Response to The Inconvenient Truth

[entertainme]

By Canadian scientists.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Global warming has got to be the biggest scam of the 21st century.

[xpokerx]

One of my favorite quotes from this article is here...

[ QUOTE ]
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

[xpokerx]

It pays to read the whole article...

[ QUOTE ]
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta love the FACTS.

[TomCollins]

But I thought the debate was over? I am confused.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.


[/ QUOTE ]


This is interesting. Some claraification is needed, it is not the 'brightness of the sun' but the energy output of the sun and the amount of that energy absorbed or reflected by the earth's atmosphere that is important.

I wonder if this patterson can cite the 'hundreds of studies' from peer-reveiwed science jounals and papers that prove this hypothesis. This has to, at least partially, be based on Milankovitch Cycles Explained Here.

Also see the other thread simply titled "Global Warming" for other links I post that are relevant to this issue.

Another of Patterson's points that is rather misleading is that 450 million years ago the planet was a very different place in many ways, for example, the continent and ocean structures were different and in a much different configuation. His Analogy logic is a bit thin in my opinion.

-Zeno

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.


[/ QUOTE ]


This is interesting. Some claraification is needed, it is not the 'brightness of the sun' but the energy output of the sun and the amount of that energy absorbed or reflected by the earth's atmosphere that is important.

I wonder if this patterson can cite the 'hundreds of studies' from peer-reveiwed science jounals and papers that prove this hypothesis. This has to, at least partially, be based on Milankovitch Cycles Explained Here.

Also see the other thread simply titled "Global Warming" for other links I post that are relevant to this issue.

Another of Patterson's points that is rather misleading is that 450 million years ago the planet was a very different place in many ways, for example, the continent and ocean structures were different and in a much different configuation. His Analogy logic is a bit thin in my opinion.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

It is "misleading" and/or "thin" only if you try and read too much into it (unless the main article goes into more depth). In the quotes he is not trying to prove anything specific (which would might to take into account the difference that you point out), he is only pointing out that CO2 alone is insufficient to account for the changes in recent measured temperature.

Also you unnecessarily clarify "brightness" versus "absorbed and reflected" since he says "such as brightness". The amounts absorbed/reflected are clearly related to brightness, and fall under "such as". He isnt talking to other scientists here, he is talking to the lay person.

Junk science....love it!

[entertainme]

[ QUOTE ]
Man made Global warming has got to be the biggest scam of the 21st century.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, just realized my quote should have been as modified above.

[ QUOTE ]
This is interesting. Some claraification is needed, it is not the 'brightness of the sun' but the energy output of the sun and the amount of that energy absorbed or reflected by the earth's atmosphere that is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

More on sunspot activity as a contributor to global warming here , here , and here. (I'm not familiar with the group associated with the last link there and if they have any known agenda. I probably shouldn't have posted this today without more time to follow up.)

The bottom line is that man made global warming has become so sensationalized and politicized that we have almost no hope of real scientific data. It's become an article of faith, now showing at your local theater, (Day After Tomorrow, An Inconvenient Truth.)

Dissent is simply not allowed: Leading scientific journals are 'censoring debate on global warming'

[ QUOTE ]
Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it necessary to squash dissent? Follow the money...

Richard Linzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT writes in his article Climate of Fear in the Wall Street Journal:

[ QUOTE ]
Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.........But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty new to 2p2. How would I put this in the local dialect? Activists and the legions of brainwashed are running a huge bluff on the whole world. Following like sheep would be weak/tight.

Edited for spelling

[kickabuck]

Your link is very much appreciated by those of us not falling in lock step with the global warming crowd. For laymen such as myself debate with those well versed in the subject and diehard man-made global warming enthusiasts is difficult. Always they resort to the 'why would scientists deliberately lie and plus it's all peer reviewed etc. etc.' I have endured many exaggerations and incorrect conclusions in science and environmental science in my lifetime. The zealotry of those involved in this debate and the resultant drastic changes of lifestyle that are called for make me highly suspicious in this case.

I would like to see those on this board who are adamant in their advocacy of man made global warming address this interesting article by someone who appears to be eminently qualified to make the charges he is making. I am all ears.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Your link is very much appreciated by those of us not falling in lock step with the global warming crowd. For laymen such as myself debate with those well versed in the subject and diehard man-made global warming enthusiasts is difficult. Always they resort to the 'why would scientists deliberately lie and plus it's all peer reviewed etc. etc.' I have endured many exaggerations and incorrect conclusions in science and environmental science in my lifetime. The zealotry of those involved in this debate and the resultant drastic changes of lifestyle that are called for make me highly suspicious in this case.

I would like to see those on this board who are adamant in their advocacy of man made global warming address this interesting article by someone who appears to be eminently qualified to make the charges he is making. I am all ears.

[/ QUOTE ]

meh...the greenies will dismiss him as another government/energy company stooge like the MIT prof. referenced in the article.

There are probably some interesting threads around about one of the other great scams of the green libs..recycling.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your link is very much appreciated by those of us not falling in lock step with the global warming crowd. For laymen such as myself debate with those well versed in the subject and diehard man-made global warming enthusiasts is difficult. Always they resort to the 'why would scientists deliberately lie and plus it's all peer reviewed etc. etc.' I have endured many exaggerations and incorrect conclusions in science and environmental science in my lifetime. The zealotry of those involved in this debate and the resultant drastic changes of lifestyle that are called for make me highly suspicious in this case.

I would like to see those on this board who are adamant in their advocacy of man made global warming address this interesting article by someone who appears to be eminently qualified to make the charges he is making. I am all ears.

[/ QUOTE ]

meh...the greenies will dismiss him as another government/energy company stooge like the MIT prof. referenced in the article.

There are probably some interesting threads around about one of the other great scams of the green libs..recycling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go there Copernicus, to dispute the value of recycling is to risk a lynching by these folks. That's another issue where those on the left have a religious fundamentalist like fanaticism .