No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

don't you know that yesterday's establishment got it all worng, was backwards, brutal and stupid, while today's is open-minded, forgiving and smart?

as if history wasn't continuous to a large degree.


i'll add some fuel to the fire:

Dissidents' View of Cosmology

i might as well add the little detail that rock paintings were considered frauds until late in the 19th century, not that long ago was it? there many more instances where people decided to look the other way, from ancient artifacts to large, flash frozen animals, anomalous, frozen layers of vegetation in depths of several thousand feet, but that's off topic, isn't it?

PS: people who claim infallibility are full of themselves without a single exception.

Originally posted by budski


As far as the science of man-made GW goes, we are starting to see more and more scientists come forward arguing against the theory (and it is a theory, not a fact), as they did against that most despicable of scientific theories "eugenics", which had a massive following of scientists, academics, politicians etc and lasted for more than 60 years as the prevailing theory on how to "save" the human race.
Now I'm not really comparing the science of the two theories, merely pointing out how popular theory should not be misconstrued as fact.

perhaps you should read again, if I have been less clear than I intended, let me know.

Originally posted by budski
perhaps you should read again, if I have been less clear than I intended, let me know.

Yeah, now I notice you also used the 'theory, not fact' line of a creationist. All you are doing is trying to bring science itself into disrepute, science proceeds by the assessment of evidence, forming theories around the facts. Testing hypotheses based on the theories and observations.

So, all it takes is for someone to do the hard work and bring forth the evidence and theory to explain the current warming trend and all the observations successfully in some alternate way.



[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by budski
perhaps you should read again, if I have been less clear than I intended, let me know.

Yeah, now I notice you also used the 'theory, not fact' line of a creationist.



[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

ah, so abuse is a form of legitimate argument now.
the real fact is that theories are not facts
A theory is a guess that fits some of the known facts, and the current science regarding this topic is full of wild guesses.
By your argument, we should believe that science (as we know it) is infallible and that we should blindly follow where science leads.
My point is that science has got it wrong on innumerable occasions, and will continue to do so.
Perhaps you have taken this line because of my comments about our secular society, and the human need to believe in something - this is an observation and has nothing to do with my own beliefs. Personally speaking I am an atheist, as far as organized religion is concerned.

Originally posted by budski
ah, so abuse is a form of legitimate argument now.
the real fact is that theories are not facts
A theory is a guess that fits some of the known facts, and the current science regarding this topic is full of wild guesses.
By your argument, we should believe that science (as we know it) is infallible and that we should blindly follow where science leads.
My point is that science has got it wrong on innumerable occasions, and will continue to do so.
Perhaps you have taken this line because of my comments about our secular society, and the human need to believe in something - this is an observation and has nothing to do with my own beliefs. Personally speaking I am an atheist, as far as organized religion is concerned.

It is a common form of argument used by a creationist. There was no abuse intended in the comment, and if you felt there was, I apologise.

A theory is not a simple guess. No-one expects you to follow anything blindly, as long as you can accept your position is faith-based (i.e. lacking evidence), then believe what you like. Science depends on scepticism, even someone like Lindzen (who was the most respectable contrarian) is important for science, but his own Iris theory was wrong, he needs to get over it.

Science is not perfect. But neither is much human endeavour. But it is damn good at providing a model of the real-world, producing reliable and valid knowledge, in fact, it is the best we have. It is also self-adjusting, so if the evidence is produced, it will be accepted when found to be reliable - like throughout the history of science.

I've followed this for 20 years, in those days, the evidence was quite sparse. We knew CO2 was an IR absorber, even Arrhenius predicted in the late 1800s what could happen if CO2 increased, and it was, and temperatures were too. But we didn't really have enough knowledge to make firm conclusions, other competing causes existed.

The only way to make realistic predictions was to use mathematical climate models. One of the first was Jim Hansen's in 1988, it made predictions that were almost on the money 20 years later (although with a little luck). A year later, Roble & Dickenson made predictions about climate in the middle atmosphere, again, 20 years later they have been found to be correct. These are just two of the numerous models shown to be essentially correct, making real predicitions about future scenarios. Fingerprints of GHG warming have been found elsewhere, the evidence has been collecting, other theories have been shown to be unable to account completely for the current warming trend. Only with human activity can we account for the current situation.

Newer more advanced models are doing the same, predictions have been made, time will tell.

The position is that we do have evidence that human activity is affecting climate (in numerous ways, not just CO2). Predictions have been made of what will likely happen if we ignore the science and don't act in some way. The same was done in 1988, the NASA model was pretty close to reality.

So, what do we do? Ignore it in the hope the science is wrong?

Or do we act on the evidence we have?

Could we be wrong? Of course, but at least I know I followed the evidence rather than my wishful-thinking.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

I understand your points, but would argue that computer modelling is only as good as the information input - see the links

www.heartland.org...

science.nasa.gov...

I still contend that AGW is politically driven, with various aims, including control of the populace, and the western desire to stop developing nations grabbing a larger share of world markets by increasing their industrial base.

I am environmentally aware, to the extent that a few years ago, I drastically changed my lifestyle in order to "do my bit" for our planet.
There is no doubt that industrialization has been and will be, for many years to come, a major pollutant and user of resources (but I don't accept AGW), but if people still want to maintain their lifestyles, it will remain.
I also posted a carbon footprint survey, in the hope that people here would have a look at the resources they use, but I suppose that people like to talk about pollution etc (regardless of whether is causes AGW) as long as it doesn't impact on their lifestyle.....

Originally posted by budski
I understand your points, but would argue that computer modelling is only as good as the information input - see the links

www.heartland.org...

science.nasa.gov...

But if you check the NASA page, the criticisms are from the 12 year old 1995 IPCC SAR, science is constantly improving. Again, the models are not perfect, we would be remiss to suggest otherwise, and I don't think anyone suggests they are. But recent models contain interactive clouds and other major criticisms of previous more simplistic models. The uncertainties are obvious in the predictions produced (i.e. 1.6C - 4.3C) but, most tellingly, the predictions are not much different than earlier models.

And suggesting that because the models are not 100%, they are of no use, or 'insufficient', when, in fact, they are producing excellent results that are being confirmed, is of no real help to science, it's just throwing mud. But this is from the same John Christy who suggested that there are issues with atmospheric data on a recent documentary, but recently co-authored a report suggesting the data was a good fit with current theory.

I still contend that AGW is politically driven, with various aims, including control of the populace, and the western desire to stop developing nations grabbing a larger share of world markets by increasing their industrial base.

This would suggest some right-wing capitalist conspiracy, when it is the right-wing who are the problem, their issues have nothing to do with the poor, or freedom. Just plain old self-serving behaviour, these are the same people who whinge about cutting 3rd world countries some slack in emissions.

There is politics involved at the higher level, but ultimately if the science doesn't exist, the rest cannot. The science is driving, the politics is playing catch-up. As is obvious with the recent flip-flopping from various politicians, the evidence is just becoming too robust to ignore.

"This would suggest some right-wing capitalist conspiracy, when it is the right-wing who are the problem, their issues have nothing to do with the poor, or freedom. Just plain old self-serving behaviour, these are the same people who whinge about cutting 3rd world countries some slack in emissions.

There is politics involved at the higher level, but ultimately if the science doesn't exist, the rest cannot. The science is driving, the politics is playing catch-up. As is obvious with the recent flip-flopping from various politicians, the evidence is just becoming too robust to ignore. "

I have recently posted on just such a conspiracy - although that is probably too strong a word. The fact is, that the political stance has changed drastically as AGW has gained momentum - please don't make the mistake of thinking that we are not in a full blown propaganda war, and that GW is being used as a tool by large corporations (their lobbyists in particular) to try and hold on to market dominance for as long as possible.
This in turn fuels the science - by pumping money into AGW.
It is a known fact that if a particular outcome is expected in any experiment or research programme, than that is the outcome that will be reached - this is in no way an accusation of dishonesty, it is simply a known phenomenon.
The only way to do real research is by the double-blind method - then perhaps more of the findings could be trusted - and this applies equally to both sides.


sorry - screwed up the quote - but you get the gist

[edit on 4-4-2007 by budski]

[edit on 4-4-2007 by budski]

Originally posted by budski
I have recently posted on just such a conspiracy - although that is probably too strong a word. The fact is, that the political stance has changed drastically as AGW has gained momentum - please don't make the mistake of thinking that we are not in a full blown propaganda war, and that GW is being used as a tool by large corporations (their lobbyists in particular) to try and hold on to market dominance for as long as possible.

It is being used as a way to spin and market. Hence the 'greening' of so many companies, even oil companies.

I have enough nous to see through this rebranding.

This in turn fuels the science - by pumping money into AGW.
It is a known fact that if a particular outcome is expected in any experiment or research programme, than that is the outcome that will be reached - this is in no way an accusation of dishonesty, it is simply a known phenomenon.
The only way to do real research is by the double-blind method - then perhaps more of the findings could be trusted - and this applies equally to both sides.

What is important to note is that industry does tend to fund research. Why do you think the likes of Exxon et al. only fund think-tanks rather than science?

I do work in science and can tell you that the majority of scientists have a high degree of credibility & integrity, they just let the data speak for itself, few are so attached to their politics to cook the data. It would be more productive for the scientists career to show this apparently erroneous science to be wrong, to claim a Nobel, career changing, and in the US, tenure producing research.

If the science was just so flaky, someone like Lindzen would bring it tumbling down, but he just can't do it, the evidence isn't there. The best they can do is throw mud.

In most previous analogous situations, for example, tobacco, the companies involved were funding research. They are not even bothering now, and haven't been. It's just been pure propoganda.

In many ways, science does use a type of double-blind, but just plain old replication. The codes and data from models are available, the likes of Exxon or whoever, can just use the code themselves, they can check the findings and show the results to be wrong. But they don't. Other researchers have their own models, all essentially say the same thing. Lindzen and Exxon can check them, and even produce their own.

Ask yourself why, with the millions they have, they are not even bothering to fund science. Ask why, contrarians like Lindzen are not really publishing anything of worth, just mud-flinging.

If it was all a political game, it wouldn't last 5 minutes. The idea of scientists all over the world doing politicians bidding is not really ever going to be true. Too much competition between working groups of researchers.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

Just so we are clear, I have a masters in political science, and I can see the grubby pawmarks (yes thats right - I don't have much respect for politicians) all over the current debate - and this can come from only 1 REAL source - corporate lobbying, that's where the real power lies.
www.cnsnews.com.../Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070123a.html

there's more than one way to fund the means to your end

Originally posted by budski
Just so we are clear, I have a masters in political science, and I can see the grubby pawmarks (yes thats right - I don't have much respect for politicians) all over the current debate - and this can come from only 1 REAL source - corporate lobbying, that's where the real power lies.
www.cnsnews.com.../Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070123a.html

there's more than one way to fund the means to your end

But how is corporate lobbying going to make scientists all over the world produce the data they want? Especially when they have been producing this data for 20 years with no need for corporate backing?

It might work in politics where truthiness rules, but science is just that little bit different. Again, all these RW think-tank dudes need to do is produce science. Why don't they?

All it takes is for one scientist to produce real evidence suggesting the current science is wrong. Why can't Singer, or Lindzen, or Ball, or Christy, or Patterson, or Carter, or Stott etc etc etc do this?

They have the backing of think-tanks funded for much more than my whole department gain from research councils. We can produce research of an International standard, why can't these people?

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

I think you may underestimate the effect of politics on - well, everything.....
no offense

Global warming came to prominence during the early/mid eighties, when Thatcher wanted to "break" the miners.
She did this in a number of ways, one of which was to commission reports saying that man-made emissions harmed the environment, paying very highly for them, too.
I'll have to get the source for the figures again, but the last I saw, the green industry had a budget of over 9 BILLION p.a.
All research into AGW was originally government funded (yes I know it can be shown as coming from other sources, but originally, it all came from government)

I know this sounds like a cop out, but I don't have the figures to hand - when I get time, I'll have a look and see if I can find them again.

Bottom line: nothing exists without politics being involved in it

What truly disgusts me when I post about man-made global warming and my skepticism of it on A.T.S. is the seemingly inevitable slander several of us A.G.W. skeptics are subjected to by certain members. Just yesterday I was called a liar, right here on my own thread. It was quickly changed to conceal that it had been posted. While I have pretty thick skin, I see no reason to be abused by persons who don't happen to agree with my view on anthropogenic global warming.

I am an "older" man now, earned my degrees and my experience. A.T.S. has rules which must be followed, but so do I. I will not be slandered, cursed, discredited or otherwise abused in any way by those who disagree with me. I will not have demands made that I answer anything I don't choose to. If you don't agree with what I say, fine, say so and say why. Let's debate the science, not the man. I stated in an earlier post that I would not be insulted in this thread, but I still was. You see, I knew it was only a matter of time... If you must be abusive to the posters here, please go somewhere else. Obviously, the moderator(s) did not end this thread as I had asked, so I suppose it carries on.

There are many global warming proponents here on A.T.S., and most of us know who they are. Others are undecided, which is fine. Unfortunately, I learned a few weeks ago that many here are using canned answers from another website to respond to the serious postulations raised by us real scientists. I have studied this at length, and see almost word for word responses from a guide to answering G.W. skeptics at that other website.
Beware! a real scientist will know quickly that you are a fraud with little or no knowledge of the subject matter. For example, anyone versed in chemistry knows that "long wave radiation" and "Infrared radiation" are essentially one and the same.

Now if the arguments that A.G.W. is so overwhelmingly real are so convincing and all-powerful, why does a pro-G.W. website feel like they must post canned answers for non-scientist G.W. debaters? I know of no skeptic site that has resorted to such lowlife tactics. Very suspicious. There are some very good debaters here, no doubt, but please don't pretend to possess the knowledge that you have "borrowed" from professional pro-G.W. activists.

Avenger, out of curiosity, what degrees do you hold?

I apologize if you've answered this in one of the links you posted, but they're all links, and not explanations, so it's easy to do this.

First off, what about the so-called hockey stick graph? (I'll link examples from Wikipedia)
en.wikipedia.org...:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
en.wikipedia.org...:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I have studied this at length, and see almost word for word responses from a guide to answering G.W. skeptics at that other website.
Beware! a real scientist will know quickly that you are a fraud with little or no knowledge of the subject matter. For example, anyone versed in chemistry knows that "long wave radiation" and "Infrared radiation" are essentially one and the same.

Of course they are, I don't think anyone suggested otherwise.

But as someone who actually holds a position of some form in science, these outstanding questions should be easy. Especially as I guess you are an analytical chemist who should have a good schooling in phys chem.

1. When Roble & Dickenson (1989) made a prediction from AGW theory that the middle atmosphere would cool, was this a scientific prediction?

2. What did you find compelling about the one scientific article you posted?

3. Did you know that when water vapour and clouds are removed from the NASA GISS model that 34% of the absorption of longwave radiation remains? If you don't like this, as it is from realclimate, we could use Ramanathan & Coakley's (1978) figures that show removing CO2 shows a 12% reduction in the greenhouse effect (within the 9-26% attribution suggested by the GISS model), and H20 removal shows a 36% reduction. The CO2 figure seems a bit higher than you propose ('only 5% of the thing to begin with' - whatever the thing is meant to be).

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

It may turn out that Global warming is man made.

Just not in the way we thought.

No need for CO2. Just misappropriated funds. (see below)

An audit has shown that a World Meteorological Organization official misappropriated $3 million to finance a “money-for-votes scheme” before fleeing.

a U.N. auditor looking into the situation had “reportedly been dismissed,” alleging she was prevented from fully examining the agency.

investigation of U.N. climate-change agency

[edit on 4/4/07 by makeitso]

Originally posted by melatonin

Before you stoop to the level of criticising others spelling, you should make sure your own is tip-top and bristol-fashion, otherwise you might look a fool

I only mention people's spelling errors when they attempt to ridicule me and post idiotic comments. If he had been willing to discuss this in a civil manner I wouldn't have mentioned anything...

Originally posted by melatonin

They didn't bury anything. In fact, other reconstructions validate Mann's 1998 study, as posted earlier.

Amazing... i wonder what is your gain on this since it has been reported that Mann's graph and data has been discredited and not even the IPCC uses the old Hockey Stick Graph, and the new graph is nothing more than another ploy to dupe the world into giving some credence to Mann back, but anyone who looks at those 10 extrapolated graphs separetely can see that the graphs give a different picture to the claims that the other data corroborate Mann's graph....

The other reconstructions do not validate Mann's Hockey Stick Graph, or any of his data....not even Briffa's 1998 graph which did not show "any unprecendented increase in temperatures in the 20th century....

Originally posted by melatonin
So, Akasofu has joined the legion of retired academics shouting on the sidelines. I hope he enjoys his journey to mediocrity producing half-baked science held up by those who subscribe to mailing lists and lack the ability to differentiate science from pseudoscience.

Are you still mad that your idol Mann has been discredited that you spew more rethoric and lies?....

BTW, don't try to mirror to Dr. Akasofu your own mediocrity and half baked science you keep bringing up...

It has been obvious for a while now that your understanding and knowledge of thi subject is limited to Mann's graph and Mann's lies....
He'd be best off spending his time writing another book on his area of expertise, the aurora.

Originally posted by budski
I think you may underestimate the effect of politics on - well, everything.....
no offense

I understand why you think that. We view the world through a lens, and your schooling has helped a focus on the political.

Global warming came to prominence during the early/mid eighties, when Thatcher wanted to "break" the miners.
She did this in a number of ways, one of which was to commission reports saying that man-made emissions harmed the environment, paying very highly for them, too.

Honestly, this is tripe, coming straight from Durkin's swindle documentary, it was a bizarre claim, and the documentary was the swindle, they couldn't even get the graphs correct. If you honestly believe this, then fair enough.

I don't think Thatcher ever cared about justifying her actions to anyone, she did whatever she liked. And I really doubt she was the puppet master of the world's climatologists. It wasn't until the hot summers of 1988 that global warming entered the public arena in a big way, between 1984 till 88 the ozone hole was the big focus, before that GW did have focus. The miner's strike was 1984-85, ozone was the focus, not CO2.

Truly a bizarre claim from Durkin.

Now even if it was true, which I doubt, it still means nothing for the actual findings.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Yeah, now I notice you also used the 'theory, not fact' line of a creationist. All you are doing is trying to bring science itself into disrepute, science proceeds by the assessment of evidence, forming theories around the facts. Testing hypotheses based on the theories and observations.

Perhaps then you should start "assessing the evidence" and not linking to the "Real Climate site' everytime you want to dispute global warming...

Mann tried to sell the world a fraud, and he lost to the real science...

Now once again some scientists are trying to revive some of the credence that Mann lost by trying to hide the fact that the MWP and the LIA happened so he could claim that "the 20th century is the warmest and at an unprecedented level"....

You keep trying to defend your idol Mann and you are going to go down with him. Actually you have already gone down with him when you have continuously tried to defend his rigged/flawed graph and data....

Originally posted by Muaddib
Perhaps then you should start "assessing the evidence" and not linking to the "Real Climate site' everytime you want to dispute global warming...

1. Why would I want to dispute it? It is a fact that there is global warming.

2. I don't link to realclimate that often at all. I tend to bring forth as much primary literature as possible.

I discarded the chaff.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]