Gore presentation - if you consider a standard 12" school globe of the world - the atmosphere - the amount that contains most of the air we breathe (ground to the top of the stratosphere) - is equivalent to the thickness of a coat of varnish on the globe. Not much at all.

See the references below... sure, they don't put it so succintly as Gore - but the message is the same - get out your slipsticks or calculators (solar powered, of course). You can work it out for yourselves

12,740 km (diam of the earth) vs 50km to the top of the stratosphere.
Just like varnish!

http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope35/Fig5.1.gif

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cairns/teaching/lecture16/node2.html

http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/science/atmosphere.htm

http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/ges121/lectures/16-atmos-struct/atmosphere-structure.htm

It doesn't take much to start shifting atmospheric composition - and the British/European/N American worlds have been doing that quite effectively for the past 180 years - first coal then oil...the others are only just catching on.

Then you add the impact of fluorocarbons, farts (cattle of course) and de-forestation (major) - and you begin to see the picture...then factor in that the human population has increased about 10 fold (or more) over the period from 1820 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution) until now .. and our capacity to do damage has also increased exponentially - bigger and bigger and more powerful machines........

It's a no brainer - really it is!!

[Hughbat]

The Australian ó Breaking NewsThis story is from our news.com.au network
Source: AAP

$2m for green refrigerants

February 13, 2007

THE Government will invest $2 million in development of more greenhouse
friendly chemicals for use in supermarket fridges.
Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the money would go to the
Natural Refrigerants Transition Board Ltd (NRTB) for a pilot scheme to
trial natural refrigerant technologies in 150 supermarkets across
Australia.

Under the scheme, the Australian Government's Greenhouse Gas Abatement
Program will work with industry training courses in TAFE colleges across
Australia.

Mr Turnbull said this would be the first time natural refrigerant
technologies would be tested in Australia on such a large and
coordinated scale.

He said the project had the potential to be rolled out to an estimated
150 supermarkets across Australia. It's expected to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by more than 380,000 tonnes during the 2008-2012 period.

"Synthetic refrigerants have a very high global warming potential.
Replacing these with natural, lower emission refrigerants will lessen
the impact on the atmosphere and also has the potential to lower
supermarkets power bills," he said.

The NRTB is a not-for-profit organisation founded in 2002 by members and
suppliers of the refrigeration industry that seeks to increase uptake of
natural refrigerants.

In addition to installing natural refrigerant systems, the NRTB will
also facilitate industry training courses in TAFEs across Australia.

Mr Turnbull said training was an essential part of the project as lack
of properly trained technicians had been identified as a barrier for
industry to adopt the new technology.

"This is the first time that natural refrigerant technologies will be
tested in Australia on such a large scale and in such a coordinated
manner. The technology has the potential to apply to other sectors of
the refrigeration industry including hotels, clubs and commercial
kitchens," he said.



I might add...they have been dragged kicking and screaming to this conclusion - BUT THEY ARRIVED THERE! :D

You have to admit that, considering the climate impact of refrigerants, 2 million bucks is piddling...


FYI NATURAL Refrigerants are largely Hydrocarbons. Other 'Natural' refrigerants are Ammonia (an excellent refrigerant - but doesn't like copper), CO2 - another excellent refrigerant - but requires very high operating pressures (bit like 410A), and has minimal global warming impact (as do the others). The only real occasions we will still require fluorocarbons will be for extra low temperature refrigeration, not your commonest application.

[Hughbat]

Please - those of you who know what is going on.. read...

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=229

and push your colleagues in the same direction ..... nature (and the future) doesn't distinguish between the children of Democrats, Republicans, Goldwaterites, Holy rollers, Commie Libs or Mormons - it is an equal-opportunity future - and you guys are critical to it....

WAKE UP!!

PLEASE!

[acmanko]

why if jet airplanes were grounded and their respective pollutants were not emmissed at 30,000 ft the problem would go away.

[Sam-the-man]

AL Gore says we have 10 years left. 15 years ago, Ted Danson said we had 10.

We heard the same thing in the 70’s. We’ve been told that Earth was speeding towards ecological disaster if we didn’t dramatically change our ways. Simply put, the environmental extremists have predicted the end of the world as we know it so many times that it isn’t credible anymore. Sad part is that this lunacy isn’t confined to the celebrity morons. It’s rampant in the ’scientific community too.

This was part of a testimony in front of congress by Michael Crichton

To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann’s results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.’s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.

Mann’s work was immediately criticized because it didn’t show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann’s study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann’s work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.

Why did the UN accept Mann’s report so uncritically? Why didn’t they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn’t do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work.

In other words, reports predicting doom and gloom have been with us for ages because whatever study ‘reports’ global warming as fact isn’t examined with a critical eye; it’s simply accepted as Gospel fact. Crichton’s testimony is powerful proof that global warming can’t be supported with verified facts.

It’s time that we reached consensus that we should ignore the environmental extremists that produce such reports.


These people should only be seen as entertainment. Funny Gore kicked off his Global Warming crusade in a city on the very day they had a record low tempt. Now we have a billion dollar loss in the California orange crop due to a freeze last month and the Moose in Alaska is having a hard time feeding because of huge snow falls.


As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with james on this one. Reliable global temperature measurement goes back AT BEST 200 years. How could a reliable conclusion be formed from estimated data?

[geerair]

As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with james on this one. Reliable global temperature measurement goes back AT BEST 200 years. How could a reliable conclusion be formed from estimated data?Ocean and lake sediments, tree rings, coral, ice cores, fossil pollen.

[acmanko]

You left out moon rocks:o

[James 3528]

Ocean and lake sediments, tree rings, coral, ice cores, fossil pollen.

Bahahahaha Geer's go to line.

[geerair]

Bahahahaha Geer's go to line.James' concession line. :rolleyes: :p :p :p :p :p

[bootlen]

You left out moon rocks:o


...and crystal balls and Christmas ornaments.

[chucko615]

Here's a question for Hughbat. You question the loyalty of anybody that disputes global warming as being paid off by big oil, but who's paying the guys claiming global warming? There must be some grants involved somewhere or are these guys doing all this research out of pocket?

[James 3528]

Here's a question for Hughbat. You question the loyalty of anybody that disputes global warming as being paid off by big oil, but who's paying the guys claiming global warming? There must be some grants involved somewhere or are these guys doing all this research out of pocket?

Who is paying them? We are...that is how they justify their jobs.