Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 106

Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

  1. #1 The Great Global Warming Swindle 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Did anyone see "the great global warming swindle" on channel 4 (Ireland & UK). If you did what did you make of it, I dont know if I know enough on environmental science or the politics behind it to decide what to make of it.

    The programme confused me totally and I dont now know whether or not to believe that global warming is due to human activity or not (although I did up until watching the ocumentary assume it did).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    No, sadly i missed it. Most of them shows (whether for or against man made GW) are simply sensationalising the problem. The two most important facts are, 1) The world is warming up, it's only if it is us that we can do anything about it. 2) Nobody knows for sure whether it's man made or natural at the moment.


    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    ok if anyone has some time check this documentary out, I thought it was very compelling but would like to know from someone who kows more in this area

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    brilliant, thanks for posting that i missed it was so annoyed.
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    I have tried to watch it twice, (I missed it on the TV) - the point at which it 'craps out' on my PC is the correlation of sunspot activity vs global temperature.

    The two important points in the portion I have thus far seen are:-

    1) The progaramme suggests that CO2 density in the atmosphere closely follows global temperature BUT detailed analysis of this shows that the CO2 increase LAGS the temperature (ie temp rises then co2 rises).

    2) The programme suggests that total sunspot activity and global temperature graphs show a very strong correlation.

    Now I have to be careful here, IF both of these points are true and can be verified, then in my humble opinion the case for global warming being entirely due to man's activities is false full stop!

    In considering the case for global warming in the past I have taken into account the possible bias of big business and the oil companies, what we see in this programme appears to be independent climatologists arriving at their own conclusions, this to my mind, significantly alters the argument IF my assessment is true.

    A fascinating programme and many many thanks for bringing it to my attention, I would urge others to watch (or even re-watch it).

    MB

    Edit: I have now been able to watch the full programme.

    I have taken the liberty of moving this to Earth sciences, and leaving a copy in environmental issues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Yeah, I thought thte evidence that they provie is very strong but I am finding it very difficult to know what to believe having been told for my whole life that global warming is our fault and due to CO2, if what they say is correct (which I really believe might be), then how coul his CO2 obsession EVER have gotten so far, it's a pretty amazing conspiracy!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    THey do offer explanations in the programme for this, and I can personally confirm that in the 60's 70's the talk was of "The coming Ice Age!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    I watched it and I thought it was one of the better global warming programs I have seen.

    This program did a smart thing, it looked back, most of the other programs just ignore what happened in the past and concentrate on what computers tell us will happen in the future. From my own independent research I can verify that in the past CO2 rise has followed (or lagged) the temperature rise, which suggests that this is more chicken and egg than the mass media like to make out, in fact, it suggests that the temperature came first which would be a revelation if people were made wise to the facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    As I said previously, IF the 'lags' is true and the sunspot cosmic activity is also true then it stuffs man as a cause. I also have seen elsewhere another possible piece of supporting evidence and that is that Mars also appears to be warming BUT we do not have a long term record, it could be coincidence or a complete error since Mars is not blessed with a magnetic field.

    see:-

    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

    One small word of caution, many non science people put 'Ozone', Global warming, and energy conservation all in the same bag, we know they are three different things and mostly unrelated - so if you are going to 'spread the caution' make sure you make the clear distinction!.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    that's an interesting article alright, i would interpret the increase in temperature in mars to be a reflection of the increased solar activity (which according to the documentary is the principle reason for global warming). It is obvious that there is no human (& probably not martian!) activity on Mars so if there is an increasing temperature it must be due to an external source, ie the sun.

    The melting ice in Mars could not possibly be the cause of the increasing temperature (Initially at least, and thereafter by choosing what you believe) as that does not explian what would have begun the process in the first place.
    I think lloking at Mars is good science as it (a) gives us another scenario in which to observe weather patterns which can determine whether our own methods are accurate, and (b) may give an indication as to whether or not what occurs on our planet is being experienced locally (here) or throughout the solar system and may provide a clue to what is he real cause.

    What is also interesting to note is that the increased solar activity is only responsible for 10-30% of the temperature changes in recent years according to the article; so environmental scientists are not completely leaving it out of the equation. This, for me just increases my confusion!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Guest
    What I found interesting is the information missing! ie if the martian polar caps were increasing at this time it would counter the new argument on global warming, if the martian icecaps were stable it would also counter.

    What we need now is evidence from a third source, say Venus/the moon, or an increase of some activity in other planets, I am amazed that we are not monitoring the surface temperature of the moon which technologically should be quite easy.

    One thing though in all this is becoming clear. It does no good for science in general to split to the point where two groups use the same data to support two diametrically opposing views. Since this is the case at present I think we should all remain open-minded as to what is the major cause of GW.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    the moon doesn't have an atmosphere: wouldnt that mean it wouldnt really be affected by changes in climate since it... doesnt really have one! Also venus doesnt have water or CO2 (does it?), the only other exmaple is that moon off saturn; they landed a satellite on it a while ago... cant remember the name

    Could you please explain what exactly you mean by 2 groups supporting opposit ideas.

    Im definitely remaining open minded- thats the whole reason I want to discuss this; science is about searching for the right answers; I just want to know what is the right answer having argued both sides!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    The surface temperature of the moon would (in my opinion) offer an excellent reference as it cannot be due to anything other than the effect of the sun, it is geologically inactive and has no significant atmosphere.

    As for venus we have probes around it which can measure all sorts of atmospheric parameters, if the sun is affecting Earth and possibly Mars then maybe some parameter might also change on venus.

    Opposing views? - some scintists say global warming is due to CO2 etc others say it is not, they can only be using the same set of data - ie CO2 and temperature over history.

    http://www.science.org.au/future/etheridge.htm

    THis article (by the pro-global warming group) shows a graph where methane and CO2 correlate, I understand that methane is produced by the biomass, if true then an increase in biomass will produce more CO2, surely more biomas would appear if the earth's temperature (and particularly the sea) rose? - seems to me the programme was right!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Im used to reading papers for my college course and I dont think that's a great article, it doesnt really nail down exactly what it sets out to achieve, it meanders around the topic of CO2 and temperature change without fully explaining the correlation and also speaks a lot in the conditional!

    Also I dont ever believe ozone layer and greenhouse gases should be discussed in the sae article; it seems to link the two which have very different effects.

    Finally, the author studies environment affecting gases, there s no other co-writer who provides back up and no other references, it seems a little bit too focused on just gases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    Yes I agree - the only item of interest (for me) was the graph, like you I can form my own ideas about what the data may actually mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    What a complete load of bull-fucking-shit. The arguments that this program puts forward were being debated 10/15 years ago and have already been answered.

    1)After second world war temps dropped.

    This drop in temperature was produce by the release of sulphate gases by industry and people. These gases have a cooling affect on the atmosphere, and are no long produced as they also cause acid rain.

    2)Carbon dioxide levels go up after temp rises.

    Yes they do. The reason for this is as follows. If i release CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature go up, because the temps have gone up more CO2 is released from the oceans (as the tv show said itself) then as a result more CO2 is present in the trapped gas in the ice cores after the temp rises.

    3)Amount of carbon dioxide man produces is small compared to volcano's.

    Again this is true. Here is a link to the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which is not the only green house gas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...on_Dioxide.png as you can see from 1960 to 2007 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up from 317 ppm - 380 ppm and all of this (60 ppm)in under 50 years and with no major volcanic activity, the only other sources of CO2 to get into our ecosystem is from the oceans (see above) and what we take from the ground and release into our atmosphere, add to that the fact that we are destroying a lot of our forest and plant life which should be absorbing this CO2.

    ----------

    All this show is trying to do is stir up shit. Trying to blame the socialist left in some sort of world conspiracy, it is the usual channel four sensationalist bollocks. Heres one of the opening lines "Westerners invoking the threat of climatic disaster to hinder vital industrial progress in the developing world" WTF And i suppose the world bank is involved in it as well.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Guest
    hehe sounds like you have bought a load of "I'm gonna save the world stuff" and now know you might have wasted your money!

    On the subject of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, (note in the atmosphere), it would appear in the ice core for that year not the 800 or so years after the event.

    INdeed the very fact that you indicate temperature can rise and fall almost instantly (ie the after the war bit) - counters your whole argument on the CO2 bit anyway.

    I think you'll find your arguments on pollution by industry is also not quite accurate, since China, India and many other countries produce more pollution than Europe and America did in the period you speak of.

    Wake up man, "You've been conned" - at least consider it as a possibility...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    On the subject of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, (note in the atmosphere), it would appear in the ice core for that year not the 800 or so years after the event.
    No, as it said on the show itself, it takes time for the ocean to respond to the rises in temperature. Raise the temperature today and the effects on the ocean are not fully felt for "hundreds of years" then you see higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere a long period after the temp rises.

    INdeed the very fact that you indicate temperature can rise and fall almost instantly (ie the after the war bit) - counters your whole argument on the CO2 bit anyway.

    I think you'll find your arguments on pollution by industry is also not quite accurate, since China, India and many other countries produce more pollution than Europe and America did in the period you speak of.
    No China and Inddia etc are not producing as much of the cooling gases as we did because of the harm they can cause. If you look at the graph they use about sunspots (they don't tell you the source) there is no drop in the numbers, whereas there was a drop in temperatures. This only highlights the impact man can have with the gases we release.

    Wake up man, "You've been conned" - at least consider it as a possibility...
    Your right, and i do........
    Quote Originally Posted by cat1981england
    1) The world is warming up, it's only if it is us that we can do anything about it. 2) Nobody knows for sure whether it's man made or natural at the moment.
    If i had the money and a production team i could make a tv show with all the "experts" and "proof" needed to show how and why the moon landings were faked. So im going to say it again, NOBODY KNOWS WHETHER ITS MAN MADE OR NATURAL, thats why billions of pounds is going into researching it. BTW here is link to sunspot numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...with_graph.gif which looks very different to the one on the show.

    -----Note----

    Why is Venus so much hotter than the Earth ?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Raise the temperature today and the effects on the ocean are not fully felt for "hundreds of years" then you see higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere a long period after the temp rises.
    THis is exactly the point of the programme, the temperature rises (through solar activity), THEN after a period the CO2 rises.

    IF it was man then the CO2 would rise, and then the teperature!.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    If i release CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature go up, because the temps have gone up more CO2 is released from the oceans (as the tv show said itself) then as a result more CO2 is present in the trapped gas in the ice cores after the temp rises.
    How does this explain the rise in temperature in the first place? The point is CO2 does not have as large an effect as is thought, and as the graphs in the programme show CO2 levels can be rising when the temperaure itself is relowering, hundreds of years following the initial increase.

    What exactly is the solar sunspot graph showing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    If i had the money and a production team i could make a tv show with all the "experts" and "proof" needed to show how and why the moon landings were faked.
    - That'd be fun, you'd have to show the Van Allen belts don't exist, and that radio waves do not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    So im going to say it again, NOBODY KNOWS WHETHER ITS MAN MADE OR NATURAL, thats why billions of pounds is going into researching it.
    but slowly the truth is emerging at last...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    BTW here is link to sunspot numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...with_graph.gif which looks very different to the one on the show.
    Yes it's different but clearly shows the same data.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Why is Venus so much hotter than the Earth ?
    er... like it's closer to the sun than us maybe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Ok, fair enough, i can't think or find an explanation for this JUST yet although i will continue looking over the next couple of days. There is though a direct link between the gases we put into the atmosphere now and the rise/fall of the earths global temperatures over the last 150 years.

    --------

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...with_graph.gif
    If you look at this link you will see the level of sunspot activity over the last hundred years. According to this, the global temperature should have been at its highest in the late 50's but this is when there was a cold spell, which makes no sense and contradicts what the show has claimed.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    No, I have looked at original data from Mauna Loa observatory, this shows a steady rise in CO2 from 1958 to the present day, Mauna Loa takes direct measurements from the atmosphere so as far as I am concerned it is bona fide.

    I have been trying to find real data of sea/air temp (from an equally reliable source over the same period). There is data available from the UK Met office.

    The two graphs both show the same general trend. I am not happy that either the Ice core is completely accurate in terms of layer dating and so will attempt to research this a bit more. The records from the met office and Mauna Loa agree (which may support your case), yet being over a single 40 year period is not sufficient to be (in my opinion) conclusive.

    I have re-watched the programme and found what I believe are several flaws, (though I need to research this as well) - I'm trying to be honest here and not just save data that might be "in my favour" - I want to find the truth - whichever way it is, I'd urge you to do the same and maybe between us we will eventually agree that one, the other or both cases are false, or each are partly responsible..

    A not so obvious flaw in the programme was the assumption that pictures from the 14th century depict 'ice fairs' on the Thames. The image they showed was a victorian painting as some of the participants were wearing Bowler hats. There are relics from earlier times (such as 1683/4) of equal importance, a small point but a sloppy thing to do nonetheless.

    I am suggesting that both sides are equally capable of 'massaging' their case.

    On a lighter note there is at least one third alternative....
    http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html

    Addenda:-

    I have just found this, it is a canadian programme - which pre-dates the CH4 job and has other information....
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

    Their main web-site is :- http://www.friendsofscience.org/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    This is a little bit absolutely totally one sided but have a look at this, its 2001 so the argument has gone on quietly for a few years...

    http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...balwarming.htm

    does anyone feel like summarising both theories so we cn at least agree on something!

    EDIT:

    Also have a look at this; its nice and sciencey! Doesnt sem too bias but the data seems to correlate with the post after this one. Note the conclusion

    http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest


    The graph above was taken from the FOS website mentioned in my previous post. I have no idea how accurate it is BUT the data is clearly labelled - all values! - therefore we ought to be able to test it's integrity from sites such as NASA (sunspot activity) or even amatuer astronomers who print their own data. Temperature data from wherever.


    My suggestion would be to try and find data in agreement from reputable sites and from both sides of the debate - if neither side can dispute it then we may see it as credible, and you can decide for yourselves which 2 of the three graphs it represents (blue/red/grey) most closely correlate.


    1) over the last century average global sea/land surface temperatures have risen. - NO dispute I think.

    2) In the late 60's, 70's and early 80's we were told there was an impending ice age.

    3) The 'greenhouse' gas with with most effect is water vapour (clouds) - just look at the winter night temperatures to see how much heat the clouds can 'hold in' "Cloudy all night - Not a frost sight" as I remember learning it.

    4) two sets of people are massaging the same data to their own ends.

    Does that sum it up? - this is probably the best debate in the forum at the moment since we are debating something to which there is an answer, somewhere in the data available to us as mere mortals ! I wish a few more would join in!.


    EDIT: Raw sunspot data (1874 to 2007) available at: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml

    EDIT(2): I have been able to download raw CO2 data and raw sunspot data, both are bonafida in the sense that neither side contradicts them.

    The problem is obtaining data on temperature, this is becuase the temperature at any moment varies widely over the earth's surface and therefore you can 'assemble' data to show whatever you like - this is the knub of the problem - any ideas?

    Here's the CO2 raw data from the Mauna Loa observatory:-

    ************************************************** *****************
    *** Atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppmv) derived from in situ ***
    *** air samples collected at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii ***
    *** ***
    *** Source: C.D. Keeling ***
    *** T.P. Whorf, and the Carbon Dioxide Research Group ***
    *** Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) ***
    *** University of California ***
    *** La Jolla, California USA 92093-0444 ***
    *** ***
    *** June 2004 ***
    *** ***
    ************************************************** *****************
    Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual Annual-Fit
    1958 -99.99 -99.99 315.71 317.45 317.50 -99.99 315.86 314.93 313.19 -99.99 313.34 314.67 -99.99 -99.99
    1959 315.58 316.47 316.65 317.71 318.29 318.16 316.55 314.80 313.84 313.34 314.81 315.59 315.98 316.00
    1960 316.43 316.97 317.58 319.03 320.03 319.59 318.18 315.91 314.16 313.83 315.00 316.19 316.91 316.91
    1961 316.89 317.70 318.54 319.48 320.58 319.78 318.58 316.79 314.99 315.31 316.10 317.01 317.65 317.63
    1962 317.94 318.56 319.69 320.58 321.01 320.61 319.61 317.40 316.26 315.42 316.69 317.69 318.45 318.46
    1963 318.74 319.08 319.86 321.39 322.24 321.47 319.74 317.77 316.21 315.99 317.07 318.36 318.99 319.02
    1964 319.57 -99.99 -99.99 -99.99 322.23 321.89 320.44 318.70 316.70 316.87 317.68 318.71 -99.99 319.52
    1965 319.44 320.44 320.89 322.13 322.16 321.87 321.21 318.87 317.81 317.30 318.87 319.42 320.03 320.09
    1966 320.62 321.59 322.39 323.70 324.07 323.75 322.40 320.37 318.64 318.10 319.79 321.03 321.37 321.34
    1967 322.33 322.50 323.04 324.42 325.00 324.09 322.55 320.92 319.26 319.39 320.72 321.96 322.18 322.13
    1968 322.57 323.15 323.89 325.02 325.57 325.36 324.14 322.11 320.33 320.25 321.32 322.90 323.05 323.11
    1969 324.00 324.42 325.64 326.66 327.38 326.70 325.89 323.67 322.38 321.78 322.85 324.12 324.62 324.60
    1970 325.06 325.98 326.93 328.13 328.07 327.66 326.35 324.69 323.10 323.07 324.01 325.13 325.68 325.65
    1971 326.17 326.68 327.18 327.78 328.92 328.57 327.37 325.43 323.36 323.56 324.80 326.01 326.32 326.32
    1972 326.77 327.63 327.75 329.72 330.07 329.09 328.05 326.32 324.84 325.20 326.50 327.55 327.46 327.52
    1973 328.54 329.56 330.30 331.50 332.48 332.07 330.87 329.31 327.51 327.18 328.16 328.64 329.68 329.61
    1974 329.35 330.71 331.48 332.65 333.09 332.25 331.18 329.40 327.44 327.37 328.46 329.58 330.25 330.29
    1975 330.40 331.41 332.04 333.31 333.96 333.59 331.91 330.06 328.56 328.34 329.49 330.76 331.15 331.16
    1976 331.74 332.56 333.50 334.58 334.87 334.34 333.05 330.94 329.30 328.94 330.31 331.68 332.15 332.18
    1977 332.92 333.42 334.70 336.07 336.74 336.27 334.93 332.75 331.58 331.16 332.40 333.85 333.90 333.88
    1978 334.97 335.39 336.64 337.76 338.01 337.89 336.54 334.68 332.76 332.54 333.92 334.95 335.50 335.52
    1979 336.23 336.76 337.96 338.89 339.47 339.29 337.73 336.09 333.91 333.86 335.29 336.73 336.85 336.89
    1980 338.01 338.36 340.08 340.77 341.46 341.17 339.56 337.60 335.88 336.01 337.10 338.21 338.69 338.67
    1981 339.23 340.47 341.38 342.51 342.91 342.25 340.49 338.43 336.69 336.85 338.36 339.61 339.93 339.95
    1982 340.75 341.61 342.70 343.56 344.13 343.35 342.06 339.82 337.97 337.86 339.26 340.49 341.13 341.09
    1983 341.37 342.52 343.10 344.94 345.75 345.32 343.99 342.39 339.86 339.99 341.16 342.99 342.78 342.75
    1984 343.70 344.51 345.28 347.08 347.43 346.79 345.40 343.28 341.07 341.35 342.98 344.22 344.42 344.44
    1985 344.97 346.00 347.43 348.35 348.93 348.25 346.56 344.69 343.09 342.80 344.24 345.56 345.90 345.86
    1986 346.29 346.96 347.86 349.55 350.21 349.54 347.94 345.91 344.86 344.17 345.66 346.90 347.15 347.14
    1987 348.02 348.47 349.42 350.99 351.84 351.25 349.52 348.10 346.44 346.36 347.81 348.96 348.93 348.99
    1988 350.43 351.72 352.22 353.59 354.22 353.79 352.39 350.44 348.72 348.88 350.07 351.34 351.48 351.44
    1989 352.76 353.07 353.68 355.42 355.67 355.13 353.90 351.67 349.80 349.99 351.30 352.53 352.91 352.94
    1990 353.66 354.70 355.39 356.20 357.16 356.22 354.82 352.91 350.96 351.18 352.83 354.21 354.19 354.19
    1991 354.72 355.75 357.16 358.60 359.34 358.24 356.17 354.03 352.16 352.21 353.75 354.99 355.59 355.62
    1992 355.98 356.72 357.81 359.15 359.66 359.25 357.03 355.00 353.01 353.31 354.16 355.40 356.37 356.36
    1993 356.70 357.16 358.38 359.46 360.28 359.60 357.57 355.52 353.70 353.98 355.33 356.80 357.04 357.10
    1994 358.36 358.91 359.97 361.26 361.68 360.95 359.55 357.49 355.84 355.99 357.58 359.04 358.88 358.86
    1995 359.96 361.00 361.64 363.45 363.79 363.26 361.90 359.46 358.06 357.75 359.56 360.70 360.88 360.90
    1996 362.05 363.25 364.03 364.72 365.41 364.97 363.65 361.49 359.46 359.60 360.76 362.33 362.64 362.58
    1997 363.18 364.00 364.57 366.35 366.79 365.62 364.47 362.51 360.19 360.77 362.43 364.28 363.76 363.84
    1998 365.32 366.15 367.31 368.61 369.29 368.87 367.64 365.77 363.90 364.23 365.46 366.97 366.63 366.58
    1999 368.15 368.87 369.59 371.14 371.00 370.35 369.27 366.94 364.63 365.12 366.67 368.01 368.31 368.30
    2000 369.14 369.46 370.52 371.66 371.82 371.70 370.12 368.12 366.62 366.73 368.29 369.53 369.48 369.47
    2001 370.28 371.50 372.12 372.87 374.02 373.30 371.62 369.55 367.96 368.09 369.68 371.24 371.02 371.03
    2002 372.43 373.09 373.52 374.86 375.55 375.41 374.02 371.49 370.71 370.25 372.08 373.78 373.10 373.07
    2003 374.68 375.63 376.11 377.65 378.35 378.13 376.62 374.50 372.99 373.00 374.35 375.70 375.64 375.61

    Monthly values are expressed in parts per million (ppm) and reported in the 2003A SIO manometric mole
    fraction scale. The monthly values have been adjusted to the 15th of each month. Missing values are
    denoted by -99.99. The "annual" average is the arithmetic mean of the twelve monthly values. In years
    with one or two missing monthly values, annual values were calculated by substituting a fit value
    (4-harmonics with gain factor and spline) for that month and then averaging the twelve monthly values.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    kudos on getting that data megabrain! I have no idea what to make of it though, guess I'll have to wait for what other people say. But I just finished watching that video and personally I think what they said was irrelevant. They were talking about the sun which we already know is the driving force behind our climate, that's nothing new. No one says man made global warming is dictating our climate, only affecting it. It's like the coarse and fine adjustment knobs on a microscope.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    all this global warming talk gets boring after awhile jk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by shawngoldw
    kudos on getting that data megabrain! I have no idea what to make of it though, guess I'll have to wait for what other people say. But I just finished watching that video and personally I think what they said was irrelevant. They were talking about the sun which we already know is the driving force behind our climate, that's nothing new. No one says man made global warming is dictating our climate, only affecting it. It's like the coarse and fine adjustment knobs on a microscope.
    You might very well be right there (in your summing up) - but the media and now goverments are on a bandwagon that specifically says man is the cause of the current global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnny
    all this global warming talk gets boring after awhile jk
    What a valueable contribution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    I ahree that global temperature will of course deped on the enegy from the sun, thats obvious, however, if you read the article I added from my last edit , it makes the observation that if CO2 concentration is affecting the atmosphere, it has yet to be observed graphically in their data. So, if it has yet to be decided this gives us an opportunity to make a prediction; a much better way of determining/deciding on the validity of a theory

    If the CO2 values begin to affect global temperature, how would it affect the graphs taking for example the one added by megabrain?
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny
    all this global warming talk gets boring after awhile jk
    What a valueable contribution.
    it was a joke you know i care
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    I ahree that global temperature will of course deped on the enegy from the sun, thats obvious, however, if you read the article I added from my last edit , it makes the observation that if CO2 concentration is affecting the atmosphere, it has yet to be observed graphically in their data. So, if it has yet to be decided this gives us an opportunity to make a prediction; a much better way of determining/deciding on the validity of a theory

    If the CO2 values begin to affect global temperature, how would it affect the graphs taking for example the one added by megabrain?
    .
    RObbie: In my searching for the truth, I have found that there have been times when CO2 was many times what it is now, yet the temperature was much cooler - so I'm not sure that I would predict an effect on the graph I showed. (I am now convinced that the CO2 and Sunspot data is 'good').
    Still unable to confirm temp data though.

    Remember the only really accurate measurements of CO2 that are truly trustworthy are the data I printed above, sampled directly from the atmosphere for the date shown, all other measurements are from 'secondary sources' or some record layered by nature, which in turn relies on our accurate reading of the fossil record which in turn.... well you get what I mean.

    there is a distinct similarity between the rise of CO2 and Temp rise but then also in the profits of the Macdonalds food chain, and a million other things, I for one need a lot more convincing [now] before I state they are related.

    Also in searching for data I came across many sites where scientists urge caution in reading anything into this data [MMCO2=GW] - and no recent info suggesting the link is there [ many scientists now changing their minds on this], however from many media, govt, and none science sites the opposite is true, ie they they scream there is a link.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Let me put it this way, if there is significantly decreased solar activity, even if there are higher levels of CO2, there is of course going to be a lower temperature, theres not enough "heat" energy arriving on earth to start with. However, the CO2, being an insultaing gas, may lead to a decreased rate of cooling down and a more rapid rate of increase when the solar energy begins to rise again.

    In my mind the question is really is the CO2 in the presence of high solar activity (as it sems we have today) going to lead to an increased rate of warming up compared to what it would do if there were "normal" levels of CO2, without our contribution. The world, should be heating up anyway, but is it doing it to an abnormal extent due to the concentrations of CO2 and is it going to lead to some sort of sustained warming of the planet even when the solar energy begins to decrease.

    What will prove that global warming (due to CO2) is really having a significant effect is when this hapens and the correlation between solar sunspot activity and temperature begins to diverge (because another factor ie CO2 is starting to affect it). However, from what I have seen in this forum and from reading up on it myself, there really isnt any evidence for CO2 induced global warming.

    What IS definitely happening is there is at the moment, an increase in the solar activity which is causing normal, uncontrollable heating of the planet. this is externally controlled and has nothing to do with human activity, however for some reason we have gone looking for a cause, here, on the planet which has lead to the greenhouse gases theory.

    This is a type of agnostic conclusion! I dont really now believe in CO2 being the primary cause for global warming, but I also believe it is somewhat too early to tell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Let me put it this way, if there is significantly decreased solar activity, even if there are higher levels of CO2, there is of course going to be a lower temperature, theres not enough "heat" energy arriving on earth to start with. However, the CO2, being an insultaing gas, may lead to a decreased rate of cooling down and a more rapid rate of increase when the solar energy begins to rise again.
    I presume you mean sunspot activity as opposed to any notion the sun might 'cool' - the sun is actually getting warmer at this phase in it's life.

    The direct 'heat energy' arriving from the sun is almost constant [save the small rise mentioned above]. The relationship of sunspot vs weather is not a straight heat energy one, it involves extrasolar comic [or even cosmic] particles in the upper atmosphere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    In my mind the question is really is the CO2 in the presence of high solar activity (as it sems we have today) going to lead to an increased rate of warming up compared to what it would do if there were "normal" levels of CO2, without our contribution.
    From my research so far I see nothing to indicate this, ie there are times when CO2 has risen yet temp has fallen (1940-1970) - and many prehistoric periods.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    The world, should be heating up anyway, but is it doing it to an abnormal extent due to the concentrations of CO2 and is it going to lead to some sort of sustained warming of the planet even when the solar energy begins to decrease.
    I don't think so, I have seen graphs that show much wildre temperature changes accompanied by CO2 changes, in both directions! (see 1860-1890 eg in my graph).
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    What will prove that global warming (due to CO2) is really having a significant effect is when this hapens and the correlation between solar sunspot activity and temperature begins to diverge (because another factor ie CO2 is starting to affect it). However, from what I have seen in this forum and from reading up on it myself, there really isnt any evidence for CO2 induced global warming.
    I too have gained that impression from what I have read.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    What IS definitely happening is there is at the moment, an increase in the solar activity which is causing normal, uncontrollable heating of the planet. this is externally controlled and has nothing to do with human activity, however for some reason we have gone looking for a cause, here, on the planet which has lead to the greenhouse gases theory.
    This too is consistent with I have read.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    This is a type of agnostic conclusion! I dont really now believe in CO2 being the primary cause for global warming, but I also believe it is somewhat too early to tell.
    And that I suggest is a great attitude to have in this debate, I am begining to think that the data required to solve this IS around but yet to be discovered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Remember the only really accurate measurements of CO2 that are truly trustworthy are the data I printed above, sampled directly from the atmosphere for the date shown, all other measurements are from 'secondary sources' or some record layered by nature, which in turn relies on our accurate reading of the fossil record which in turn.... well you get what I mean.
    Megabrain, although I take your point for what it is, I fail to see its significance. I appreciate that you are trying to come at this whole topic with as well rounded and unbiased a view as is possible, but I fail to see how the quoted point fits into the debate. Afterall, it is the data drawn from proxies found in the geological record that have been used to infer that the CO2 trend lags the temperature trend. Take that away and your left with that graph you showed on page 2. Clearly that on its own is not indicative of anything, you can say what you want.

    Interestingly though, and this thought just struck me as I type, there are no proxies for sunspot activity before solar monitoring records began (that I am aware of at least). This has little to do with CO2, in fact forget CO2 for a minute. At first glance the sunspot data looks pretty damn close to the temp anomaly, there's a clear correlation between sunspot length (which I guess is a proxy for solarwind output?) and temp anomaly. However, for my money the correlation is too close. Consider the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, masses of sulphate aerosols are released into the atmosphere, the earth cools as a result and is seen as a negative spike in the record. So if the eruption explains the cooling, then what's the negative drop in sunspot length doing? Surely a drop in sunspot length is not responsible for a release of sulphate aerosols, they are unconnected events right? So why does the drop here not matter, I mean, it fits the curve but that's just a coincidence. So to me at least it looks as though sunspots are not a golden ticket, but that's just me...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Afterall, it is the data drawn from proxies found in the geological record that have been used to infer that the CO2 trend lags the temperature trend. Take that away and your left with that graph you showed on page 2. Clearly that on its own is not indicative of anything, you can say what you want.
    I am initially trying to verify/refute the data in that graph, so far I have verified the CO2 graph from 1958.

    I have sunspot data which goes back to 1874 this is 'raw data' which I am hoping to process.

    I now have a very good temperature dataset (from a singly location) which shows only a gradual almost linear increase in temperatue from 1800 to 2000 increase of 1.5 deg C.

    (I am looking for other datasets from around the world to assess a more global picture).

    Both of these latter datasets are independant of each other and compiled by amateurs, I hope to write some software to process these and produce a graph, If the temperature and sunspot activity correlate (in any way) then it should indicate the sets may be reliable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this at the moment, and i'm not going to post anythink here for at lest a couple of days until i have a convincing argument, but what is the difference between.....

    Sunspot cycle length.


    and.....

    Sunspot numbers.


    Thank you.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Guest
    Sunspot numbers are just that, the number of observed sunspots at any one time.

    Sunspot cycle length: typically sunspot cycles run in 11 year cycles, however this value varies, the data we have here shows the cycle varying between around 9.7 to 11.7, so far as I can ascertain the shorter the cycle the more violent it is, and to some extent the more spots are observed. I believe the data for the 'Maunder Minimum' [in red] in regard to sunspot numbers is not real data but estimated from data since.

    At the moment I'm looking for Iceberg data since that is also often mentioned in these matters, In a particularly cold spell 1910-1920 a huge field of icebergs was encountered and recorded by several ships, another failed to heed the warning resulting in some 1500 lives lost....


    MB.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Well im starting to get the impression that its a combination of the two, with co2 and other green house gases simply amplifying the temperature changes (PERHAPS) caused by changes in the sun. Some good news though, it seems as if the number of sunspots is due to start slowing down between 2010 and 2020, so what ever conclusion is made here, we may be able to see the affects of this quite soon.

    I'm currently looking into the temperature difference between the southern and northern hemisphere. Over the last 100 years the temp change in the SH has been about 0.6c, but in the NH this change is about 1.0c. At the moment i think this maybe because of the land and sea coverage difference, but if i can show that the rises and falls before this period are the same, it will add greater weight to theory that green house gases (which are at a higher level in the NH) has made a big impact on the temperature.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    we receive energy from the sun from a very small portion of the sun at any given moment. primarily the gamma rays are emitted with in and after a complicated process this energy is emitted, said to be near the same in all directions. what goes on, on the surface are results of the internal actions, so to speak. keep in mind the sun switches magnetic fields often, think 13 or 21 years. the sun revolves at different rates, from about 24 days to 28 days per cycle. the equator area the fastest. the sun also has a small orbit. if the suns surface conditions were instrumental on any object it reaches the conditions on that object would be erratic, to say the least. sun spots, themselves are much cooler than the rest of the surface.

    since energy is absorbed, this energy then should be more absorbed as it passes through a sun spot, momentarily less effective on what it hits on its route. however since this area giving earth its rays changes from second to second, the end results should be near constant.

    i do think solar activity, not the energy production, but rather the flairs and solar wind activity, play a role in the earths outer atmospheres. not thinking of electronic interference, but disruptions in content or molecular activity. these areas are natural protectors of our lower atmosphere and indirectly could be an influence on some conditions which create the weather patterns, which effect temperature.

    way i read it anyway...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Guest
    Here's my hypothesis, about the debate,:-

    Sometime ago scientists thought there might be a link between global warming and man's activities. Some concerned scientists bought this to media/government attention who, in turn took up the baton. More/later scientific evidence cast doubt on the earlier findings. For whatever reason Governments/media have failed to stay in line with science.

    As far as I can tell more and more scientists appear to be publishing data that indicates there is no [or as yet no proven] link. Again I cannot find any recent articles by reputable scientists supporting man being the cause of global warming AND providing irrefutable data. Without such [modern] data I contend the case foe MMGW loses weight.

    Most data in support of MMGW plots CO2 and Global temperature over a range of 100years or so, In terms of planetary climate that's like taking a 5 minute set of samples from a year's temperature data and trying to predict what it will be like 24 hours later!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Allow me to bring a little physics into the argument. Essentially what heats up the planet?

    Let's ignore the geothermal heat as it's pretty small and is more or less constant wrt time, and therefore not an issue in the global warming debate.
    There is the heat from the sun, and there is heat due to the greenhouse effect. The heat from the sun depends largely on the albedo of the Earth, it can be proved fairly simply (I can't be bothered typing out equations right now but I could reel them off if my life depended on it) that the easiest way to change the temperature of the earth would be to change the albedo. The greenhouse effect is secondary to all of this, but still non-the-less very important at the small (~few degrees) changes that we're concerned about. Let's consider Greenhouse gases, by far and away the single most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, only a few narrow bands of infrared are transparent to water vapour so most of the infrared coming from earth is reradiated by water vapour. However CO2 is a bugger because those narrow bands in the water vapour that would let the infrared through, are opaque to the CO2. So the radiation that could escape is now reradiated byt the atmosphere and inevitably some of this will come back down to earth.
    So basically, there are good physical reasons to be concerned about CO2 (as I'm sure won't be news to anyone), trends in the past may show one thing but then how reliable is it to look back and draw comparisons? Clearly we've never had a technological society on earth in the past, so we need to be very cautious given that this is new territory as far as mother earth is concerned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    -if anyone mentioned it im sorry :?

    -what about overturning circulation in the oceans? Will all the extra water running into the oceans prevent the currents of the ocean from distributing heat to more northern parts of the world? Will the earth instead cool down?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny
    -if anyone mentioned it im sorry :?

    -what about overturning circulation in the oceans? Will all the extra water running into the oceans prevent the currents of the ocean from distributing heat to more northern parts of the world? Will the earth instead cool down?
    Who knows the answer to these and many thousands of other questions, my interest is in trying to find whether the link between man and GW is as we are told, so far, apart from a single graph limited to 40 years of climate in a planet 4.5B years old with a climate that has often swung way outside the values of even the last century I am finding it difficult to conclude there is a direct cause/effect link.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Guest
    I've read that, what I can't understand is the diagram on Page 34 (earth surface temperature) over the last 1000 years or so, it's flat, so flat that the medieval warm period and the little ice-age that followed have dissappeared. As I understand it there is compelling evidence (tree rings, ice cores, silt etc) that these two events did occur - Of course I cannot tell whether you (Ophiolite) subscribe to the view therein or whether you are pointing to it as obviously flawed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    It seems i have completely underestimated the amount of research involved in understanding GW and how much of the temp rise is due to man or nature so its going to be awhile before i can put together a convincing argument but for the time being i would like to post a little-bit about some of the scientists involved in the TV show.

    1) Professor Paul Reiter whose Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy and Professor Ian Clark's Fraser Institute have received $763,500 and $120,000 worth of funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.

    2) "Tim Ball, Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg". He does have a Ph.D. in Climatology, but he was in fact a Professor of Geography from 1973 until 1996 when he retired. Also the university of Winnipeg dosen't have a department of climatology.

    3) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nsch-responds/

    Here is a copy of the letter that Carl Wunsch sent to the makers of the show.

    I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change--- in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?
    I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others.
    When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.
    I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that. What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.
    An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
    therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
    are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
    I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
    At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
    with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
    its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
    taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Wunsch.
    4) Channel 4 and the director of this show Martin Durkin have a long tradition of producing such bollocks, here is some of the many examples:
    "AIDS: The Unheard Voices" which challenged the theory that AIDS is caused by the H.I.V. virus.
    "Against Nature" Which suggested that environmentalists were conspiring against the world's poor. Channel 4 was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology after the series was broadcast.
    Equinox - Silicone implants, which claimed that they where beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer. Many of the researchers walked out, any of the remaining researchers who believed that there was a problem were accused of practising "junk science".

    5) I know this is pushing it a bit but it should be noted that Nigel Calder has just released his new book "The Chilling Stars".

    Heres a link with information about other scientists in this show,
    http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/...-four-swindle/
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    The plot thickens.......

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007...nce/#more-1047

    The film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots – the shorter they are, the higher the temperature(2).

    Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”(3). The real data for recent years show the opposite: that temperatures have continued to rise as the length of the sunspot cycle has increased. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results(4). But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes they had made – in this case in their arithmetic(5).

    So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).

    So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen’s co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation – not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”(8). This too turned out to be incorrect(9). Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere(10). Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays(11).
    Here is the link to paper refered to in the above quote. If you go down to the second page in the top right corner (sorry can't pasted here its pdf) you will see a graph that shows the true relationship between solar cycles and global temps. Notice how completely different it is to the one from "Friends Of Science". <<< <<<
    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...onLaut2004.pdf

    It should also be noted that there has been a 2% rise globally in cloud cover over the last 100 years.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Guest
    That's quite some digging you are doing there, but as I maintain it is not always wise just to look for data to support your own view, especially in science. A good scientist (as I was taught) who forms a theory based on observations will also try to disprove it. THis is the heart of my own search, the CH4 FOS and some other contrary views convinced me I should look further, in doing this and as I think I said earlier using data that both sides draw from - I hope to make my own conclusions. I am not yet ready to sell the bike and buy another car though. I am still very much open-minded. As a note sunspot data before 1874 is suspicious to say the least, since it was not [as far as I can tell] verified by multiple observations or, collated by an authority such as the Greenwich observatory. If I do manage to get this analysis completed then I'll zip it up with the software, the data, the source details and everything else I use so that it can be reviewed by others, which ever way it turns out there'll be no cover-up here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Your right, point taken. I'm currently looking for evidence to support the CO2/methane gas rise and temperature rise.

    -------------

    Have you seen a graph similar to this one?.....
    http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...imatechart.pdf
    The source for this was: NASA goddard institute for space studies.
    However it seems to conflict with the claims not only of the show but also of many websites i have been too, if you look at the 3 main peaks (325,000 - 240,000 - 130,000) the CO2 levels do seem to rise and fall before the temps do.
    I'm hoping you may have a different graph or the data so as i can compare them.
    TY.

    -------------

    BTW are you 70 MB?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Guest
    My co2 data does not go back that far, the real stuff I have goes back to 1958 - when primary data was collected, in that time it risen from around 316 oto 378 (from memory) - beyond that is secondary data (reliant on tree rings/ice cores) back to around 6000 years ago, before that it's ice core and ground core/geologic samples.

    I think you might have misread that graph, it shows the red (temp) rising before the CO2 (black) - have another look....

    As a matter of interest the following quote from your article "And in just the past 150 years, humankind has boosted carbon dioxide concentrations by 32 percent. " is questionable. However you look at it nobody can be certain that that percentage can be attributed to man, it is correct in the amount of CO2 change over that time but would indicate that nature has remained constant, something I find a little dificult to believe in the light of all the other information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    i was reading this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoce...hermal_Maximum

    it said

    Before the PETM, deep water upwelled in the southern hemisphere; over about 40,000 years, the source of this upwelling shifted to the northern hemisphere; it took another 100,000 years before recovering completely.
    Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years, and in the high Arctic, sea surface temperatures rose to a sub-tropical ~23°C/73°F
    There was severely reduced oxygen in deep sea waters, and 30 to 40% of deep sea foraminifera suddenly went extinct.
    Now i know thats not long time in the earths history 100,000 years but thats a long recovery time, do you think given everyones current state that we could survive through something similar to a Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum? whatever the cause may be...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    13
    don't care what anyone thinks...but it is a fact we need more pirates to combat global warming...if only they could invent solar powered boats too...

    dloigh
    its not that i suck at spelling...its that i just don't care
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 GLobal Warming: A Natural Process 
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    Here's a link to a journal article that presents highlights of a study that uses one natural process (Earth Magnetic Field Variation) variable that can predict nearly 80% of global temperature variability 6 to 7 years in the future... And there's no one other variable that can do that.

    http://www.gsaaj.org/articles/TempPaperv1n22007.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    when was this published, who are their authors + what organisation is the GSAA ?

    there's the following website from New Scientist Climate change: A guide for the perplexed + i've got a recent book 'The Rough Guide to Climate Change' and none of them even mentions the mechanism described

    if it's so important why is it not widely known ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55 Global Warming 
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    Previous research on the subject could not explain the process behind the relation. Did you follow the references? And there are many other back-up references out there.

    This paper only presents the tip of the iceberg of what Earth's magnetic field explains and this paper presents only the highlights.

    Remember what Carey said:
    "The more radical the advance from current orthodoxy, the more certain will it be scorned and rejected. Prestige is the canker of the great, because it has been the innovators like Werner, Newton, Kelvin, Jeffreys, Bailey Willis, Gaylord Simpson, and Tuzo Wilson who have led lesser lights into withering rejection of new wisdom."

    (S.W. Carey, 1988. Theories of the Earth and Universe, a history of Dogma in the Earth Sciences. Stanford University Press, California, 413pps).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    spare me your conspiracy theories - if it's really that important, it should be included in any summary on global warming and if it isn't i'd rather hear a better reason than "The more radical the advance from current orthodoxy, the more certain will it be scorned and rejected."

    if it was one of global warming's bogeymen, there would be plenty of people trying to show what's wrong with
    the fact that it's ignored seems to suggest that this either a non-theory or a crank's story
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57 Global Warming 
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    Oh! now your just arguing.

    Like I said, no other variable can do what this one variable does.

    So maybe we need to, as open-minded scientists, look at this a little more closely.

    Nevertheless, thanks for your comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    and i repeat my question, since you haven't answered it yet :

    when was this published, who are their authors + what organisation is the GSAA ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    ok, i see that i'll have to provide my own answers

    in their words the GSAA or "Global Security Affairs & Analysis is a journal of the Global Defense Network. The journal accepts submissions from qualified practitioners, academics, and strategists in the field of global security, or in fields relating to security practices and strategy that may range from physical security of chemical plants to the highest level of strategic security issues."

    the article was published very recently (June 2007) and the GSAA website has the following to say about the authors :

    Edward Moran holds a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Environmental Science from Alaska Pacific University in Anchorage, Alaska. With over 10-years experience, his expertise in Geographical Information System procedures and analysis, Global Positioning System applications and technology, and other fields of science are known throughout the U.S. He has more than 11-years experience working in key management positions in the automotive, transportation, and airline industries form New England to Alaska. Additionally, he retains a working knowledge in Dairy Farm management and animal husbandry with more than 8 years in the business.
    James A. Tindall, Ph.D. is an internationally recognized expert on the strategy of global security processes for large-scale, complex systems and infrastructures, and the development and application of technology that serves them. His work-related activities include detection and surveillance technology, Chem-Bio issues, remote sensing, GPS, and many other technologies used in homeland security, corporate security, and global resource and commodity supply sectors. Dr. Tindall also serves as an advisor to international partners on vulnerability analysis and risk assessment of global security issues and resources including environmental impact issues of neighbor states. Much of Dr. Tindall's management and research expertise is spent applying tactical, strategic, and analytical processes to business growth and long-term strategies that leverage technology within the private sector, homeland security, and defense security industries. He travels extensively internationally to work with U.S. partners in technology transfer protocols and policy, as well as with partners within the U.S. such as DHS, DoD, DOJ, FEMA, DOE, NRC, and others. He has served in a variety of positions including vice president, senior vice president, director and lead scientist, and chief operations officer and serves as an adjunct professor at several universities. He received his Ph.D. in physics and engineering from the University of Georgia, Athens and also holds an MA in Security Studies from the United States Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.

    he is also the executive editor of GSAA

    not exactly the background one would expect to lead to an expertise in climatology, but still, give them the benefit of the doubt for possibly having stumbled upon something whilst working on something else

    the one portion i want to pick on though :

    "Relations between magnetization and temperature show that a material’s magnetic intensity decreases during heating."

    surely these guys aren't implying that an increase of the earth's surface temperature of 0.5°C has an effect on the intensity of a magnetic field created by convection currents in the outer core at vastly higher temperatures ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    sorry, this post originally contained a duplicate of the above message
    i seemed to have accidentally posted this twice - crappy internet connection
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    oops, and now i see that due to my crappy internet connection i've managed to post this message not twice but three times - sorry for that

    deleted triplicate
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    Thanks Ray,

    I believe they're saying the direction of heat flow is other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63 Gloabl Warming 
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    Just a note:

    We’re going to spend $29B to further study GLOBAL WARMING while we’ve got 40 to 50-million people that want access to this country because their country can’t take care of them. I believe, as a society, our priorities are quite misled.

    Then you have millions of people dying in places like Darfur because there’s no government (or societies) that want to care for them while we sit here and discuss GLOBAL WARMING and how we need to cure something that, ultimately, we have no control over. I agree with curbing pollution, but some problem like CO2, give me a break.

    Environmentalists with no actual training need to get with the program and start being more concerned about their neighbors than some self-promoting, ego-stroking problem that doesn’t mean anything in the end. We’re here on this planet and we do the little things we do because of people. Without people, our poor self-aggrandizing, self-promoting little selves are not even spit on the ground

    So, people, wake up and pay attention to Maslow’s Hierarchy, then we’ll finally understand what the majority of politicians, scientists, business men, environmentalists, and far-left and right individuals are doing to the poor slob that really wants to make the world a better place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i'm afraid that, rather than treat global warming as a separate issue from civil strife or mass migration, you may want to consider whether the effects of global warming might not aggravate them considerably

    droughts and floods are just one of many potential consequences of global warming that could displace enough people to make the vietnamese boat people look like a sunday picnic
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65 Global Warming 
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    I believe our southern immigrants want here because they can make somewhat of a living.

    We're always going to have floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.

    But reduced CO2, WOW.

    Drill some wells, de-salination plants, build some homes on higher ground. Mexico can bring in some non-government controlled businesses. I don't know. There's 29-billion dollars out there but self-deserving individuals that feel entitled to that money have no concern about others, well? And we all know the type. They’re called passive-aggressives with their own agenda in mind.

    And I’ll bet the Mexicans, and other such governments, want these people to leave, then those in charge have fewer problems. I know managers like that, the less employees they have, the less work they have to do. Well, that’s their job, to help and deal with people.

    I don't know. Think MAN.

    Take some real temperature predictions that use real data and come up with some future solutions. CARBON CREDITS, what a joke!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66 Re: Global Warming 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by tm
    Take some real temperature predictions that use real data and come up with some future solutions. CARBON CREDITS, what a joke!!!
    Carbon credits, the biggest scam since the Catholic Church sold Purgatory-free slips.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67 Carbon Credits 
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    DING, DING, DING.

    We have a realist on board.

    And I have some property on the MOON selling real cheap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68 Global Warming 
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    MarnixR,

    You're right about the boat people scenario.

    But the US is in the same predicament in the wid-west, not enough water.

    Canada, Russia, and Basil have plenty of room, and water.

    Maybe each US family should adopt an immigrant family. As individuals, we're going to end up paying for 'em anyways.

    Ah, but the US government should take care of 'em. Oh! As individuals we are the government. If the government takes care of 'em, then that relieves the individual of the burden.

    So let's enable the whole world. Nobody’s responsible for anything. The governments are responsible for everything. Oh! But that's what US has attempted to and is already doing. But the world hates us.

    What a dilemma!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69 Global Warming 
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    MarnixR,

    Let's talk some real science now.

    Since Carbon Dioxide is increasing, what atmospheric gas is decreasing?

    I mean, given all the estimated proportions of gases and all in the atmosphere, wouldn't something have to decrease, because if it wasn’t', wouldn't we have, say like 104% atmospheric gases concentration?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70 Re: Global Warming 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by tm
    Since Carbon Dioxide is increasing, what atmospheric gas is decreasing?

    I mean, given all the estimated proportions of gases and all in the atmosphere, wouldn't something have to decrease, because if it wasn’t', wouldn't we have, say like 104% atmospheric gases concentration?
    now you're being silly - it's not like the other gases have to diminish in actual quantities because carbon dioxide increases - all the other gases, mostly nitrogen and oxygen will decrease in percentage, not necessarily in total volume

    besides, carbon dioxide has increased from about 300ppm to 380ppm in about a century, which is from 0.030 to 0.038%, an increase of 0.008% - don't know where you get the additional 4% from
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71 Re: Global Warming 
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by tm
    Since Carbon Dioxide is increasing, what atmospheric gas is decreasing?

    I mean, given all the estimated proportions of gases and all in the atmosphere, wouldn't something have to decrease, because if it wasn’t', wouldn't we have, say like 104% atmospheric gases concentration?
    now you're being silly - it's not like the other gases have to diminish in actual quantities because carbon dioxide increases - all the other gases, mostly nitrogen and oxygen will decrease in percentage, not necessarily in total volume

    besides, carbon dioxide has increased from about 300ppm to 380ppm in about a century, which is from 0.030 to 0.038%, an increase of 0.008% - don't know where you get the additional 4% from
    to add to MarinxR's point CO2 has only increased by 100 ppm scince the last ice age. CO2 is one of the smallest components to greenhouse gases and global warming. Water vapour is 70-90% of greenhouse gasses whereas CO2 is a mere 9-14%. Hell cows farting does more for greenhouse gasses than CO2 with a wopping 17-20%.
    The only reason that CO2 was picked to make a big stink about was because it is the only one that can be controlled (supposedly)
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72 Re: Global Warming 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    The only reason that CO2 was picked to make a big stink about was because it is the only one that can be controlled (supposedly)
    i wouldn't bank on it - china will only stop building new coal-fired power stations when they choke in their own pollution
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    Exactly,

    We all know the 104% was an exaggeration.

    The energy balance, or incoming versus outgoing radiation, due to CARBON DIOXIDE alone should be somewhat offset by a decrease in another constituent. Or something like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74 Global Warming 
    tm
    tm is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    What we need to do, in my opinion, is to start dismantling the CO2 and anthropogenic cause to Global Warming piece by piece. We just need a few brilliant individuals like your guys. Make a guess and let's debate the issues constructively. It's just that I don't know if we have enough time, we surely don't have the political clout. But we have other things.

    We've already made a link to a natural process that can cause ambient temperature variability, as in the previous posted article. (Use some appropriate internet search techniques and you'll find numerous Nature, Science, and other such journal articles about magnetic intensity and climate). It's just that nobody could make the physical link. But that recent paper finally did that for us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    what would be handy is an industrial process that uses CO2 on a big scale
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    what would be handy is an industrial process that uses CO2 on a big scale
    Making Coca Cola. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    what would be handy is an industrial process that uses CO2 on a big scale
    Making Coca Cola. 8)
    nice one !
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    Al Gore loves it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    many non science people put 'Ozone', Global warming, and energy conservation all in the same bag, we know they are three different things and mostly unrelated
    Unless you are talking politics then they are totally related. They are interchangeable and used as a tool to further regulations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    Looking back, it's kind of interesting how the discussions have changed, though. I remember surveys in the 1980s (in Europe) asking if you believe that global warming is happening. Most people are convinced of it now, and surprisingly that includes a lot of former deniars. A lot of the same conspiracy theorists who believed the global warming theory was a grand political scheme (for what purpose??) have suprisingly accepted the fact that it's happening, and have consequentially matured their reasoning, moving on to the denial of the human cause of global warming. (just as a side note, the "global warming" debate is not concerned about cyclic changes that have been observed for a long time, but about a super-exponential increase in temperature that has started with industrialization and is not easily explained without correlation of human activities). I find the change of heart surprising because the hard-core conspiracy theorists I have met are not easily swayed off track.

    I understand the two main causes of conspiracy theories (lack of information and lack of intelligence), but in the case of the "global warming conspiracy" I actually never quite understood the motivation for such a scheme. I can clearly see how the denial of any problem with CO2 finds a strong motivation in keeping the oil industry alive. They sure make a lot of money, there's a lot on the line. However, my conspiracy imagination may not be wild enough to figure a possible benefit of such global warming conspiracy for anyone. Wind turbine manufacturers and nuclear engineers suddenly get rich? I don't think so. Maybe someone on this forum can help me out.

    Most importantly though, and apart from the whole discussion, I also don't understand why everyone is getting so heated up (no pun intended)? Conserving energy, turning off the lights and other appliances when you leave a room, riding a bike or using public transportation if possible, otherwise driving an efficient car, living in a properly insulated home... and so on... all those are things I was aware of long before "global warming" arose as an issue. Whether or not human-caused CO2 emissions are responsible for the climate change we all experience, being considerate and not a wasteful idiot is not exactly a departure from the life I have always lived. Why should it be an issue for anyone else? Do they really need to drive that 2-ton monster of a vehicle just to get to work?? I don't think so. Maybe it's because "consideration" in general is such a tough value to live by. It's certainly not a popular one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    phftt! you guys aren't getting the political idea of Global warming.

    When Global Warming did start? right after the Cold War.
    The people need to be oppressed, to have something to fear or we are to powerful for the Govenments to controll

    Well that's my spin on it...
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    you'll notice that Al Gore is actually not in government anymore, as much as he would like to

    who's the US president again ? and does he believe in global warming ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    pfht Algore can go to hell. I don't see why he is preaching to Europe when America is the biggest poluter out there
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    ... when America is the biggest poluter out there
    not for much longer - at present it's a toss of a coin whether it's China or the US, with the former going full steam ahead
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    ... when America is the biggest poluter out there
    not for much longer - at present it's a toss of a coin whether it's China or the US, with the former going full steam ahead
    Too true, but as the saying goes 'There is no place like home' Why can't he start over there and work his way down the list off Giant Polluters rather than telling those further down the list that are actually doing something
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    but in the case of the "global warming conspiracy" I actually never quite understood the motivation for such a scheme. I can clearly see how the denial of any problem with CO2 finds a strong motivation in keeping the oil industry alive.
    Part of the problem here is you don't understand who has financial interests in pushing anthropogenic global warming. This lengthy but well researched post by my friend Carry_Okie will explain some of it only this post is related to natural gas but the players are all the same. The big foundations are the ones supporting the enviro groups that bring law suits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    and i suppose that the oil companies don't sponsor climate change sceptics ?

    Report singles out ExxonMobil over climate scepticism
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    and i suppose that the oil companies don't sponsor climate change sceptics ?

    Report singles out ExxonMobil over climate scepticism
    I'm sure they do but that wasn't the point. Why is funding only evil if it comes from oil companies?

    I have a problem with groups like the Nature Conservancy devaluing land so they can buy it at a reduced price using your tax dollars I might add. They then turn around and sell it to one of their executives so they can build a million dollar home on it. Or they log, mine or drill on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    I think that funding isn't only evil when oil companies are involved, but they are one of the biggest evil-funders out there. A lot of corporations do the same thing - they fund people to write or speak about issues from a point of view that will help the business.
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by The P-manator
    I think that funding isn't only evil when oil companies are involved, but they are one of the biggest evil-funders out there. A lot of corporations do the same thing - they fund people to write or speak about issues from a point of view that will help the business.
    Not really. Go back and read the information in the link I posted earlier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Anyone who writes something that long defending corporations must have something wrong in their head. The point is that corporations have gotten used to funding people who can spread opinions that benefit business. The ExxonMobil funding of the global warming skeptics is just another example.
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by The P-manator
    Anyone who writes something that long defending corporations must have something wrong in their head. The point is that corporations have gotten used to funding people who can spread opinions that benefit business. The ExxonMobil funding of the global warming skeptics is just another example.
    Excuse me? He was not defending corporations. You need to go back and re read it. And you have absolutely no clue what goes on in the funding of the environmental movement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Twice now I've told you to go back and re read that information. I don't believe you read it at all. You made assuptions and are espousing positions based on that assumption. Hardly worthy of a science forum. I guess you don't want to know the truth.

    From that link:

    So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you?

    These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, .
    You decry the evil funding of the oil corporations without realizing that they are the money funding the enviro groups. Someone here asked what was to be gained in the global warming scam. There it is.

    Also from that link:

    It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades.

    1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).
    2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress.
    3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law.
    4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants.
    5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision-making with the cheapest politicians money can buy.

    It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such.

    It's been done in industry after industry: timber, energy, mining, beef, fish, agriculture, real estate development, soon water… ALL taking advantage of economies of scale in environmental compliance and sometimes selective enforcement. Tax-exempt foundations buy the research "data" they need, fund a few ideological groups trained by the same professorate that lives off their grant money, and not a word need be breathed to the companies in which they are invested. Their pet executives wail about the regulations and scream how stupid and counterproductive they are, just like you do. It makes great theater. There is virtually no way of getting caught.
    Wake up and smell the profits behind the environmental movement!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Wake up and smell the profits behind the environmental movement!
    Are you denying that man has had a dramatic and largely negative impact on the global environment?
    (There will be follow up questions, but I'd like to take them one step at a time.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    imo the following thread is the clincher against anyone who claims that climate change has nothing to do with us human beings
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Wake up and smell the profits behind the environmental movement!
    Are you denying that man has had a dramatic and largely negative impact on the global environment?
    (There will be follow up questions, but I'd like to take them one step at a time.)
    Why don't we discuss the information I provided instead? Are you denying that the environmental movement is a protection racket designed and funded by large foundations that have oil company ties?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Yes.
    And you didn't even read the information I provided did you? So what is the point in us even having a discussion? The proof of what I have provided is in the public record.

    The question was asked here who stood to gain from the global warming conspiracy. I provided information on it. You can chose to read it or not, believe it or not but it won't change the facts.

    The oil companies through foundations are the ones funding and pushing anthropogenic climate change. It's a matter of public record.

    Is it any wonder that oil company profits have done nothing but soar since the advent of the environmental movement in the 70s?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    scpg02, i must admit not to have read your link at first
    i have started doing so now, and stopped before i was halfway through

    2 reasons :
    1. it's not easy to following a discussion without knowing what came before
    2. i have trouble reading webpages that extend beyond 1 screen (something that some contributors to this forum might want to consider as well)

    you could have made it easier on everyone if you had written a short synopsis of the arguments presented by your friend, with a link for those who want to read more detail

    unless you show that you're willing to put in the effort to present your ideas, you can't complain that other people don't want to put in the effort to plough the detail of your link - that's basic forum etiquette
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    unless you show that you're willing to put in the effort to present your ideas, you can't complain that other people don't want to put in the effort to plough the detail of your link - that's basic forum etiquette
    I don't need a lecture on forum etiquette from you thank you. I've done several explanations already but I'll do it again for greater clarity.

    It is pointless to argue whether anthropogenic global warming is real or not. The "science" is funded on both sides by the same people. The resulting government regulation benefits the oil companies through forced shortages.

    The link I gave is lengthy but well worth it. It uses the example of MTBE to make the case and is showing how the game is being played with California's energy crisis.

    I'll post more quotes since Mark is a much better writer than I am.

    So let's see if our little hypothetical gambit has a precedent, shall we? We'll start with that famous scam when the State required that gasoline retailers remove ALL steel underground storage tanks and replace them with new fiberglass tanks because they were supposedly a threat to leak. Of the 12,000 tanks at service stations sampled in California, 48 leaked (some threat). Assuming that the average cost of replacing an underground fuel tank is approximately $100,000 (it can be three times that) and that there are approximately 200,000 such tanks in California, the estimated capital cost was about 20 billion dollars, not to mention the amount of money made burning contaminated dirt. Over 10,000 independent sellers of gasoline went out of business because of the cost thus leaving the major oil companies with a vertically integrated oligopoly. But at least we were safe, right?

    Wrong. Enter the Clean Air Act of 1990 mandating oxygenates for both the LA basin and the Central Valley. I don’t suppose you know that it was David Doniger of the NRDC (surprise, surprise) who was the ONLY representative of an environmental NGO at the EPA meetings that approved MTBE as an oxygenate for gasoline? I am told that it was NRDC lawyer Mary Nichols who presided at the CARB hearings in LA as well (I'm still getting source documents on that).

    Up until that time methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) had been a byproduct of gasoline production requiring expensive disposal. The oil refiners had been handling the stuff for years; thus the requirements for processing and containment of the material were well understood, as were the byproducts of combustion. (Measurement and documentation of all these things are required for construction of a processing plant, an air quality permit, or for disposal.) Subsequent to their early experiments with MTBE in Anchorage and Denver, it was well understood by BOTH the oil companies and the EPA that MTBE was likely to leak out of plastic fuel tanks and contaminate groundwater. The EPA had documentation to that effect before 1990. It was so well understood that when the EPA demanded of Congress that the oil companies that produce reformulated gasoline (particularly ARCO), demanded they be indemnified in advance for any damage to public health or private property.

    I can't imagine you don't know about the contamination of drinking water wells across the State. Well it gets worse. Guess who is now making big moves in forcing State control of private and small municipal water supplies now that the groundwater has been poisoned for ten years? Yup, the NRDC.

    NRDC is a LOT bigger player in this mess than I hope you realize and their historic behavior and that of the oil companies in the oxygenate fiasco are clearly parallel to the gambit in electrical power I proposed above. In addition to the prominent role played by Mr. Doniger, I am told that it was NRDC lawyer Mary Nichols who presided at the CARB hearings in LA (I'm still getting source documents on that). The addition of MTBE to gasoline cost everyone in the California an extra 30 cents per gallon for ten years. It made ARCO so happy they put Pete Wilson's wife on their board of directors. Believe me, a lot of that was profit due to the closed market in refinery capacity. Now, guess how hard it is to build more refinery SUPPLY capacity and why? Now guess who would stand squarely in the way of adding more?

    ~snip~

    These people are energy investors who use federal money and their own tax-exempt "charitable" donations to fund lawsuits that manipulate access to resources, control processing of energy feedstocks, and set attainment targets in a manner preferential to their own investments. ALL of the resulting capital gains in their trusts are tax-exempt. You may be surprised to find the Hewlett and Packard fortunes listed as energy investors, but they just gave over 130 million to Stanford to research extraction of methane hydrates and are directly tied in with Exxon/Mobil in that effort. Keeping it in the family they've put Lynn Orr, who is married to Susan Packard, in charge of the global energy project. The idea is that they can use the energy revenues and the carbon credits for removing a principal source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. They need Kyoto or this will be a big loser of an investment. Curiously, if they disturb those nodules foolishly, they may end up releasing a great deal of methane to the surface which would release the gases into the atmosphere. You don’t think that they might need protection from the NRDC in case they screw up, do you?

    Did anybody sue the NRDC for the cleanup costs of MTBE?

    They can’t be sued. Clinton EO 12986 indemnified them from such lawsuits as members in good standing at the IUCN, the United Nations' equivalent of the EPA.

    Using a charitable foundation, to use the law to force people to use your product, to use regulatory power to keep competitors out of the market or force them into selling or go bankrupt, and to protect you from liability for your product in order to reap a guaranteed profit is tax-exempt racketeering, and on a grand scale.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •