What is missing is a good meta analysis of the literature. I’m sure the AGW crowd would avoid that like the plague. However, it is a useful tool in coming to an informed decision about global climate changes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

David: You’re beginning to sputter and it ain’t pretty.

You accuse ME of cherry picking and yet, you excerpt and bold only portions of documents that support your case.

Do we need a new definition of cherry picking that only applies to conservatives?

You continue to ignore the political motivation of those pushing your brand of scaremongering and socialist remedy.

The “science” here was pushed aside by folks like you long ago. And you continue to use every effort to discredit and deny those in the scientific community with a dissenting view the opportunity to be heard. And some of your ilk go so far as to suggest “Nuremberg” style war crimes trials for those who dare dissent.

Environazis seems a most appropriate label.

Unfortunately, as much as you would like to claim some moral ground based on science, which I find a very unusual technique, you are simply confirming that the leftist position on this issue is rigidly ideological.

If you are unable or unwilling to deal with the political dimension of this problem then you are not serious about solving the problem and all your blustering above is nothing more than an ego trip.

Too bad.

P.S. I’ve got my EPA ID right here. Show me yours, I’ll show you mine.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You always know you have a liberal snagged when they start spouting conspiracy theories.

Your definition of “conspiracy theory” is pretty broad. And, uhhh… it was a joke. As in “I am aware that you moderate and have a life too…”

You know you have a Conservative snagged when they stop talking about the topic at hand and focus on name calling and attacking the messenger.

You two blow alot of hot air but only spout the evidence you agree with.

Actually, no. I’ve been well aware of all of the evidence you and others have put forth. I do notice you haven’t replied to any of it and are doing the tired rope a dope and going for the attack. Oh well.

The stuff you don’t agree with you sputter about oil company connections, and speculating their motives. It’s all the same, shout down those who don’t agree with the global warming religion, get them fired or demoted or their title taken away.

You mean like right wingers like David Horowitz goes after Liberal teachers at Universities around the country? Like that? But, this is all just fluff, isn’t it Curt? Beside the point at hand, isn’t it? A diversion from the science…?

Interesting how it’s become about ME rather than the science. Nuff said.

Due to the reasons stated above I would say its a waste of time talking to either of you.

Yes, because I’m a LIBERAL piece of ++++ and don’t deserve any better. That much is clear. At least from your perspective…

You never did answer my points about Pielke, did you? No you didn’t.

Oh, btw, every single one of your comments was approved and you will notice I put you and the other blowhard on the trusted list so your comments will show immediately, as this latest one of yours did. So take off the tin hat for a bit will ya!
More silly attacks, name calling as it were “tin hat” Heh. I think I’ve heard that one before. Yes. I’m almost sure of it. (Pffft.)

It took a day for the posts to appear. And, it’s not uncommon on a number of rightie blogs for comments to be shut down when the moderator doesn’t like what is being said. My apologies if that is not something you practice. But, it’s a real concern at some sites.

I expect you know this, but it’s more fun to start throwing down the insults and the insinuations when you can’t win the argument.

Too bad.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike, the debate is not over. That’s rhetoric that is occurring to get people motivated to the very real possibilities that the science may present us with a great hardship in the future. We just don’t know.

You can resent Gore and others for doing this, but the anti-everything-Liberal-or looks-Left stuff is just too much.

One thing I know is that good ideas come from all sides. As a nation we need to get over the two-sided stuff. It’s killing us.

There’s common ground to be found.

The experts in the IPCC acknowledged that there is no strong evidence of an abnormal rise in sea levels, although its been rising since the end of the last ice age.

Well, we know that the sea level is rising around the world. The question is, how much and how much of it is due to glacier retreat? We don’t know. We do know that the moon is moving away from the Earth about an inch a year, and this affects the magnetic field of the planet, adding to and complicating a myriad of conditions including tidal flow and core balance and axial balance and putting it all more in play. So, if the core heats up, and increased magma displacement occurs due to a natural shift in the poles, a warming trend occurs. It’s natural, and it is suspected that certain man made elements are adding to the problem.

The IPCC doesn’t want to go on the record as saying the sea level is rising for a very specific reason: Panic. They don’t want to start it. So, it’s kept in the realm of conjecture.

If you try to pin down Pielke or anyone associated very publicly with the IPCC, they will state that the sea level is rising, (supported by USGS and a number of other studies) but they won’t say by how much. “We need more data.”

The same with the glacier balance. What’s the percentage? No one will go on the record with anything more than “most” are in retreat. What’s “most”, right?

My problem is that in your zeal here to be so anti-Left, your throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And, the goal posts keep moving farther and farther away…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Actually, it’s taking almost a day for my posts to be posted to the site. I also note that an earlier post I wrote was not posted to the site at all yet. Odd that. Taking liberties with the moderating? Who’s to know.

You always know you have a liberal snagged when they start spouting conspiracy theories.

You two blow alot of hot air but only spout the evidence you agree with. The stuff you don’t agree with you sputter about oil company connections, and speculating their motives. It’s all the same, shout down those who don’t agree with the global warming religion, get them fired or demoted or their title taken away.

Due to the reasons stated above I would say its a waste of time talking to either of you.

Oh, btw, every single one of your comments was approved and you will notice I put you and the other blowhard on the trusted list so your comments will show immediately, as this latest one of yours did. So take off the tin hat for a bit will ya!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I see you’re more interested in playing games here than acknowledging the realities of the climate change debate.

“Realities of the climate change debate”? Somehow, I get the impression that this translates to: “You don’t agree with me, so you are full of it.” For, if you read above, I do acknowledge the realities of the climate change debate.

I also note that you failed to address any of the points raised in the letter which I excerpted.

Where is the science to discuss in the letter Mike? There is none. It’s a lot of rhetoric that is not backed up with data.

You cherry pick a few connections to a tiny fraction of the 60 who signed the letter and extrapolate that to the entire bunch.

Actually, I made no judgment beyond the facts as stated, which is a random sampling revealed not only that some of the 60 scientists who signed the letter have strong financial and political reasons to not engage the science and that the self described leader and writer of the letter is a well paid consultant for the oil industry. And, of course, the only reason I did that was because you felt so strongly that not ALL of the 60 could be bought and sold. And, perhaps not, but then, you set the rule in the first place. I’m sure you understand that, right? Sure you do.

Oh, and what about the “90 Canadian climate scientists” cited in the letter you linked? Who are they? Which environmental lobbying organizations do they work for? [...] The letter you link does not say.>/i>

I also note that you failed to respond to the European Space Agency findings of increased ice in Greenland which also references the report about similar findings in the Antarctic.

Actually, it’s taking almost a day for my posts to be posted to the site.
I also note that an earlier post I wrote was not posted to the site at all yet. Odd that. Taking liberties with the moderating? Who’s to know.

Your use of the ESA findings is the very definition of cherry picking Mike. It’s entirely fascinating that you continually blame others for doing exactly what you do over and over again. Here’s the proof:

The ESA study of the growth of the interior ice sheet does not preclude or exclude retreat of glacier tracts elsewhere on Greenland or around the world. As I’ve noted earlier, it is very true that a certain amount of ice and glacier growth is evident in very specific places around the world, the interior sheets of Greenland and the North Peninsula of Antarctica being the more commonly referred to. If you actually read the ESA study, and not cherry pick from it, or even the article you link to yourself, you’d note the following and a comment by the study leader:

Professor Johannessen commented: “This strong negative correlation between winter elevation changes and the NAO index, suggests an underappreciated role of the winter season and the NAO for elevation changes — a wildcard in Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance scenarios under global warming.” He cautioned that the recent growth found by the radar altimetry survey does not necessarily reflect a long-term or future trend. With natural variability in the high-latitude climate cycle that includes the NAO being very large, even an 11-year long dataset remains short.”There is clearly a need for continued monitoring using new satellite altimeters and other observations, together with numerical models to calculate the Greenland Ice Sheet mass budget,” Johannessen added. Modelling studies of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global warming have shown that temperature increases up to about 3ºC lead to positive mass balance changes at high elevations — due to snow accumulation — and negative at low elevations — due to snow melt exceeding accumulation.

And, of course, if you understood the science, you’d understand that it is in the lower elevations of Greenland, particularly near the coast lines (as in Antarctica as well) where the largest amount of retreating glacier activity is occurring.

I’m sorry David, but I do not run a free tutorial for environmental zealots.

I’d say you are not running any type of tutorial at all. But, if it makes you feel better…

If you are unable to demonstrate at least a modicum of intellectual integrity and ability to engage in an honest discussion of this important issue I can only conclude that any attempt to break through the fog with which you wrap yourself is a waste of time.

Ah yes, the “if you aren’t going to play by MY rules in the sandbox, then I’m not going to play at all” line. I was wondering when that was going to happen.

Back to the actual science which you give lip service to, but ignore:

Here’s some comments on the study you wanted me to comment upon, the ESA study of Greenland from Real Climate:

In the earlier Science paper, Johanessen et al. found increased snow accumulation on the top of the interior Greenland ice sheet between 1992 and 2003. Above 1500m a.s.l in much of the interior Greenland they estimated an increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 cm/year and below 1500m they observed a decreasing trend of -2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year. Hence, growth in the interior parts and a thinning of the ice nearer the edges. However, Johanessen et al. were not able to measure all of the coastal ranges. Indeed, the thinning of the margins and growth in the interior Greenland is an expected response to increased temperatures and more precipitation in a warmer climate. These results present no contradiction to the accelerated sliding near the coasts, but both will affect the ice/snow (fresh water) mass estimate. Whereas the finding of Rignot and Kanagaratnam suggests a larger sink of the frozen Greenland fresh water budget (the ice is dumped into the sea), the snow deposition in Greenland interiors is a source term (increases the amount of frozen fresh water). It does not matter for the general sea level in which form the water exists (liguid or solid/frozen) when it is discharged into the sea: The same mass of liquid water and immersed ice affect the water level equally (Archimede’s principle).

And a bit further on:

The critical point for Greenland is whether the increased rate of glacier motion more than compensates for the greater accumulation on the surface. While the broad picture of what is happening is consistent between these papers, the bottom-line value for Greenland’s mass balance is different in all three cases. Looking just at the dynamical changes observed by Rignot & Kanagaratnam, there is an increased discharge of about 0.28 mm/year SLE from 1996 to 2005, well outside the range of error bars. This is substantially more than the opposing changes in accumulation estimated by Johannessen et al and Zwally et al, and is unlikely to have been included in their assessments. Thus, the probability is that Greenland has been losing ice in the last decade. We should be careful to point out though that this is only for one decade, and doesn’t prove anything about the longer term. As many of the studies make clear, there is a significant degree of interannual variability (related to the North Atlantic Oscillation, or the response to the cooling associated with Mt. Pinatubo) such that discerning longer term trends is hard.

And in conclusion:

The largest contributions to sea level rise so far are estimated to have come from thermal expansion, with the melting of mountain glaciers and icecaps being of second order. Looking forward, the current (small) imbalance (whether positive or negative) of the Greenland ice sheet is not terribly important. What matters is if the melting were to increase significantly. Ongoing observations (most promisingly from the GRACE gravity measurements, Velicogna et al, 2005) will be useful in monitoring trends, but in order to have reasonable projections into the future, we would like to be able to rely on ice sheet models. Unfortunately, the physics of basal lubrication and the importance of ice dynamics highlighted in the Rignot & Kanagaratnam results are very poorly understood and not fully accounted for in current ice sheet models. Until those models include these effects, there is a danger that we may be under-appreciating the dynamic nature of the ice sheets.

The scientists doing the work, NOT the cherry picking, state that the point you make above is “not terribly important.”

Politics doesn’t trump science. Just because you WANT it to be so, doesn’t make it so.

Sorry.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

David, if I am boxing you in with a generality, you did the same with me by your insistence about “climate change is happening”. I didn’t deny it wasn’t. So I’m baffled when you write

And, once again… yes folks…. Mike Hume is on the record as stating that climate change is indeed a real and important issue. Global warming is real. He objects to the “sky is falling” presentation that surrounds it.

Because that’s in alignment with how I feel.

The bulk of my post was in questioning political motives, since the motives of those skeptics who find funding with Exxon is questioned, but never those who seek grant funding- funding that is denied someone like a Lindzen, who hasn’t bought into the alarmist camp.

What I question is how much of the current warming trend is influenced by man; and why we even need to have reason for alarm. Climate change will always occur, with or without man’s influence. So what? Why should I care? Why should a half degree to .7 degree difference in temperature matter? How do we know that some parts of the earth won’t benefit from global warming?

What we need to find out: What causes it? Can it be stopped? How can it be stopped? Should it be stopped? And, the list goes on… and on…

Well, exactly! That’s why I resent Al Gore and the mass media proclaiming “the debate’s over”, when there is so much that is not understood. And it is dishonest to feign that we have all the answers and that global warming is a bigger threat to humanity than terrorists.

By evidence of “acceleration”, it’s my fault in lack of clarification. I meant to refer to rising sea levels. The experts in the IPCC acknowledged that there is no strong evidence of an abnormal rise in sea levels, although its been rising since the end of the last ice age.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Alright David: I see you’re more interested in playing games here than acknowledging the realities of the climate change debate.

You cherry pick a few connections to a tiny fraction of the 60 who signed the letter and extrapolate that to the entire bunch.

Shameful David. And worse than the “half truths” who decry above.

Oh, and what about the “90 Canadian climate scientists” cited in the letter you linked? Who are they? Which environmental lobbying organizations do they work for?

The letter you link does not say. It only has a bunch of yellow highlighted bold type with the usual scaremongering crapola like “PS: This letter doesn’t state strongly enough that if our political leaders fail to act NOW we will pass a point of no return in less than 10 years.

I also note that you failed to address any of the points raised in the letter which I excerpted.

I also note that you failed to respond to the European Space Agency findings of increased ice in Greenland which also references the report about similar findings in the Antarctic.

I’m sorry David, but I do not run a free tutorial for environmental zealots. If you are unable to demonstrate at least a modicum of intellectual integrity and ability to engage in an honest discussion of this important issue I can only conclude that any attempt to break through the fog with which you wrap yourself is a waste of time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike, I’ll take your 60 scientists and raise you 90.

Here is another Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada
on Climate Change Science, which states:

“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” and of the 2005 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment that “Arctic temperatures have risen at almost twice the rate of those in the rest of the world over the past few decades”.

It has been signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists.

They can’t all be in the pocket of Exxon Mobil now can they?
Maybe not ALL, a good enough number of them.

The major player in the Open Letter you cite is none other than Dr. Tim Ball “former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant”.

Sourcewatch:

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1] 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). [2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.

While I’ve no intention of going into the background of all 60 scientists you cite from the letter, I selected four at random, and it’s interesting what popped up.

Essenhigh is a professor of mechanical engineering whose main focus is in the area of combustion. For example, Essenhigh has studied the effect of chemical kinetics on the rate of coal combustion. A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that, Essenhigh has published over 45 peer-reviewed research articles mainly in the area of combustion.

Next:

Dr. Boris Winterhalter is a retired marine researcheer and according to a search of 22,000 academic journals, has never published any peer-reviewed research on global warming. He has had four peer-reviewed articles, all related to marine geology, the first published in 1970, the rest between 2000 and 2002.

And yet another, with strong connections to the petroleum industry. (Imagine that.)

Al Pekarek has been involved in petroleum exploration, primarily in the Rocky Mountains and the Basin and Range province. Company experience includes working for Wexpro, Sun, Snyder, and Husky. Pekarek is currently an associate professor of geology at St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn., and also continues to be a consulting geologist in the petroleum industry. (Source: Calendar) (source: http://www.stcloudstate.edu) Listed as an “Allied Expert” for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP) The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Chair of Scientific Advisory Committee, Dr. Tim Ball. In an Oct. 16, ‘06 CanWest Global new article about who funds the NRSP, Tom Harris, states that “a confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow him to say whether energy companies are funding his group.” (source: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun) (source: http://www.nrsp.com/scientists.html). According to an ISI search of publications , Pekarek does not have a single piece of research published in a peer-reviewed journal.

And, I hit the jackpot with this one:

Sallie Baliunas:In the recent Union of Concerned Scientists report on Skeptics, Exxon and the tobacco industry, Baliunas is listed as being affiliated with nine organizations that have received funding from ExxonMobil. The organizations are:* Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy (Science and economic advisory council member)
* Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (Academic and Scientific Advisory Board Member)
* Competitive Enterprise Institute (Report Author)
* George C. Marshall Institute (Senior Scientist and Chair of Science Advisory Board)
* Global Climate Coalition (Featured Scientist)
* Heartland Institute (Writer/contributor)
* Heritage Foundation (Writer/contributor)
* Robert Wesson Endowment Fund Fellow (1993-4,), Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace
* Tech Central Station (Science Round Table Member)Baliunas and the NRSP
Baliunas is listed as a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for a Canadian group called the “Natural Resource Stewardship Project,” (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it’s funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that “a confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group.”

2 out of 4 ain’t too bad for a random sample. (Even though one is in coal combustion, I’ll give you that one. On the house.)

Your 60 was a bluff Mike. Shame that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

And here’s a nugget from the European Space Agency, with results from their ERS satellite showing the glaciers on Greenland are GROWING:

http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMILF638FE_planet_0.html

And here’s an interesting excerpt: “A paper published in Science in June this year detailed the results of a similar analysis of the Antarctic Ice Sheet based on ERS radar altimeter data, carried out by a team led by Professor Curt Davis of the University of Missouri-Columbia.

The results showed thickening in East Antarctica on the order of 1.8 cm per year, but thinning across a substantial part of West Antarctica. Data were unavailable for much of the Antarctic Peninsula, subject to recent ice sheet thinning due to regional climate warming, again because of limitations in current radar altimeter performance. ”

Still want to stand by those absolute statements of fact David and Peter?

Like or Dislike: 0  0