The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was founded in 1988.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was founded in 1988.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. -C. Darwin
In the 1970's it was called Global Cooling and the up coming Ice Age after 4 decades of cooling, then in the late 1970''s it was called Global Warming and since 2005 and to now with over 1 decade of cooling it has changed its name to climate change. It is blatantly clear that Global Warming Propagandists are Genuine 14 karat liars, because they keep changing their story when the facts are brought to bare.
I'm not even going to bother explains this to you once again.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
And FYI you've run away from a response yet again.
By Dr. Tim Ball (Climtologist from Winnipeg University)
The official website of Dr. Tim Ball
Lack of understanding allows those with a political agenda to exploit people. This was the case with the necessary new paradigm of environmentalism as Gould’s comment anticipated. Without understanding natural processes you can’t identify human induced changes. You are vulnerable to the claim that all natural changes are unnatural, which is occurring daily in the mainstream media.
Education was always about indoctrinating children to think the way the powerful in society wanted. This was done openly and primarily centered on a religious belief. Now the indoctrination is denied because they claim education is not about religion. In fact, it is about the new religion of environmentalism that is being used to create equally, if not more indoctrinated, young minds. Few parents have any idea what their children are learning in the schools. It is not the wide ranging, free thinking, investigative experience they think.
One way this is apparent is in the movement of young people through the education system. Historically they entered university and challenged the prevailing wisdoms. Now they come fully indoctrinated with environmentalism that ignores facts, manufactures false information and blames humans for everything. It is significant that challenges come from much older people who know and understand the fallacies. Everyone knows that information is power, but it’s exploitation of power that has allowed a few to control and manipulate people.
Throughout my career I’ve worked to help people learn and understand climate and how it changes. The contradiction amused me when I was dubbed a climate change denier. So much information in today’s world is couched in jargon or terminology alien to most. This is expanding with the change from generalist to specialist understanding. It means abandonment of general rules and even forbids generalizations. The chances of understanding are diminished as each specialist only knows one small piece of any complex system.
Climatology is a generalist discipline in a world of specialization. Even a basic understanding requires integration of almost everything from cosmic radiation from space to volcanic heat on the bottom of the ocean and everything in between. It is almost impossible to leave anything out as those who try to produce simulations through climate models understand or ignore depending upon their objective.
Knowledge is valuable but only if it improves the human condition. As a consequence, beyond understanding the generalist nature of climate I am especially interested in how it affects all aspects of human existence. This website will examine a wide variety of topics about the way the environment affects humans and the way humans affect the environment. We’re in an information revolution because the Internet is democratizing information.
Great leaders grasp the potential, both positive and negative. President Eisenhower did this about the Internet in this excerpt from his January 17, 1961 Farewell Address;
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
Tim B. - See more at: The official website of Dr. Tim Ball
sourcewatch.org/Tim_Ball;Click link for sources.Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.
Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.
..............
Lawsuit
In September 2006, Ball filed a lawsuit against The Calgary Herald, a division of CanWest MediaWorks, specifically naming four of its staff, as well as Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the Department of Geography at the University of Lethbridge and the Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge. Ball's suit is over the publication of a letter to the editor published in April 2006 by Johnson responding to an opinion column by Ball. In his statement of claim, Ball objects to Johnson's letter in which statements about his academic record were disputed. Ball's claim seeks $250,000 in damages, special damages for loss of future income and punitive damages of $75,000.
Johnson has filed an 18-page statement of defence denying "each and every allegation of fact and law" made by Ball.
In the face of this and an even-more strident Statement of Defence by the Calgary Herald (“The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”), Ball withdrew the suit in June 2007.
Canada Free Press retraction
On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. Ten days later, Canada Free Press issued a full apology to Dr. Weaver and retracted Ball's article.
Lobbying the Canadian Government on Climate Change
Tim Ball was one of 60 'accredited experts' who in April 2006 wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper denying climate change and urging inaction.
..........
Dr. Ball's PhD. is in Geography.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. -C. Darwin
As regards the models you are aware many models were used to estimate the dust from that Icelandic Volcano? the models resulted in Europe being declared a no fly zone for weeks. But I don't think anyone will claim there was no dust cloud.
Also you claim to be an expert in global warming modeling. Based on what evidence?
"Act of God" is AFAIK a legal term denoting that no person is responsible i.e it happened by accident and is completely natural and no one caused it to happen.
OTOH Climate change which is caused by humanity is by definition caused by humanity and not just happening naturally.
But it is a causer of global warming. i mean look at Venus. Dont you believe CO2 has an effect on global warming there?
So why is the US taxpayer paying for the Iraq War and not insurance or oil companies?As for insurance the idea behind it is spreading the risk and cost. In it's truest form all payers share the same chance at loss but the loss hits randomly. So all the individuals get together and basically pay for a future damage. It is not a free lunch nor was it ever meant to be.
This is rubbish! Military of a Colonialist Empires have. Military of non oppressive non colonist countries are defence forces. for example the Irish Defence forces help out in UN peacekeeping. they have never invaded any country or gone in for economic interest.Military throughout history has always been there to make sure their country/regime had the resources to continue or grow. This is human nature.
Wrong! Ireland the Netherlands and Sweden have peacekeeping forces in countries with which they were economically involved and in countries in which they have had no economic interests.So as long as a countries interest is involved their military will be part of the equation. To think otherwise is naive.
In fact Saddam owed Ireland 100 million in beef but Ireland did nothing militarily against him. Meanwhile they assist people in asia and Africa and other developing nations.
Wrong! Ireland didn't! It was invaded and most of it colonised by Britain. It was starved out while it exported food but it never totally collapsed. It has always had moderate Military spending in spite of decades of terrorism.
so basically you think it is right for the US Military to rape others of their resources. But when china or germany or Iraq does that it is wrong? Who made the US into a moral authority?Those that had a strong military survived for a longer timeperiod then those that didn't. Rome eventually collasped but it lasted longer then the dozen or more cultures that it defeated.
Rome didnt defeat any cultures. Rome dint have a superior culture. It just had a more efficient Military engineering and logistics. Greece was the culture with the Arts, democracy etc. Rome and Western History also made a myth of "bad guys" out of the Celts Goths Visigoths Vandals etc.
"Polluter pays" is also a buzz word. But the principle is accepted.Give me time I just got here. I'm still trying to get caught up. But so what if we all pay taxes. That doesn't refute that they aren't confiscation. You call it a buzzword but in reality it defines it more accurately.
would that be like believing in WMD in Iraq because Bush said so even when he had no evidence at all?Priests was used because if anyone believes in something based on faith then it is clsoer to a religion and their 'leaders' are priests. If offended I could have used monks, imans, rabbi's or any other word. But it does describe exactly theri function.
If the last 55 is a critical tipping pouit it makes no difference if it is 5 or 95.
At least you admit mankind is causing some global warming.
Ed mass posts the same videos and does not provide sources , just soundbytes.Based on page one I noticed a common trend. Ed lays out some basic issues that those who do not believe haven't actually answered as of yet on page 1. There is misdirection and an entire straw man argument about insurance companies views of it. So Ed makes these basic points.
I rarely indulge in ad hominem. If you can show where I made a personal attack please do so . Otherwise withdraw that claim.And here is how it is addressed:
This follows some standard tactics of:
1) Attack the messenger.
all of which can be dealt with by PROVIDING THE SOURCE. It is for the parson making the claim to provide their source.2) Clain it isn't real because it was cut and pasted.
3) Without identifying source assume it comes from a discredited one with no proof.
4) Claim whoever did the research had an ulterior motive to do so.
No evidence for me doing any of that.
5) Go way off base and cist things like sewage and pee.
6) Try to make assumptions and link itmes that were never linked (CO2 is same as sewage).
7) Claim a poll is sceince or that since more people say A therefore A is correct when in fact A was never even defined.
8) Use the ultimate redirection by claiming your opponent doesn't follow science and then base your response not on science but finance.
Just like there was uncertainty in models of Volcanic dust. But nobody claimed "no dust so we should fly all aircraft"Because the next section might already have been addressed I'll only make general comments.
1) It is interesting that you admit very little is actually known yet you want to insist action be taken when there is so much uncertainty.
No! It just hapopens to be around when they started direct recording of temperatures. Please read my replies.2) AGW proponents constanly cite temps from 1850. Now isn't it grand that 1850 just happened to be the end of the Little Ice Age.
Why would they not? and why are they claiming the temperature is cooling when you claim they already know it isnt.Of course temps will have increased since then. No one would expect anything else.
Read my posts. Using moving averages the trend is still INCREASING.What is more important is the 20-30 year breakdowns during this time period.
3) Once again the end of the post is an attack on anyone that disagrees.
[QUOTE=Mongo;55961]First off some basic ground rules and observations.
1) Climate has changed, will change and is changing.
2) Man as part of the Earth does have an impact.
3) Nature (defined to mean other sources outside direct control of humans I.E. space, volcanoes, oceans etc) also have an impact on climate.
So the question is HOW MUCH impact does man have. IPCC thinks it is over 90%. People like me think it is much much lower and no more then 1-5% per others. Bit since I was asked to comment on previous posts here goes.
Based on page one I noticed a common trend. Ed lays out some basic issues that those who do not believe haven't actually answered as of yet on page 1. There is misdirection and an entire straw man argument about insurance companies views of it. So Ed makes these basic points.
And here is how it is addressed:
This follows some standard tactics of:
1) Attack the messenger.
2) Clain it isn't real because it was cut and pasted.
3) Without identifying source assume it comes from a discredited one with no proof.
4) Claim whoever did the research had an ulterior motive to do so.
5) Go way off base and cist things like sewage and pee.
6) Try to make assumptions and link itmes that were never linked (CO2 is same as sewage).
7) Claim a poll is sceince or that since more people say A therefore A is correct when in fact A was never even defined.
8) Use the ultimate redirection by claiming your opponent doesn't follow science and then base your response not on science but finance.
Because the next section might already have been addressed I'll only make general comments.
1) It is interesting that you admit very little is actually known yet you want to insist action be taken when there is so much uncertainty.
2) AGW proponents constanly cite temps from 1850. Now isn't it grand that 1850 just happened to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course temps will have increased since then. No one would expect anything else. What is more important is the 20-30 year breakdowns during this time period.
3) Once again the end of the post is an attack on anyone that disagrees.
1 You fail to provide you sources
2. I didnt claim that there was no MW period. I claimed ( read my references)
a It - the MWP- was cooler than at present
b It didnt cover the period you claimed
c It was not global in the sense that equal warming didnt happen everywhere. ther wher hot spots and other regions that only heated by less than a degree.
Only the corrupted research of one single Marxist committed lying Michael Mann's hocky stick graph even suggests there was no medieval warm period, but even in his graph the margin for error shows a 500 year long medieval warm period that was 1.5 degrees warmer than today.You supply no source ! and that video shows no such graph
Yes . and you have to shut up and take it. It is called "representative democracy" When you elect a Congress and President you have very limited powers to remove them. they can bring in any tax they like and you will have to accept that. All you can do is wait till the next election and elect a different representative who is committed to removing or reversing that tax.
And your answer to the WMD that Bush said Saddam must have had was?BTW I was asking not for your scientific knowledge but from what you heard or know. After all if there is going to be NO warming then there is no problem right? There is a claim that we MUST take action right now or there will be a serious problem in the future because someone expects some kind of warming to happen. I'm asking if you know how much they say will happen. At least you sort of answered question #2. Whatever the amount of #1 you feel "is due almost entirely" tohuman causes. I'll put you in the group that thinks 90% or more is AGW.
A one degree rise globally would in my opinion cause immense damage.
World of Change: Global Temperatures : Feature Articles
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
...
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.
Same source:
In the analysis, the years from 1880 to 1950 tend to appear cooler (more blues than reds), growing less cool as we move toward the 1950s. Decades within the base period do not appear particularly warm or cold because they are the standard against which all decades are measured. The leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War II.
Fossil fuel use also increased in the post-War era (5 percent per year), boosting greenhouse gases. But aerosol cooling is more immediate, while greenhouse gases accumulate slowly and take much longer to leave the atmosphere. The strong warming trend of the past three decades likely reflects a shift from comparable aerosol and greenhouse gas effects to a predominance of greenhouse gases, as aerosols were curbed by pollution controls, according to GISS director Jim Hansen.
[QUOTE=Edmund129;56019]In 1486 the Pope blamed witches for Global Cooling which lead to the mass genocide of 10's of thousands of witches for centuries.
No the Pope did not!
The whole Witchcraft thing was a Central and Eastern European thing and more Protestant in nature than Roman Catholic. It was Protestants who transported Witchfinding to the americas. It was German inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, who pushed Pope Innocent VIII to write a Bull in order for Kramer to prosecute Witches in Germany. The Pope did not claim witches were responsible for bad weather. Kramer himself claimed it in a later publication, Malleus Maleficarum
You have been shown this before and you ignored it!
This is nonsense.
Top Tens & Trends
60 Minutes ( a news /current affairs show) from CBS has 7.5 million vievers in Prime broadcast
Under the Dome (CBS) has over ten million.
The best Fox can do is a tenth place with a sports show - NFL ON FOX PRESEASON
an there is no Fox show in the top ten on cable
Top Tens & Trends
Try outfoxxed for a view on bias in news reporting:
"Outfoxxed" Part 1 - Video
OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
It is the propaganda you are watching.
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, August 29, 2013
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, August 29, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers
In just news Fox does indeed have shows top daily rating in the 250 thousand viewers but MSNBC has 105 thousand at the same time
Also this in peanuts compared to the seven million viewers of 60 minutes for example or NBC broadcast news.
And even just cable Fox ( and I include 2 year olds in this) has 97 million hits and MSNBC has 96 million.
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, August 29, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers
Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of August, 2013)
CNN/HLN: 99.292 million HHs
CNBC: 96.242 million HHs
FNC: 97.186 million HHs
MSNBC: 94.519 million HHs
Fox Business: 75.501 million HHs
Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2013 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.
But Fox news only goes to 95,000 homes
List of How Many Homes Each Cable Networks Is In – Cable Network Coverage Estimates As Of August 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers
May I add. From the other global warming thread... Here is a link to actual first hand data and not corrupted videos or opinions about data http://www.realscam.com/f13/global-w...878/#post43016
Isn't everybody for gerbil warming?
Here is a link that I found by accident.
Link:
Global Warming Hoax: 141 Scientists Sign Letter Sent to UN Secretary-General Questioning Global Warming
I can't see the point you are making! You are basically saying that
1. There IS GLOBAL WARMING but it is currently colder than several periods in the past
2. If the Earth warms up then that is not a problem because crop production and economic progress happened when it was warmer in the past.
First of all I don't accept your contention in 1 and you have not showed your source.
Global warming | OpenLearn - Open University
Yes your graph does say it was warmer in the past but what is the source for this graph? On the other hand I have provided several sources showing warming over the last century and warmer today then in the MWP.3. Recorded temperatures
Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and
historical records) show that the 1990s was the warmest decade of the
millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the
millennium was 1998, and the coldest was probably 1601. (Climatic Research
Unit, 2003)
Throughout historical times, fluctuations in the Earth's mean temperature
have been recorded. During the seventeenth century, the Thames periodically
froze over during winter and mini-glaciers were present in the North West
Highlands of Scotland. More recently, the 1990s included some of the hottest
years ever recorded in the British Isles, and 10 August 2003 was the hottest
day ever on record. An annual temperature record for central England has
been constructed, beginning in 1659.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medi...mediate.htmThe Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.[/quote]
Sources: Mann et. al. ( 2008) Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric
and global surface temperature variations
over the past two millennia
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
Here is a worrying predictionThe PAGES 2k team found that a global surface cooling trend over the past 2,000 years has been erased by the global warming over the past century. Current temperatures are hotter than at any time in the past 1,400 years, including during the Medieval Warm Period (Figure 5).
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CXhZq5GDGH...st+century.jpg
Second it just isn't acceptable to say warming today by say a degree or two won't cause massive economic consequences. It is fairly much accepted that a warming globally by a degree or more would have huge consequences.
World of Change: Global Temperatures : Feature Articles
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.
I really just wanted to point out to people what Emeritus means. Most people probably think it's some title but in reality it just means retired. However, saying that a professor who has been retired from the industry for 20 years has signed the list doesn't inspire as much confidence.
So when 20% of the list is made up of "retired" people it does make people pause.
The next trick would be to check out the institutions and see who they are or if they are just some private religious college. Or if they even have a department for the topic they hold their degree in.
Something else that should be noted is that the title of "Meteorologist" at one point was a useless title requiring no education.
Our local Weather guy holds the title but has no education and only experience is interpreting the weather an airport when he was younger and then several years as a TV weather guy.
[QUOTE=Beacon;60144]The Historical Facts speak for themselves, the Pope in 1486 blamed witches for the longer winters, and shorter summers that had trended this way for 186 years (Since 1300). This lead to massive food shortages, malnutrition, starvation, weakened immune systems and wide spread plagues that killed 10's of millions of people. This was done all in the name of power and control over the masses to imply a power that these authorities never had, control over the climate. But this publically excepted mass fraud lead to the mass Genocide of 10's of thousands of witches over the centuries throughout England, Europe and the America's but had no effect on climate, but certainly gave them the power that they seeked.
What is amazing about this historical fact, is that the same methods are still being used today by our Fascist leaders for the same kind of power grab to justify higher taxes, greater power over the masses to create a one world fascist government that answers to no one, but themselves.
The evidence is very clear, there is no clear correlation between CO2 levels and the Earth's average temperature, but there is a very clear and very strong correlation between solar activity and the Earth's average temperature:
Global%20Warming%20Artic%20Temperatures%20and%20Solar%203.JPG
This graph was published by IPCC and data provided for by NASA.
Last edited by Edmund129; 09-05-2013 at 03:41 PM. Reason: grammer
[QUOTE=Beacon;60103]Yes, there are videos and graphs presented by the actual scientists and Climatologists speaking. Watch the entire video and you will see all the graphs mentioned in my postings on this matter:
Points that this video are showing:
1) The Antartic would take between 2000 to 3000 years to melt.
2) Even if the Earth's average temperature would increase by an insane amount of 10 degrees, even far more than the most criminaly insane global warming alarmist could of ever dreamed of, it still wouldn't melt one speck of ice in antartica. But instead would cause the Antartic ice sheet to get even bigger.
3) Computer models do not agree with any of the climate observations to date, and cannot simulate water vapor or precipitation.
The Michael Mann Hockeystick graph is clearly debunked and the reasons for it, are clearly discussed by professional Climatologists:
1) There is overwhelming evidence from a vast majority of Climatologist around the world (>98%) have confirmed that there was a 500 year long Medieval Warm period that was 1.5 degrees warmer than today and that it was global climate change and not a local climate event.
2) The 20th Century was not abnormally warm, but well within the normal temperature range of the last 1000 years, with the coldest point being around 1860 or so. The Medieval Warm period is still the warmest period in time for the past 1000 years.
3) Water vapor is clearly understood to be the most dominate greenhouse gas in our atmosphere and is agreed to be so by 100% of all Climatologists. CO2 is not a relevant greenhouse gas.
4) Only professor Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graphs disagrees with all other scientific observations.
5) The IPCC Audit found Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph to be a complete Scientific Fraud. The Auditors found that even when they put in random numbers into Michael Mann's algorythms, they still produced a Hockey stick graph. Clearly proving the fraudulent nature of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph.
Last edited by Edmund129; 09-05-2013 at 04:22 PM.
Here is yet another Professor that has also debunked Professor Michael Mann's Hockey stick based on Junk Science, and explains why the Hockey stick has been rejected by everyone:
The IPCC removes the Michael Mann's Hockey stick graph in the IPCC's 4th Assessment report:
Professor Terry J. Lovell discusses how 49 PHD's that formally worked at NASA sent a petition to NASA declaring the mass fraud of Man Made Global Warming was destroying NASA's credibility and that the perpetrators of this fraud are only out to destroy NASA and America's space program. (Which they have done.
Bookmarks