Carl:

Let’s not forget that at the beginning of the hurricane season down south, where I live, it was predicted that global warming meant more strong hurricanes like the previous year and Katrina.

Didn’t turn out that way.

Here’s the US govt. chart tracking temperature changes that global warming zealots embrace as PROOF:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

If you extend the chart a bit further back you’ll see more ups and downs.

Happens all the time.

P.S. If you’re up for tackling some envirozealots, drop onto the comments here:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/02/16/more-environazi-silliness/index.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What I have not seen is any REAL evidence of Global Warming caused by man, How many Humvees did King Arthur have during the Medival Warm Period which happened to be much warmer than now.
How about the computers models that show as CO2 increases, water vapor (a much more potent Greenhouse Gas) will increase rapidly, yet this is not happening.
And some climate studies that take the strong El Nino year of 1998 into account do not show any warming.
And currently the trend has been towards more extremes if you look at the facts. The Northern Hemisphere is in one of the coldest winters in decades, it snowed in LA where it has not snowed since the 1950s and here in the low valleys of Southern Oregon we have snow on the ground for almost two weeks when the longest is usually ½ day.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Alright… I’ve heard enough to reach a few conclusions.

Reasic admits he is no expert. I haven’t heard what other credentials he may claim in this field.

So I can only conclude that his opinions are not peer reviewed and he has no professional experience in environmental issues.

He can correct me if I am wrong.

But until I see verifiable documentation that his opinions are set upong a better foundation than his ideology, they are invalid and not worth discussing.

That’s the same rule he has applied to everyone else, so I apply it to him.

And I’m sitting here with my EPA badge. Show me yours and I’ll show you mine

It’s obvious to me we have another case of a lefty who wishes to have sole rights to set acceptable terms for a debate. That’s about as intellectually honest as Harry Reid’s claim that the Republicans are preventing debate in the Senate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hey, Curt! I don’t read KOS, fyi.

Spout your sources as if they are all the chosen ones while ignoring ours. Not sure if you have gotten it thru your thick skull yet but we all understand that you bow before the alter of the scientists who agree with you and ignore the ones who don’t. A common practice with you libs.

Here’s the difference. It’s not simply me citing my sources and you citing yours. When I disagree with yours, I state what, specifically, I disagree with and then back it up. I can’t recall any of you actually taking on any of my claims. You just quote one or two sources and call it a day. Look at the one I just posted to Skye. I’d be interested in your response, too.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The problem is that there is no “balance of nature,” which implies a status quo that must be adhered to. The Earth has always been in a constant state of flux. Weather cycles run in terms of centuries, if not millennia. Geological cycles run in terms of millions of years. The mean temperature of the Earth has risen and fallen in cycles for billions of years, almost all of it without being affected in the slightest by human beings

Skye, let me try to explain for you what I think is happening in our climate, and you tell me which part of this you disagree with:

I think that there are greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. I believe that they are at much higher concentrations than ever before. I also believe that human activities, especially in recent years, emit those same greenhouse gases. Now, I draw the logical conclusion that A is true and B is true, therefore C is true(C, being that humans are the source of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.)

Now on to the effect of such gases. I believe that the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere produce a warming effect on the planet. As the concentration of the gases increases, more heat from the sun is trapped in.

One more logical step. If humans are the source of the high concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and those gases have a warming effect on the planet, I then draw the conclusion that humans have caused this new warming trend.

Hopefully, this will help us settle our differences. Which of these statements do you disagree with? You pick one or more, and then we’ll debate that specific statement. Be sure to be ready to back up your claims with scientific research, though, and I’ll do the same.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Man, you are a hoot Reasic. Spout your sources as if they are all the chosen ones while ignoring ours. Not sure if you have gotten it thru your thick skull yet but we all understand that you bow before the alter of the scientists who agree with you and ignore the ones who don’t. A common practice with you libs.

You have obviously invested alot of time into this post of mine when you could be with your fellow brethren at KOS, so for that I guess I should thank you (cough sarcasm cough) but you have not changed anyone’s mind here. Global warming is a myth.

Get over it.

And please save me your long winded reply in which you say “but i’ve cited sources, you haven’t” in one thousand words.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

OK… I’m starting to understand. Reasic isn’t serious about this issue, it’s just a game.

Mike, I made a serious effort at explaining what I consider to be flaws in Monckton’s arguments. What about that makes this a game? Yet again you’re making silly claims without actually addressing any of the facts or data, as I have.

I’ll see your 2,500 scientists and raise you 14,700!

You want to do that Reasic? I’m ready.

I’ve got the petition of 17,200 scientists who profoundly disagree with the conclusions you tout as sacrosanct.

Are you talking about the Oregon Petition? That was not 17,000 scientists. That thing was sent out to anybody and their mother who would sign it:

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers — a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

If your main conclusion is that you ” just believe the planet is warming” then let’s talk.

But why be a deny any LEGITIMATE debate exists on the causes and necessary solutions (if any?)

I have yet to see any convincing argument against global warming, so I believe the consensus view. You may not think so, but I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong. You just haven’t provided any substantive arguments.

Oh, and on the hockey stick thing, see the above comment I made. I would like to see some real peer-reviewed research that debunks the hockey-stick graph.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Please provide proof of your qualifications in global climatology.

I’m no expert. And neither are any of you. However, I’m quoting the work of climate scientists. You all worship a journalist. I see how you’d want to compare Monckton to me, as it would make him look like a genius. However, I’m comparing our sources. Mine are scientists.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Skye,

I said:

The science of climate change deals with long periods of time. You can’t take a small period and draw any meaningful conclusions from it, as our cooling period in the recent past has shown.

And you replied:

Which is EXACTLY what proponents of human-based global warming have been doing since crying over in 1975.

What is this supposed to prove? The majority of climate scientists are viewing our current warming trend compared to plenty of historical temperature data. My comment was in response to an observation of temperature change over a five year period.

I also wish you skeptics would quit bringing up that stupid cooling article from the 70′s. First of all, the science of climate change was in its infancy back then. Our current projections are far more accurate now, thanks to advanced technology and much more data. Also, it’s a friggin’ news article! At least show me some scientific research papers that make the same claims.

On the hockey stick issue, here’s an article for you:

False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). The false claims were first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific (social science) journal “Energy and Environment” and later, in a separate “Communications Arising” comment that was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and editor [as a side note, we find it peculiar that the authors have argued elsewhere that their submission was rejected due to 'lack of space'. Nature makes their policy on such submissions quite clear: "The Brief Communications editor will decide how to proceed on the basis of whether the central conclusion of the earlier paper is brought into question; of the length of time since the original publication; and of whether a comment or exchange of views is likely to seem of interest to nonspecialist readers. Because Nature receives so many comments, those that do not meet these criteria are referred to the specialist literature." Since Nature chose to send the comment out for review in the first place, the "time since the original publication" was clearly not deemed a problematic factor. One is logically left to conclude that the grounds for rejection were the deficiencies in the authors' arguments explicitly noted by the reviewers]. The rejected criticism has nonetheless been posted on the internet by the authors, and promoted in certain other non-peer-reviewed venues (see this nice discussion by science journalist David Appell of a scurrilous parroting of their claims by Richard Muller in an on-line opinion piece).

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the “Hockey-Stick” shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis (“PCA”), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, “Journal of Climate” by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus cannot yet be cited--more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.

You might want to quote some peer-reviewed work that supposedly debunks the hockey stick graph.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Okay, Skye. You have a lot of small replies, so I’ll do my best to address what I can.

First, you quoted an IPCC procedural document. Here’s the rest of that paragraph:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. These changes shall be identified by the Lead Authors in writing and made available to the Panel at the time it is asked to accept the Summary for Policymakers, in case of reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the end of the session of the Panel which adopts/accepts the report.

You see, the changes they are talking about are to be made at the same time as the Summary. All they are saying is that the two must be consistent. This has already taken place, and now the editing is over and the full report is in publication. Here’s another quote from that document you referenced:

The Summaries for Policymakers should be prepared concurrently with the preparation of the main Reports.

Approval of the Summary for Policymakers at the Session of the Working Group, signifies that it is consistent with the factual material contained in the full scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment or Special Report accepted by the Working Group. Coordinating lead authors may be asked to provide technical assistance in ensuring that consistency has been achieved.

Skye, your timetable’s all screwed up. As I said, there’s no conspiracy theory here. This procedure is finished. Both the Summary and the main report are done.

Like or Dislike: 0  0