SAVE THE WORLD FROM AL GORE

This suggestion points out the desperate need to improve science education here in the U.S.

This is the most ignorant idea I've ever heard with respect to global warming. Do yourself a favor and open a book about atmospheric science.

pjd
talexander
Question:
Which point(s) above is(are) incorrect?
Do plants not need CO2 for photosynthesis?
Doesn't CO2 occur naturally from the respiration of air breathing organisms?
Do plants not need CO2.

How do you explain higher CO2 levels in geological history? Before we evil destructive humans showed up numerous cycles of warming and cooling occurred. What caused these previous cycles?

Your collective responses do emphasize the need for improve education in the physical and natural sciences. Perhaps we should include some geological archeology. There are scores of Internet sites, TRULY peer reviewed publications, and texts that totally disprove Al Gore's and his lemming crowd's alarmist cries of the falling sky.

Here is an idea. How about everyone that believes that CO2 must be minimized or eliminated just hold their collective breaths for 5 minutes. Just think of how many tons of CO2 would be eliminated.

"Your collective responses do emphasize the need for improve education in the physical and natural sciences. Perhaps we should include some geological archeology. There are scores of Internet sites, TRULY peer reviewed publications, and texts that totally disprove Al Gore's and his lemming crowd's alarmist cries of the falling sky."

please provide one. i don't want to go find an idea to rebut that you don't even believe. the earth was hotter, and there was more co2. now, the earth has been warming and co2 levels have risen again. this is what has led scientists to conclude that co2 affects climate. it doesn't matter what caused them in the past, though it would be interesting to know. your question is like standing in a highway with a truck bearing down on you demanding to know why there are dead deer on the side of the road. surely their deaths couldn't have been caused by this truck!

Plants need CO2, in fact they absorb it and create what are called "sinks". The truth is that all the animals in the world respirating was fine for plants' survival. Then we started pumping too much of it.

This argument that warming is natural is pointless. The fact is that there are natural warming trends, but this one is faster and more pronounced than any that's ever been seen.

Would you prevent another black plague if you could? Or would you just say that there have always been epidemic diseases and there's nothing we can do about it?

It's funny how when the VAST majority of scientists and even governments claim that climate change is real, some are all to willing to believe that the minor minority are the ones who are right, even when many of them have proven ties to oil companies. There are also scores of people who would claim the sun rotates around the earth. Should we listen to them?

Do you really think this is all some hoax designed by the evil renewable energy companies to bring down the helpless, innocent oil industry? It's funny that the global warming theory has been around since the 50s, and only now is it finally getting the attention it deserves. Those poor, poor oil companies, they've fought so bravely against the vast resources of the wind industry...

Study the issue, talk to folks who know what they're talking about.

Lip Service
"...It's funny how when the VAST majority of scientists and even governments claim that climate change is real, some are all to willing to believe that the minor minority are the ones who are right, even when many of them have proven ties to oil companies. There are also scores of people who would claim the sun rotates around the earth. Should we listen to them?..."
Where did I once claim that climate change has not/is not occurring? What scientific authority did I cite that claimed that climate change was a myth or hoax? As I have stated many time here and on other blogs I agree that climate change is real.

An ever expanding community of scientists have expressed strong doubts that man kind is solely, or even primarily responsible for global warming(GW). Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) now seems to be little more than a contrived term based on irresponsible and questionable methodologies. There are dozens of errors or purposeful misrepresentation of facts and gross exaggerations. The REAL 'Inconvenient Truth' is that the film/propaganda piece by the same name is the hoax. Al Gore lied and continues to do so. His efforts will harm vast mulitudes of the world's poorer populations. How? By so restricting business and agriculture that food is limited. How? By preventing any and all technologies that he does not have a personal stake in from existing. How? By posing a far greater threat to the future of man kind than George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, Aghmadinejad, Dick Cheney, and all Jihadist combine could ever imagine.

Does this mean I am opposed to reduction of true pollutants, contamination of the environment, clean air, and safe food? Of course not. But the focus on CO2 and using it and its sources as whipping boys is, well stupid and misguided. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is not a significant green house gas. Funny how Al Gore warns about CO2 but goes out of his way to generate more by constantly traveling and screaming at the top of his lungs. Why can't he stay home and video conference?

Has he not heard of the Internet?

The only way to eliminate CO2 is to eradicate all air breathing organisms. Is that what you and Al Gore really want? Based on what data is the rate of warming and CO2 concentrations increasing at unpresidentated rates? Do not waste my time with the 'hockeystick' hoax. Its creator and his data have long since been shown to be so much sludge at bottom of a solid waste treatment plant.

I repeat again. I agree that climate changes has and is occurring and climate change is continuous. Is man kind responsible NOPE.

"I repeat again. I agree that climate changes has and is occurring and climate change is continuous. Is man kind responsible NOPE."

again, you have no way of proving that. you have an excellent way of dancing around questions, but there's no way to dance around the fact that the facts don't support your statement. the recent, abrupt trend is alarming, and if it is us, shouldn't we find out?

Uncle
Speaking of facts you might try reading reports of the data regarding climate change. There have been numerous severe changes in climate. All but the current phase occurred before the industrial age. So how can you honestly claim we are the cause of climate change? There is no validated data to support the claim that the current shifts are significantly more rapid than past changes. The methodologies use to collect and interpret the data used to support your claims has been seriously questioned if not totally refuted by trained, experienced, and respected climatologist. Many scientists have supported AL Gore and his chicken little lemming hordes. Unfortunately too many of those scientists have no training or education on physics or climatology. They are in the same class as biologist used to explain the collapse of the WTC on 9/11/2001.

The causal effect of man kind for AGW is has not been proven, even by Al Gore. He claims he has but nothing he states endure scientific scrutiny. Why for instance must his trash film be distributed with a disclaimer in England?

Reality Check (an ironic handle), here's some information you should read about the perceived uncertainty of climate science, followed by some background information on the author and the study she did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

I'm afraid you've been duped by non-peer reviewed material funded by the oil lobby. Do you still think smoking is good for you too?

I'm afraid the truth has a liberal bias.

Smog is good

Why does this nit keep talking about 'completely eliminating CO2'? Nobody ever suggested anything of the sort. My take on global warming is that a natural warming cycle is being boosted by man produced green house gasses.

Lip Service
Your handle says all I need to know.
Basing your arguments on articles published by writers at the The Washington Post and/or Wikipedia suggest a severe lack of knowledge.

Even the 'climate experts' at the IPCC have admitted that GW has at least plateaued if not stopped. Satellite data contradicts temperature data collected by surface data collection sites. Also the network(s) of surface collection data sites has experienced some significant changes. For example the 'loss' of dozens of Siberian weather data collection sites would lessen the affect of cooler temperature inputs.

My Question still stands: What caused the previous climate changes that predate mankind and the industrial age?

If I am the 'nit' you refer to that wants to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere don't panic. I know CO2 can not be, nor should be, eliminated. I chose to 'pick on' CO2 and make exaggerated statements regarding it to focus on the radicalized pontification of ALL GORE. Yes I spelled it ALL GORE.

CO2 levels and global temperatures do seem to be correlated. As yet no one has proven conclusively that CO2 is the causal factor.

It would be nice to see at least one of these "peer reviewed articles" to which reality check keeps referring.

Mr. or Ms.Reality check, you have a propensity for siting "facts" to which you never provide the source. Do you honestly believe that this is a worldwide hoax? Have you even bothered to read the United Nations report on global warming? Are you aware that ice cores obtained from Antarctica show that the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere at this time is at an all time high? Do you believe that every nation that signed onto the Kyoto Protocol is involved in this "hoax?" What difference does it make what caused the past warming cycles of the Earth? We are only concerned with the cause of this warming!

If you truly believe this non-sense you spout, please provide at least 3 or 4 sources for the "information" you refer to in your posts. More specifically, it would be nice to see a few names of these purported "totally refuted by trained, experienced, and respected climatologist." (sic) I note that you didn't use the plural here. Was that deliberate because you actually only know of one, if any?

Finally, what are YOUR credentials to make such outlandish statements such as this, "The causal effect of man kind for AGW is has not been proven, even by Al Gore. He claims he has but nothing he states endure scientific scrutiny." Is this your conclusion or can you provide the sources of who made this scientific scrutiny to which his claims can not endure? Also, I don't remember anyone, not even Al Gore, claiming that the cause of global warming has been PROVEN beyond doubt. They only state that almost all of the facts point to this conclusion. Something on the scale of global warming is virtually impossible to prove beyond doubt and why in the world would you won't to wait to do so, when waiting is the last thing you can afford to do?.

Oh yes, if you want to be taken seriously, please consult an English textbook and a dictionary before you write anything else. Your spelling and grammar are atrocious. And, please stop attacking and insulting people, the last resort of someone wh has lost an argument. You would be well advised to stick to facts.

Think Positive wrote
"Mr. or Ms.Reality check, you have a propensity for siting "facts" to ..." [ citing ]
"...And, please stop attacking and insulting people, the last resort of someone wh has lost an argument. ..." [ who ]
This could also be addressed to Lip Service and Lyle Gualding

"... why in the world would you won't to wait to do so, ..." [ want ]

"...Oh yes, if you want to be taken seriously, please consult an English textbook and a dictionary before you write anything else. ..." I will if you will.

I will compile a list of my reference sources and post it. This list will not include all my sources dating back over 30 plus years. As to qualifications why should I consider my self less qualified than you?

This is a very preliminary and brief list of sites that discuss GW, and AGW. It is illustrative of the fact that I do not rely a single site or restrict my quest for knowledge to a single type of site. While not all of these authors and their fellow contributers are experts their collective investigations and links to sources to support their arguments. They are at least as expert as Al Gore in determining if AGW is real.

Diagnosing Al Gore: Truth in the Balance
http://www.sitewave.net/news/

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of CO2
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Not directly related to GW but is illustrates the tactics used by indoctrinated activists.
Motives of Animal Rights Groups Exposed by 3 Simple Words - “Ban the Hakapik”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2687

Several articles that illustrate the disasterous affects of politics misguided by AGW propaganda.
Energy & Environment Items
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/categories/C16

PBIP: The Approach and Outbreak of Polar Bear-Induced Paralysis
By Hugh Hewitt
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/03/27/pbip_the...

I will continue to consolidate my list of reference sites so I may publish a more extensive and complete list in the next few days.

What caused the previous climate changes that predate mankind and the industrial age?

we have no way of knowing what all the conditions were in previous climate shifts, therefore speculating on causes would be foolish (on my part... there may be someone attempting such models, so perhaps eventually there will be some plausible theories). especially now, when our understanding of climate is still weak.

what we can do is study weather patterns worldwide and attempt to discern the causes of recent trends, for which we do have more data. hope that helps.

i will attempt to answer each of your additional websites in turn, but i would ask that you try to keep the conversation focused.

your first link refers to an article quoting michael crichton. his rebuttal:

""Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

unfortunately, his rebuttal is nonspecific. there is no way to respond to that, i can only hope that all my appliances and my car which rely on calculations based in physics and chemistry for their construction will still work, given this thorough indictment of scientific progress.

isn't he a doctor? the consensus of the scientific community is on its face meaningless when it comes to disproving or proving any theory. however, he should understand that marketing is marketing. i hope that one of your other links has some prediction or claim that i can verify, instead of nebulous, paranoid scenarios. if there is something in this article that you feel needs addressing, please specify it for me.

you also post an article by timothy ball. i am in fact reading the structure of scientific revolutions by thomas kuhn, one of the books he cites. again, indicting the scientific community for being faddish and reliant on politicized groups for funding, does not speak to or about the data. it's impossible to rebut such a claim.

"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."

ok. let's start over and look at some of the available data. enjoy! we can discuss it if you wish as well, but as you can see, the warming trend is far larger and more dramatic than any of the cooling trends in our records. although we are aware of similar shifts in climate historically, we would be foolish not to pay attention and try to seek an understanding of what is causing the current shift.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Reality Check,
Thank you for proving my point about how you conduct yourself. Instead of sticking to the argument at hand or even to the comments I made about your writing, you decided to point out insignificant typographical errors on my part and, without any knowledge what-so-ever about me or my qualifications, you asked why you should consider yourself less qualified than me. What an absurd question. For all you know, and of course I'm not, I could be the world's most highly respected and knowledgeable climatologist. For your information, I am not a climatologist or even a physicist but I do have undergraduate degrees in Computer Science, Math, and Business Management from a major public state university. I also have a Master's degree in Computer Network Technologies. I spent a 30 year career working on computer networks and was a Senior Network Architect at the largest Internet provider in the world in 1997. So, I am just a fairly educated college graduate who reads what I consider to be a tremendous amount of information from many sources to include; books, magazines, trade journals, published scientific articles, and countless Internet sources. I never claimed anything else. I simply use what I do know, rely on what I have access to in order to try and fill the gaps, and use logic. Also, please note that I haven't made any claims about global warming. I asked questions for the most part.

What are your credentials to be making all of the claims that you have been making? You still haven't provided even one "peer reviewed article" that says anything at all. You haven't cited even one scientist that I can ascertain from your list. And, why do you insist upon attacking Al Gore repeatedly, as if he is the only person in the world who is espousing the theory that CO2 is causing global warming?

As for your sources and your claim that you don't restrict your research to one source, this may be true but I do note that 3 out of the 5 sources you reference are all from canadafreepress.com. I wouldn't bother listing anymore of your sources of information. I can already see that you haven't listed even one climatologist in what I assume is your short list of most important sources, since you listed them first.

I won't bother participating in this "discussion" any longer. It is obviously a complete waste of my time.

Reality Check said:

"Save the World from Al Gore"

"By posing a far greater threat to the future of man kind than George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, Aghmadinejad, Dick Cheney, and all Jihadist combine could ever imagine."

Yeah. We're the alarmists.

You finally caught us. Your opinion has revealed the massive hoax that everyone in the world is in on except American right wingers. We thought we really had you when we took the hair dryers to the ice caps and asked the polar bears to look like they were drowning so we could film them.

And I really didn't think you'd get past the made up planet of Venus, which has its CO2 in the atmosphere rather than the ground and is multiple times hotter than the closest planet to the sun, Mercury, which is also made up.

I bet if you make enough noise, you could even let people know that in fact we have been looking at the temperature graphs upside down all this time!

Your personal opinion will obviously not be changed by facts, so go on. Make fun of Al Gore some more, continue your brave fight for those who cannot stand up for themselves--oil and coal, and soon you will also get a Nobel Prize.

Think Positive:
I only picked on your 'minor typographical errors' because they were in your response to my post in which you seemed to be discrediting me for grammatical and/or spelling errors you detected in my post. It was not an effort on my part to avoid the issues of the argument.

My academic resume is much more limited than yours as I only have an AS in Business, also from a large respected public university. But we do share a similar professional carer. I too spent 35+ years in the computer industry in a variety of systems engineering positions and as programmer. While my academic background may be inferior to yours I will not let that intimidate me.

One of my primary objections to the AGW activists, their supporters, and their collective agendas is the insistence on finding immediate solutions. My fear is that their time frames of reference are too short and their solution not properly vetted.

For example the push for bio-fuels is already having serious repercussions that are affecting the world's food supply. Another example is the DDT scandal. Thanks to Rachel Carson many millions of people in underdeveloped countries have died from mosquito borne diseases. Remember how we were going to kill all the caribou in Alaska with the pipe line? What was their population then versus now? Except for a few isolated locations, the polar bear population seems quite healthy. It is at least maintaining itself if not actually increasing. These examples are not intended justify any particular position regarding climate change, only to illustrate that if we allow the emotions of the moment to dictate policy we may very well find that the cure(s) was/were worse than the disease(s).

Updated list of Internet sites that I have visited during the past several months and years to collect information and data regarding AGW/GW/Climate Change. Admittedly this list does not include each and every site I have visited. I use this list much the same way I use wikipedia. Many of these sites, like wikipedia, will provide links to other sites. By following these additional links a broader and more diversified knowledge base may be accumulated. This also minimizes the impacts of the emotional vantage point of any particular author.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATIO...
http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/05/25/will-gore-debate-kristen-byrnes...
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/10/one-man-challenges-world-accor...
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Sci...
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061205-121929-8314r.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02...
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Co...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1625.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed103007a.cfm
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200719.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b8406...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/on_the_environment_it....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/what_will_new_energy_p...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007031524529.ht...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

i see you utterly ignored the single person who looked at your links. instead you said...

"One of my primary objections to the AGW activists, their supporters, and their collective agendas is the insistence on finding immediate solutions. My fear is that their time frames of reference are too short and their solution not properly vetted."

that would be a compelling objection if not for the fact that it's been used for 20 years. at some point it becomes an arbitrary thing to judge solutions by. are you in fact stating that we shouldn't do anything until we've observed climate for a significant percentage of the earth's entire "lifespan"? do we have to accumulate 4.5 million years of data and research for you to listen?

please, how long a timeframe is "long enough"? it's easy to deride solutions as being hasty, but at some point, surely, you must also see if they would work or not. have you looked? or have you satisfied yourself that all of them are inadequate without even looking?

"Thanks to Rachel Carson many millions of people in underdeveloped countries have died from mosquito borne diseases."

are you certain of that?

"Historians and scientists have shown that despite some benefits of DDT, few African countries made the pesticide a part of their malaria control efforts over the past quarter century. Many factors led to the decreased use of DDT -- factors that had nothing to do with Carson. In fact, the decline in DDT use coincided with a drop in malaria rates.

Socrates Litsios, a historian and former scientist for the World Health Organization (the agency that has headed global malaria control efforts since the 1960s), says the assertion that "Silent Spring" and the DDT ban led to millions of deaths is "outrageous." May Berenbaum, head of the Department of Entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who has studied mosquitoes and malaria, says that "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible." "
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/

i would encourage you to read the whole article. do you have any evidence to back up your claim that rachel carson's book caused deaths in africa?

i hope you're relieved to know that wasn't the case after all. hope that helps.

returning to your updated list, i am viewing the first article (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker...)

which claims "the latent heat of freezing/melting of water, a physical concept long quantified in thermodynamics... seems to have been overlooked by climatologists in their alarming claims of dramatic and rapid sea-level rise due to melting of the Antarctic ice caps and Greenland glaciers."

so, no climatologist associated with the ipcc had an understanding of thermodynamics? ok, whatever, i'm not here to judge... let's see what his math is like.

"I should first mention that the only source of energy to heat the atmosphere is the sun. "

this is not true. he actually goes on to refute himself and show how his own thinking is not adequately considering reality:

"As an aside, the transformation of the latent-heat of steam into work via steam-engines has had, and continues to have, vast industrial importance. The early systematic study of steam-engines in order to improve their performance, laid the groundwork for the science of thermodynamics, which undergirds essentially all of physics and chemistry."

we can transform the latent heat energy in water he describes into work, and that has had "vast industrial importance". this heat doesn't enter the atmosphere? convection currents have any heat we generate also rising to add energy. this doesn't affect his calculations which only address entering sunlight being captured as though the atmosphere was one layer of consistent mass and composition. he rebuts himself. this energy is a pittance compared to the sun's, but he ignores the very theory he attempts to rebut, as if only an understanding of the sun's influence mattered. of course, we all know the volcanoes are influencing climate as well, thanks to rush limbaugh.

even better, he didn't check his own math before publication.

"*Editor's note: a transposed decimal point led to an incorrect multiple used here when this article was first published. The energy required is nevertheless hundreds of times greater than evidently assumed by Al Gore."

this is why we must be willing to keep checking the things that agree with us. what if there's another error they haven't found yet? fortunately, with all the scientists working at the global warming problem, i am confident that there is more vetting of everyone's claims, though i am still cautious when reading. it speaks volumes that this was published with errors in it. did you ever think to check it yourself?

I am not ignoring your comments or analysis of my posted links. I have several other projects that I needed to get off my to do list so they would not be potential distractions. I expect to re-read your comments and their embedded links this evening then frame my response(s).

Unfortunately for our discussion GW is not my top priority but it remains in the top three.

your second article says only that some scientists doubt climate change. i cannot rebut this. some scientists do doubt climate change, and some of them should because it will improve all the models used.

but if you want to see if the models are true or not, you have to look at them, not simply the scientists around them. science does not work democratically. therefore, though it's useful for laypeople to point to a scientific consensus as though it indicates truth, it is actually a very lazy way to look at the world, which is arguably the point of science. but let's look at your article and see what's said...

day this was printed: December 21, 2007

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee."

if we then google ipcc predictions for melt rates, we find...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-arctic-ice.html
May 1, 2007

"Arctic Ocean sea ice is melting faster than even the most advanced climate change models predict, a new study concludes.

The work, published today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used the models to retroactively predict sea-ice decline from 1953 to 2006.

Scientists then compared the results to what has actually been recorded by Earth-based and satellite observations during that time frame.

The team found that, on average, 18 climate models used in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimated the extent of sea-ice decline by a factor of three.

"We're about 30 years ahead of what the models show," said Julienne Stroeve, lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder."

therefore, it seems reality is somewhere between the ipcc's understanding and what was apparently stated in an inconvenient truth. it is not between the ipcc's understanding and zero. the ipcc's models were shown to be too conservative by satellite pictures. i can see why tennekes doesn't know this, as he has been retired since 1990.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1278

and even more damningly...

Marc, Matthew:

Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus".
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/14/231236/019

enjoy! hope you're enjoying these!

your third article asks for a debate between a politician and a 15 year old. seriously, do you think that would help? is she y'all's joan of arc?

actually i'm familiar with kristen byrnes from npr. they had a story about her. i won't attack her, because she's actually trying to look at data for herself, and that's the best thing she could be doing. however, i question whether she's actually still interested in any of this.

if you look at her website, she has a total of 4 articles. when i actually clicked on the article she wrote in june 2007, i saw this:

by Kristen Byrnes author list email the content item print the content item create pdf file of the content item
in Ponder the Maunder
hits: 2

almost a year after she stopped generating these articles and decided to be a green architect... npr is sending people to her global warming skeptic website for a reason that escapes me. but she's not the juggernaut she's been made out to be. if you want to argue over her findings i will happily do so.

especially since the npr article ended quoting her:

"Kristen is getting out of the climate-change business. She thinks she would like to become an architect — maybe even build energy-efficient "green" buildings."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89619306

she seems to have moved on. even better, on your website quoting her:

"But when you look at scientific studies on individual glaciers you begin to understand that temperature is not always the cause and that all of the glaciers that Al mentions have been retreating for over 100 years."

um, that's in line with all the data supporting global warming. the industrial revolution began in the middle of the 18th century and spread outward. that's more than 100 years ago. how is that even a rebuttal? let's look at the individual glaciers and see what the causes were, but simply noting this timeframe negates nothing claimed in an inconvenient truth.

what was i supposed to see here?

on your fourth link, we read about how an inconvenient truth was found to have errors in it.

this is beyond argument, of course it has errors in it. it's obviously a marketing project, and the scientific community has continued to refine their predictions in the time since it was made. that's why nearly everything you can find on climate change will have errors in it, and older pieces tend to have the most errors. so let's look and see what the "errors" were in the film:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632660.ece

Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.”

as i've just demonstrated, the ipcc models are changing over time as we accumulate more data. in my previous response i quoted research showing that the ipcc models predicting melt rates were not accurate. the judge's judgment was made on science which is still changing over time, and finally, he did determine that on the whole, the film was accurate enough to be shown.

we should not let scientific inquiry be stifled by any politician. not al gore, not any judge, not any school governor. thankfully, in this case it wasn't, if you bother to read all of the details.

i would really like to argue over the meat of global warming, and see if my instincts have been serving me well. i am hoping that i'll eventually get to something from you that will speak about the science, instead of impugning the mascots. ad hominem attacks do not serve our culture well, and simply muddy the waters. al gore is not a scientist, and neither is dimmock. we should be ignoring them entirely in favor of the data.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/14/schools.film

do you disagree?

patiently,
uncle osbert

well, i don't know where reality check has wandered off to. i can only hope my research will help other people in their own understanding of how to discern what is true on the internet, as it relates to climate change. continuing with the fifth link:
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Sci...

and it is another ad hominem attack, implying that james hansen is personally controlling the giss in exchange for funding from george soros.

all the way at the bottom we find:

Update: Hansen has denied receiving direct funding from OSI. Investors Business Daily is standing behind the story, claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media.

so, he seemingly didn't get any direct funding that can be proven. this is a very sloppily written article. even in the comments you can see people complaining that this is disappointing coming from a blog that should concern itself with the science. it is far easier to spread paranoia than to show causality.

surely you have something that would rebut the findings rather than the man? are you trying to imply that he hand draws all those pictures we think come from satellites? it's one thing to rebut research, but impugning the scientific community without specifically naming how our understanding is wrong is just paranoid. i refuse to be stampeded by your people the same way you refuse to be stampeded by mine. what i still don't understand, is why you've already made your decision, despite the evidence, instead of in keeping with it.

I printed out this thread as of uncleosberts 04/21/2008 7:04 post and read the posts again. Then I started this post. I know you may be disappointed that I have not included specific citations you have request. Lacking timely self discipline I distracted my self with this post.

I think we all are in agreement that the most recent trend of the global climate cycle has been an increase in average temperatures. Even I, in one of my most extreme moments, would not deny that. The real debate is trying to determine the real catalyst. I do not believe that man and his industry is a primary cause. We may aggravate the situation but I do not believe we are a significant causal factor.

The bias I have against AGW is partially rooted in my recollections of the 70's when we, mankind, were going to cause a new ice age because of the particulate pollution we were pumping into the air. The argument was that this particulate pollution shaded the earth and prevented solar radiation reaching the surface. This in turn would replicate the years long winters that followed massive volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa, as a starting point]. So we cleaned up our act and now people complain that the earth is getting too warm. There are even radical solutions that seem to be centered around some form of giant umbrella to shade the earth. In an overly simplified sense: first we have too much shading; now we need more. I do not mean to marginalize the efforts to eliminate or minimize particulate pollution. It has been a good thing. After all when was the last time there was real discussion about acid rain, at least domestically. I am concerned about its resurrection from the wide spread use of poorly designed power plants in places such as China.

In addition to sites discussing the pros and cons regarding AGW, and watching related programming on the National Geographic Channel (NGC) and the Science Channel I also read articles, visit web sites, and watch programming related to archeology, anthropology, and geological history. These tend to discuss their topics in terms of hundreds, thousands, and even millions of years. These time frames make a 20 to 30 year interval seem minor. Perhaps I should be more flexible but these longer time periods tend to be my dominate frame of reference. In this context the life span of any individual is less than the blink of an eye in the earth's history.

Even the history of man kind is almost negligible in terms of earth's history, at least as we understand it at the present time. When I consider the forces that facilitate plate tectonics, changes in earth's orbital path, shifts in polar inclinations relative to the sun, the cyclical patterns of solar activity and the related solar winds, and other factors the influence of man seems minimal at best. I remember the dire predictions of earth's demise with the approach of the millennium. Why should earth have cared what year we arbitrarily decided it was?

When I refer to Al Gore and his hoax I am thinking is terms of the public panic and hysteria that he has created. I am exaggerating but he has created a mind set that if we don’t fix the earth this morning we will not live to see this afternoon. It is laudable that he has increased our conscientiousness about the need to conserve and recycle, but his fire and brimstone approach is repelling. Many of his rants directed towards George W. Bush would be very appropriate if redirected towards Mr. Gore. His crusade seems to be too much about him and not the problem. I have never subscribed to the flat earth society view point but he accused me and others of that because we dare to express doubts about AGW.

Too many governments and international organizations have been duped or coerced into believing and accepting his worst case scenario. Their lack of the political courage to independently confirm any of his claims does to a certain extent make them complicit to the hoax. Because the United States Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty many of these same governments and organization have appropriated the ‘crisis’ as a means to attack us. What is interesting is that many of the parties that championed the cause have been the least effective in meeting their goals under that treaty.

Nothing I have read, heard, or watched individually has, or collectively have, convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that we humans are the cause of global warming. There are some strong arguments that we are but the arguments against AGW seem stronger and appear to be more scientifically based.

A comparison was made about the response to a plague and GW. As it turns out we had to wait until we found the actual cause of the plague before we could develop any level of control or a cure. This pattern has been repeated throughout our history. With each new problem we had to wait until we determined the cause then develop a solution. As we generated solutions to problems our analytical and solutions skills improved.

What global climate is desirable? Do we optimize it for humans or the other organisms we share earth with. If we can not determine the answer to this question what controls are we going to implement? Is the climate change really detrimental to earth or is it only a problem for we humans and our creature comforts. So, yes there is a global climate change. As long as the sun remains a functional star earth will experience climate changes. Some phases will be more hospitable to mankind than others. But which phase of the cycle should we maintain?

reality check, i beg you to examine your own assumptions. that is all i can do. if you will not actually look at any of the data then this is all i have left. i eagerly anticipate your response.

"The real debate is trying to determine the real catalyst. I do not believe that man and his industry is a primary cause. We may aggravate the situation but I do not believe we are a significant causal factor."

what do you base this belief on? you began by stating that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant. you began by saying we needed to save the world from al gore. what is it you really believe?

if you really believe that it's important to find the catalyst, then you cannot begin by absolving our behavior. restricting the hunt for answers before we have them is not logical, is it?

"The bias I have against AGW is partially rooted in my recollections of the 70's when we, mankind, were going to cause a new ice age because of the particulate pollution we were pumping into the air."

i will not impugn your recollections of reality. personally, i am younger than you are, so i defer to your memory. however, our perception of reality is not the same as science. if the scientific community was wrong in the past, it does not follow that they are always wrong. we must examine what is claimed, without trying to indict it against our past.

"There are even radical solutions that seem to be centered around some form of giant umbrella to shade the earth."

radical solutions are by their nature radical. they should not be used to reject scientific progress, as though they are our only options. rather, a thorough examination of the data by engineers like yourself can only help the scientific community refine their theories. the radical solutions come from radical people. but if more intelligent people look at these problems, we will get more intelligent solutions. do you disagree?

"I also read articles, visit web sites, and watch programming related to archeology, anthropology, and geological history. These tend to discuss their topics in terms of hundreds, thousands, and even millions of years. These time frames make a 20 to 30 year interval seem minor. Perhaps I should be more flexible but these longer time periods tend to be my dominate frame of reference. In this context the life span of any individual is less than the blink of an eye in the earth's history."

there is no need to change your frame of reference. i see our time now as an opportunity, not a burden. you are right that our life spans are dwarfed by the entirety of time. that simply drives home the message... we must ensure that our behavior is as insignificant as we hope. if we wrecked the planet for future generations, it would still be done in the blink of an eye. we must take full advantage of this moment and see what's going on. what if einstein had convinced himself, that matter and energy were separate?

in another 40 years, someone might still have noticed that they were the same. reality is still there. the shortness of our lifespan has never restrained the power of our collective intelligence for long. there is no reason to believe that our lifespans dictate our power or abilities. we continue to evolve more powerful tools everyday.

"When I refer to Al Gore and his hoax I am thinking is terms of the public panic and hysteria that he has created. I am exaggerating but he has created a mind set that if we don’t fix the earth this morning we will not live to see this afternoon. It is laudable that he has increased our conscientiousness about the need to conserve and recycle, but his fire and brimstone approach is repelling."

and now the issue. why do you believe this is a hoax? the data is there. Eppur si muove. just as the earth cares not what day we think it is, it also cares not if we know if it's moving or warming.

"Many of his rants directed towards George W. Bush would be very appropriate if redirected towards Mr. Gore. His crusade seems to be too much about him and not the problem. I have never subscribed to the flat earth society view point but he accused me and others of that because we dare to express doubts about AGW."

i am sorry that al gore offended you. but it still falls to us, to look at the data ourselves, and see if it is true.

i can't make it any simpler than that. if we develop allergies to celebrities and disbelieve everything they say because they state it poorly, it still doesn't help us figure out what's really going on, does it?

"Nothing I have read, heard, or watched individually has, or collectively have, convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that we humans are the cause of global warming. There are some strong arguments that we are but the arguments against AGW seem stronger and appear to be more scientifically based."

finally. which ones do you believe are the strongest and most scientific?

let's look at them together. that's what i think the point of this forum should be. it's not enough to simply state our beliefs, if we are not also willing to defend them as vigorously as we denounce what others believe.

are you ready? whenever you want...

uncleosbert
Thank you for your tolerance and participation is this discussion. Because of my short comings, debate may not apply.

Your criticisms have been constructive because they have exposed my poor communications skills. I also learned the hard way that I need to become more organized and make sure I have any supporting references 'at the ready' for posting. I also need to prepare my longer posts off-line so I can utilized spelling and grammar check features. In reading some of my posts I see how poorly many were written.

It may be a few days before I respond. I first need to get my links reorganized into a central location rather than having them scattered across 3 systems running Windows and Linux.

Thank you for the links you provided as they provide some data I have not seen before.

thank you for returning to acknowledge me. i hope we can improve each other's understanding of the world together. please take all the time you need. it's very hard to wade through all of the rumor to find truth. if more of us go looking together, we should find it that much faster. because truly, i'm not a scientist. i'm at the mercy of the media and those who would lie to me to drive activism. i must partner with those who think differently, to offset my own preferences which would steer me to lies.

and thank you, it's a rare person who will take the time to respond to critics.