real science has no part in global warming

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Correlation is simply a relationship A happens and B happens. Causation is evidence that A causes B.

So rising temperatures and CO2 levels increasing is correlation, however, coupled with known facts such as:

* CO2 is a greenhouse gas
* Increases in gases such as CO2 accelerate the effects of other gases (ie: water vapour) you can argue casuation as well.

BUT

*there has been many times where the temp has changed dramatically without the CO2 level changing.
AND
*there has been massive swings of CO2 without temp changes.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

BUT

*there has been many times where the temp has changed dramatically without the CO2 level changing.
AND
*there has been massive swings of CO2 without temp changes.

CO2 isn't the only possible cause of temperature variation, I don't think anyone is saying it is.

What people are saying is given other known mechanisms, the current evidence indicates CO2 being a factor in current temperature changes

[ballz2wallz]

Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet
American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
As Congress begins to tackle the causes and cures of global warming, the action focuses on gas-guzzling vehicles and coal-fired power plants, not on lowly bovines.

Yet livestock are a major emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. And as meat becomes a growing mainstay of human diet around the world, changing what we eat may prove as hard as changing what we drive.

It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Methane could become a greater problem if the permafrost in northern latitudes thaws with increasing temperatures, releasing the gas now trapped below decaying vegetation. What's more certain is that emissions of these gases can spike as humans consume more livestock products.

As prosperity increased around the world in recent decades, the number of people eating meat (and the amount one eats every year) has risen steadily. Between 1970 and 2002, annual per capita meat consumption in developing countries rose from 11 kilograms (24 lbs.) to 29 kilograms (64 lbs.), according to the FAO. (In developed countries, the comparable figures were 65 kilos and 80 kilos.) As population increased, total meat consumption in the developing world grew nearly five-fold over that period.

Beyond that, annual global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons at the beginning of the decade to 465 million tons in 2050. This makes livestock the fastest growing sector of global agriculture.

Animal-rights activists and those advocating vegetarianism have been quick to pick up on the implications of the FAO report.

"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.

Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

"Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today," he writes. "Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth."

Researchers at the University of Chicago compared the global warming impact of meat eaters with that of vegetarians and found that the average American diet – including all food processing steps – results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet. Researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year.

"It doesn't have to be all the way to the extreme end of vegan," says Dr. Eshel, whose family raised beef cattle in Israel. "If you simply cut down from two burgers a week to one, you've already made a substantial difference."

So now not only are gas-guzzling SUVs the target of global warming fanatics, but now we should all become vegetarians, because meat-eaters are driving up the livestock numbers which are contributing to global warming more than the cars we drive!

Give me a break...

[RMNIXON]

Just think what those super huge vegetarian dinosuars must have been farting!

And they did it far longer than humans have ever even been on the planet!

[RMNIXON]

Rediculous Item of the Day:



ormer Vice President Al Gore could pay a visit to the University in the near future to receive an honorary degree for his work in climatology.

University President Bob Bruininks spilled the beans at the February Board of Regents meeting, saying that "two of our colleges are working with Vice President Gore to provide, we hope, an honorary doctorate."

Gore has been in the news lately for his 2006 documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," about global warming. University spokesperson Daniel Wolter said since Gore is an expert in the subject, several colleges at the University have expressed interest in inviting Gore to speak on campus.

"He's in the news and is a legitimate expert on a pressing issue of global concern, climate change, so this level of interest is understandable," Wolter said. "However, no plans have been set and it's unlikely that would occur this spring."
Gore spokesperson Kalee Kreider said she did not believe Gore has received information about an honorary doctorate from the University and wouldn't comment further.

Gore may get doctorate - Minnesota Daily

[motivez]

I don't see how it's any more ridiculous than anyone else being given an honorary doctorate?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't see how it's any more ridiculous than anyone else being given an honorary doctorate?

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought they were given to people who actually acomplished something of scientific value in a certain field or make some unknown discovery? Not just being the Hollywood poster boy for Global Warming? It reeks of politics, not science and cheapens the value of such degrees!

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought they were given to people who actually acomplished something of scientific value in a certain field or make some unknown discovery?

you are completely wrong

[tbone]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought they were given to people who actually acomplished something of scientific value in a certain field or make some unknown discovery? Not just being the Hollywood poster boy for Global Warming? It reeks of politics, not science and cheapens the value of such degrees!

Honorary degrees are just that, honorary. They do not qualify you for a job or give you better pay. They are typically given to people like Bill Cosby and elected officials. They are meaningless.

[Diamond Cross]

Not completely meaningless, but are an acknowledgement of the person's work on their feild's behalf.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by tbone

Honorary degrees are just that, honorary. They do not qualify you for a job or give you better pay. They are typically given to people like Bill Cosby and elected officials. They are meaningless.

Yes, I know they are given out left and right. But we are not talking about social science, law, or politics here. One would think a standard for a scientific field such as climatology would require something more substantial to "that" area of science than just being an political advocate for popular views? There are probably hundreds of public figures who do that. Will all have prizes?

If Climatology wants to be taken seriously I think this is a big mistake.

[RMNIXON]

Here is interesting story about AL Gore:

"In 1991....Will Harper (government scientist) who took leave from Princeton and Jason (DOD Advisory Group) to direct the Department of Energy's Office of Science, said publically that Vice President Al Gore's claims of environmentally dangerous amounts of ultraviolet light hitting the ground were based on unreliable measurements, then proposed to make more reliable measurements and was fired."

Source: "The JASONS: The Secret History of Science's Postwar Elite" by Ann Finkbeiner 2006.

That tells me just about all I need to know about Al Gore on this issue. Not that I wont listen to more rational voices.

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, I know they are given out left and right. But we are not talking about social science, law, or politics here. One would think a standard for a scientific field such as climatology would require something more substantial to "that" area of science than just being an political advocate for popular views? There are probably hundreds of public figures who do that. Will all have prizes?

If Climatology wants to be taken seriously I think this is a big mistake.

Climatology isn't a person... just because a self serving politician has tried to hijack the issue for personnel aggrandizement doesn't mean climatology needs to prove itself to you in some other special way apart from the science..

Al gore is in on your side of the equation as it allows you to ignore the science because you can claim its source is some chicken shit liberal liar..

that is a strawman.. which is central to most debate on GW.

people do not engage with the issue in a rational manner.. in fact they do not engage with just about any issue in a rational manner

the inconvenient truth is Climate change and resource exhaustion are real despite Al gore being a arsehole.

just mentioning AL gore as a reason why climate change is not a issue places one in the very stupid end of the human spectrum

Their are numerous studies that show the Human discount rate for forward thinking is not that far forward.. though human do care for GW more than lab rats the difference is relative and NOT SIGNIFICANT compared to the scale of the issue.

IE in behavioral terms rats and humans are no different in confronting GW... AS YET in relation to resource exhaustion there is no comparable difference between the intelligence of yeast trapped in a jar and humans on earth

I see no sign of any real comprehension of the problem or the ability to put ones emotional short term reactions to one side and confront the issue as along term problem in this thread...


Boris
london

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So now not only are gas-guzzling SUVs the target of global warming fanatics, but now we should all become vegetarians, because meat-eaters are driving up the livestock numbers which are contributing to global warming more than the cars we drive!

Give me a break...

Why can't that be true?

to me you just dsmiss it because you want too.. note I am not saying it is true just your reaction is not a formed rational argument.


i think GW skeptics have it backwards on this burden of proof thing...

How can man made C02 emissions NOT be having an effect on climate

A anecdotal experience of a city dweller looking at his/hers environment just inevitably leads to the suspicion all this car exhaust must be having some effect... and people look into it and find it a difficult subject a sthe enviroment is not free of noise in the data..

but it strikes me as curious why any rational observant human being wouldn't think it possible or likely?

and then a torrent of emotional short term dopamine based opinion turns up demanding the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on one side?

its not that it may not be true as much as the debate (the debates not over etc) has been on going for 20+ years.. what more evidence or weight do GW skeptics expect..


what is also interesting is this burden of proof argument..and this is telling was never applied to the WMD issue which was also driven by short term emotional responses.. there was a substantial amount of hard data from respected sources (IAEA and UN inspectors etc) which pointed out the holes in the WMD argument.. if you go back you will discover the source of the WMD was not a WIDE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY but a small collection of individuals with in the political elite of those countries in favour of invading Iraq

I think thats telling

the problem is not GW but the inability of introspection by most humans on there own biases and emotional reactions to issues that require a rational response

Boris
london

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

Climatology isn't a person... just because a self serving politician has tried to hijack the issue for personnel aggrandizement doesn't mean climatology needs to prove itself to you in some other special way apart from the science..

Boris
london

Climatology as a legitimate field of scientific study.

They are talking about giving Al Gore an honorary degree in climatology. I think he should contribe something to actual science to get it. Otherwise give him some political or social science degree. Tell me why I am wrong? I have not heard a good argument yet.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Climatology as a legitimate field of scientific study.

They are talking about giving Al Gore an honorary degree in climatology. I think he should contribe something to actual science to get it. Otherwise give him some political or social science degree. Tell me why I am wrong? I have not heard a good argument yet.

Are you honestly suggesting Climatology isn't a legitimate field of scientific study?

[JaJae]

Here's another very good article:

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

Cut & paste: True believers preach global warming with alarming zeal | Opinion | The Australian

Now consider the issue even within the IPCC. Vice-chairman Yuri Izrael has said: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."

I understand people are gonna see Tim Ball and go "paid by the oil companies." But why are his points so quickly dismissed. Nobody has yet to prove him wrong as far as I'm aware so why cover the ears and close the eyes and scream "lalala" whenever he writes a new essay. He's obviously highly educated on the subject and has been around for a long time.

These are the controversial things he has said that has made the far left hysterics go crazy.

1 * The entire Kyoto issue is based on the theory of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
* There are 2 major problems. First, [it] is not the most important greenhouse gase. Second, evidence now shows that temperatures rise before carbon dioxide increases - not the other way round. [4]
2 * In a recent interview he stated "the plain fact is there was never any evidence of CFCs affecting the ozone layer" and there is "no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature at any time in the earth's history."[5]
3 * "Earth is warming up, Ball says, but it's not humans wh