Warmists and Skeptics

You misspelled Skeptics.

Both are correct as I understand it.

read Terrance Corcoran today.

http://tinyurl.com/dc4hpr

Ontario taxpayers money funneled through the Ontario Government to Environmental Lobby Groups so they can lobby the Ontario Government to implement regressive Green laws.

When they come, without a warrant, to my door and demand my beer fridge, there's gonna be trouble.

I am, by nature, a skeptic, but I found this rebuttal to the posted thread:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/formal-reply-to-gerlich-and-tscheuner.html

(Being non-technical I have absolutely no idea of either stance's validity.)

Nemo2: You'd think that the referees at the International Journal of Modern Physics would catch the obvious. The paper was first floated in 07, after which it was vetted by physicists in academia even before it was published. It's one thing to read a so-called rebuttal in isolation, it's entirely another to compare it to the response to the rebuttle. A rebuttal, in isolation, is as invalid as a paper, without critique.

There is a formal process in Physics which will either float or sink the paper. Internet rebuttals are generally not part of that process, they are part of the politics of AGW.

"rabett", as I understand it, has been ravaged by others besides the authors.

You don't need to know much physics to falsify the concept of a radiative balance - plants absorb solar radiation and keep the energy earthbound for a very long time.

septic?

AGW/CC is in practical terms impossible to refute.

It is theology not science hence refutation is like scientifically disproving the existance of GOD.

The problem is this theology is represented as science.....

Once the declarations of faith are eliminated, "The Science" is clearly not science.

Sorry, Fred, but they'll be coming with a warrant. I can't believe that people are not marching in the streets over this act.

We previously discussed this paper here:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008517.html#c264070

Vitruvius: What's changed is that it has now been reviewed and published. It's moved forward.

Paul - sadly academia generally has been largely discredited, and that applies as well to the scientific community. It has become so politicized and corrupt that it is no longer trusted by anyone who pays attention. Corrupt in that 'Science' has turned into a mean hunt for grant money readily offered up by single issue interest groups seeking only specific answers to scientific questions. Politicized in that advancement is now predicated on adherence to the tenants of popular liberal political belief and taste. i.e. the Obama sticker on the Prius, Volvo or Subaru is mandatory at all stages of the profession, from TA to Prof. at least in my country. Sorry

"Never waste a good crisis"...use it to impose your control.

This guy's an idiot. Nobody ever suggested that the warming in a greenhouse and the Greenhouse Effect have anything to do with each other.

Well, ok, let me qualify that - SOMEBODY probably suggested it at some point, or it wouldn't be called the greenhouse effect. It's actually a really bad name. But the two effects are completely different, and him trying to prove something that everyone already acknowledges is absolutely ludicrous.

As for the science - there is absolutely zero doubt that different gases react differently when exposed to thermal radiation, or ANY form of electromagnetic radiation for that matter. This can be shown through a simple science experiment - take two jars, put a thermometer inside each, fill one with air and the other with CO2 or methane, and then expose them to a normal household lamp. As long as you position them so that they are equally exposed to the lamp, the non-air jar will always show a higher temperature. There is absolutely zero controversy about this effect, so I'm not sure why he's tilting at this particular windmill. If you want to argue that AGW isn't real, fine, fill your boots, but there's no doubt that the "greenhouse effect" is real (if badly named).

It gets warmer.

It gets colder.

Some will accept that climate always changes.

Others will try to profit from it.

Next.

Alex

It's -20C in s'toon today. I've had enough global warming for one year.

That being said, why should I give a flying Fk about the environment we're handing to our kids and grand kids? The people most loudly demanding reductions in CO2 are the same ones (typically)that support the spending spree that will saddle our kids and grand kids with obscene debt, and a broken economy./sarc on

Any idea where I can get a Coles Notes on what the original post was all about?

radiatively interacting, radiatively equilibrated, the second law of thermodynamics, cavity radiation, radiative balance,

Sheesh! Time for drink I think.

Minus 21 at noon in Edmonton. The 10 day forecast issued a week ago predicted temperatures around zero all this week. If the models can't predict the weather 5 days in advance, how can they be so arrogant as to claim to predict the climate 50 to 100 years in advance?

"That being said, why should I give a flying Fk about the environment we're handing to our kids and grand kids?"

Why are you asking me? If you want to be a dick to your kids, that's your business. As long as you're not beating or molesting them, I don't really care what you do. I'm not here to dictate moral standards for you to follow.

They seem to reiterate many of the points made by the physicist in "Taken by Storm".
The concept of a "mean global temperature" is, of course, purely a statistical construct. It has no real world meaning.
Likewise, the "greenhouse" analogy is hopeless. The capacity for CO2 to do what the warmists demand that it do for their theory to work simply isn't there. It's nice to see this stuff finally, formally, working its way through the scientific literature.

Although Fourier understood that the rate of infrared radiation increased with temperature, the Stefan–Boltzmann law which gives the exact form of this dependency (a fourth-power law) was discovered fifty years later.

Fourier recognized that Earth primarily gets energy from Solar radiation, to which the atmosphere is largely transparent, and that geothermal heat doesn't contribute much to the energy balance. However, he mistakenly believed that there is a significant contribution of radiation from interplanetary space.

The completely paranoid will begin planting vast forests of trees which use CO2 and produce O2. Who the hell needs carbon sequestration when a tree does a much better job for little cost?

The alleged 'science' is completely knackered in any case. Venus has hot temperature too, but then it also has heightened volcanic activity.

But hey the sky is falling, the sky is falling, run for your very lives!

Remember Aliens are from Mars and Warmists are from Venus.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

I have thought about this for some time. I cannot find much of a downside if the planet warms a little.

I am sure this has all been said before, but ...

- More arable land for growing food further north
- More fresh water would be in circulation if some of the glaciers and other ice melts
- More plant life will thrive and produce more atmosphere balancing oxygen
- A big one is that there would be a lot less energy use in trying to stay warm and it would not take much to reduce our dependency on air conditioning. (severe cold will kill you a lot quicker than slightly high temperatures.)
- A northern water way through the Arctic will reduce the distance for big ships to move stuff

I don't believe there is a man made carbon problem in the first place. I don't believe that it is carbon content in the atmosphere that determines global temperatures. One good Krakatoa would do more in a day than humans can do in a lifetime.

We have survived to this point is because we have a great ability to adapt. Adapting to nature is a lot more sensible than waging a war on nature to have it adapt to our desires.

Instead of bankrupting our society on a myth, why not concentrate on pollution clean up. A long term strategy with incentives rather than punishment would go a long way to making our world a cleaner more pleasant place to live.

However, if I go the root of the human condition I see much bigger problems than imaginary global warming ...

I see crime gangs taking over major cities in Canada, the USA and pretty much all of Mexico.

I see a criminal totalitarian regime taking over Venezuela.

I see a global Jihad taking over Europe and waging endless terror and warfare in various parts of the world.

I see the rise of Russia as a neo evil empire.

I see a nuclear armed Iran about to devastate Israel and surrounding area for a thousand years.

I see an endless vortex of wasted effort in Africa

I see the ruination of the American way of life under a deceptive, lying incompetent messiah.

To name a few items that I consider more important that a useless wealth destroying cap and raid system of taxation on producers of prosperity.

etc etc.

I need a drink and it's still morning.

Enter stage left: Canadian Mao Stlong and the Goreacle, bloviating jubilantly.
...-

"Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore."
"The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam"
John Coleman
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

Whenever somebody quotes the "2nd law of thermodynamics", I know that there are trying to slip one by. I am a skeptic, I just think this paper is likely full of crap, based on their appeal to the 2nd law. I hear people say it disproves evolution, all kinds of things.

Sorry Alex, it was a rhetorical question, not directed towards you, and I did add the /sarc tag.

The point I was trying to make is it is difficult for me to take the "what about the children" argument from the “so called” envioro's in the large metropolises. The reason is, generally, it is those same people who advocate throwing "the children" under the bus by supporting/demanding this ridiculous spending spree to pay for services rendered by special interests in the last election cycle.

(I say “so called enviros” because I consider the true enviros to be farmers, hunters and others that are actually are tied to the environment)

Gore is ducking the issue again.

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-cajones-al-gore.html

What if they are both wrong? It won't make a PINCH of f-ing difference is what.

This isn't a scientific debate, its a full-on propaganda war. Facts count less than a well rounded soundbyte.

We do have one big advantage though. Algore is on -their- side.

Oldest trick in the book. Create a crisis by paying useful idiots to demand a solution to the "problem" government has invented. Appoint friends and relatives (who will generously kick-back a good portion of the revenue the government pays out)to manage the "problem". Ramp up the level of agitation by paying more to the useful idiots. Friends & relatives get more funding as the severity of the problem grows. Raise taxes to fund the whole scam. Neat eh?

Yeah, there is nothing to be a skeptic about.

"According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist".

Try to get Nancy Pelosi to answer to that. :D

There is an 'Atmospheric Effect' which is simply boundary mechanics making convection difficult but the rest of the infared 'blah blah' CO2 'blah blah' is a load of crap.

http://www.itsonlysteam.com/articles/Peer_Reviewed_Advocacy.html

I found out its even cosier than this article suggests.

"If the models can't predict the weather 5 days in advance, how can they be so arrogant as to claim to predict the climate 50 to 100 years in advance?"

albertaclipper, I share the same view. How naive are these people to think that the human race has the power to control the climate?

How many of these warmists can identify and understand every force that influences and interacts with our climate system?

I find it odd that the best rebuttal they can come up with to this line of thinking is:

"4. The only way the fourth power of the surface temperature can exceed this limit is to be covered by an atmosphere that is at least partially opaque to infrared radiation. This is the atmospheric greenhouse effect."

So, they compare planets made of rock to Earth and assume they're right. Has anyone adequately researched the idea that the 33C difference between a rock planet and Earth has more to do with the fact it's covered in giant heat sinks (oceans) than the composition of the atmosphere? Because I can guarantee you won't find a planet with oceans which *doesn't* also have an atmosphere partially opaque to infrared radiation. (Water vapour...)

This is apparently considered a ridiculous assertion in our society:
1. The Sun causes climate variability.
2. The oceans keep the earth warmer than radiative models suggest.
3. The atmosphere redistributes *some* heat using convection. This is *easily* demonstrated by the fact that there is less temperature variability near bodies water than there is at the dry centre mass of a continent (eg. Saskatchewan).

Forget logic, guys. This is like gun control. The fix is in and there is no amount of logic or facts that will change that. These people have a vested interest in climate change - their fortunes depend on the acceptance of climate change so they can cash in on the carbon taxes.

Arguing about the facts will get you nowhere!

John at 2:08 p.m. I couldn't agree with you more.The already arid land may be more arid if that is possible but we must remember what irrigation has done to desert lands. With extra ice melt creating more lakes etc. maybe more rain will fall,we don't know.What we do know is technology wont stop,so who knows what inventions and such may arise.Back in the early 1900's people in New York city were worried about a place to put all the horse sh t with such a growing city,we don't worry about that anymore do we.

I think you're right on the money Rosco.

does anyone know how to read the whole article without subscribing?

"Back in the early 1900's people in New York city were worried about a place to put all the horse sh t with such a growing city,we don't worry about that anymore do we."

Au contraire,sysk. The s&*t that politicians(of all stripes),their lapdog special interest groups,and the a&&licking MSM are WAY more dangerous than any horses&&t could be,and we have no place to put it.

Justthinkin you got me on that one lol

The Phantom at March 6, 2009 3:25 PM...

Bingo!

"Never waste a good crisis"

Gotta be the defining signature meme of morbid statists and kleptocrats in the 21st century....they pick up the torch from the crisis creating Hegalians of 20th century pathocratic statism.

reg:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

Posted by: Indiana Homez at March 6, 2009 2:47 PM

Thanks for clarifying.

To be fair, I think that the "environuts" really are serious about the "think of the children" stuff - but that's an emotional appeal, and is a shaky foundation to build an argument on. It's only affective on people who already believe the same things that you believe. The anti-porn crusaders use the same "think of the children" argument, as do opponents of everything from drugs and prostitution to video games and junk food. It's a silly argument, no matter who's using it. If you want to convince others to see things your way, you first need to demonstrate that your concerns are valid. Once we know that the problem really exists, nobody will need to tell us to "think of the children" - all parents will do it automatically.

thanks a lot Paul. I'm expecting the 07 original version might not have drill holes in it.

The principal constituents of the atmosphere of Earth are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent). The atmospheric gases in the remaining 1 percent are argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent.
Try a jar with just air and another with air plus,a extra .03 percent carbon dioxide and let me know if there is a difference in temperance.

""""Try a jar with just air and another with air plus,a extra .03 percent carbon dioxide and let me know if there is a difference in temperance.""""

and keep the lid off the jars:-))))

dumbest test I'v ever heard of:-))))

John; 2.08 pm: You nailed it.

"Try a jar with just air and another with air plus,a extra .03 percent carbon dioxide and let me know if there is a difference in temperance."

I'm sure our climate system is a little more complex than some air in glass jars.

"Never waste a good crisis."

That's what Naomi Klein claimed was a right-wing modus operandi in "The Shock Doctrine". But apparently it's a left-wing M.O. too ...

being non techinical i am confident that man does not have the ability to control the environment anymore than he does to control his own emotions. keep your water clean and everything else will be ok.

Al Gore graduated from Vanderbilt with a D average in Divinity.

Did her take a couple of courses at Harvard?