Global Warming, Full Quivers, and Social Irresponsibility

[bevin]

I just came inside from sitting on my deck, in the sun, in my shirt-sleeves, eating lunch, and thinking about the Full Quiver thread.

It is 70F outside today, Jan 6 2007, in NH USA. Usually this time of year it is 20F and there is snow everywhere. Last night it rained. I could go wind-surfing today!

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=505

Quote:

Evangelical Coalition Says Global Warming Worries Overblown BY PIET LEVY © 2006 Religion News Service

A coalition of evangelical religious leaders has launched an education campaign that will try to persuade pastors and churchgoers that dire predictions about global warming are overblown.

The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, supported by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and others, announced on April 19 that its Cornwall Network of Churches campaign will provide information that can be distributed to parishioners or used to influence sermons.

At least the Roman Catholic Church is showing some sense

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19830

Quote:

The Vatican representative pointed to the reality of global warming and its relation to the burning of fossil fuels and the use of other pollutants. “We can no longer pretend that human activity has little or no impact” on the worldwide “changing climatic conditions,” he said.

Embarrassing, isn't it. Why are fundamentalist protestant denominations so concerned about trivia and so head-in-the-sand over major matters?

/Bevin

[olger]

Global warming happens every morning..

olger

[Bravus]

Not that surprising given that those fundamentalists are in the pockets of the political right. Capitalism in its most laissez-faire forms has become part of their gospel.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Not that surprising given that those fundamentalists are in the pockets of the political right.

Now come on, I thought the political right was in the pockets of the funamentalists. Which way is it?

Well, thankfully the Seventh-day Adventist church doesn't have its head in the sand. We take environmental issues much more seriously. However the seriousness of environmental issues needn't overshadow that of social issues. One is not related to the other. As Christians we can support environmental friendly laws and behavior and also support socially responsible laws and behavior too. We don't have to choose one or the other.

[D. Allan]

From Yesterday's N.Y.Time Editorial page:

Quote:

California's Barbara Boxer is the new chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committe, replacing James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who regards global warming as an elaborate hoax drummed up by environmentalists and scientists in search of money. Ms. Boxer has already scheduled hearings, and there will be no shortage of legislative remedies to consider. All share one objective, which is to attach a cost to carbon dioxide through a cap on emmissions.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

It is 70F outside today, Jan 6 2007, in NH USA. Usually this time of year it is 20F and there is snow everywhere. Last night it rained. I could go wind-surfing today!

How's that global-warming? Any wind-surfing lately? :otb

[CyberGuy]

When Eric the Red discovered Greenland it was not covered with Ice but was covered with Green vegetation. When Leif Ericson Erics son discovered Winland which was North America just to the west of Greenland it was covered with trees and grape vines hence the name Vineland. This was around 1000 AD.

Then around 1350 AD the colony in Greenland became cold and died off due to the Plague and colder tempertures.

Europe recorded some of the most warmest temps during this period. Even the Alpine glaciers melted way back from their normal levels.

It is also interesting that Jupiter is also in a global warming trend at the same time as Earth.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

Global warming is happening on Mars as well.

==============================

Global Warming on Mars?

A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend.

After decades of thinking that the ice caps on Mars were mostly carbon dioxide (dry ice), planetary geologists are starting to think that those caps may be mostly fresh water ice instead.

Caltech planetary scientists have been keeping a close eye on the dozens of deep, wide pits in the southern martian ice caps. These pits have been growing larger every year, but they never get any deeper.

The scientists believe this means that there is a layer of dry ice that is evaporating off of a thicker layer of water ice. The yearly increases in evaporation may be caused by a global warming trend happening on Mars.

If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.

http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html

==========================================================

Could it be this is a solar system wide event and not just an earth event. Maybe the cycle of the sun causes global warming that comes and recedes in cycles. The fact that we are at the hight of our industrial civilization is just a coinsidence.

[CyberGuy]

Ice core samples, from places like Greenland and our old pal Lake Vostok, have shown that the Earth has undergone drastic and rapid climate change in the past. The most recent major shift was about 12,000 years ago, with the vast majority of the change occurring in only 40 years. In fact, some key indicators of global climate change, such as average annual temperatures, increased by 5 to 10 degrees C in only 10 years! Various prosaic explanations have been asserted to explain these odd and sudden shifts, mostly centering around the suns energy output and sun spots. Indeed, our own recent warming trend has been alternately explained as the result of this same "solar instability," or blamed on increasing human fossil fuel activity (which is not the case).

http://www.enterprisemission.com/warming.htm

[CyberGuy]

Global warming on other planets

Jupiter

A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday. The temperatures are expected to change by as much as 10 Fahrenheit degrees at different places of the globe. At least close to the new spot and to the equator, nothing less than global warming is expected.

Triton

Triton is Neptune's largest Moon. Some people believe that it used to be an asteroid. Global warming was detected on Triton. Between 1989 and 1998, the temperature jumped by 5 percent on the absolute (Kelvin) scale. The same relative increase would raise the Earth's temperature by 22 degrees Fahrenheit in 9 years. See thousands of other pages about the global warming on Triton.

Enceladus

Another moon of Saturn's, Enceladus, would be also expected to be frozen and cold. Suddenly, Cassini has informed us that Enceladus generates its own heat. Its high temperatures seem to be incompatible with calculations based on solar energy itself, according to existing models.

Saturn

Saturn itself has a rather warm southern pole, and the temperatures in that region suddenly jumped by 3-5 Kelvin degrees. Well, it's warm because it's been exposed to sunshine for quite some time but the magnitude of the temperature jumps is not trivial to calculate.

Pluto

What's going on with Pluto? Well, yes, your guess is right. There is global warming on Pluto. Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled in 14 years, and the associated increase of temperature is estimated to be around 3.5 Fahrenheit degrees, despite the motion of Pluto away from the Sun.

Mars

Of course, the global warming on Mars is a well-known story. The warming has been used by this blog to discover the Martians. More seriously, we have explained that the dramatic and speedy melting of the Martian icecaps is caused by the greenhouse effect. 95% of "their" atmosphere is made of carbon dioxide; that's slightly more than 0.038% of our atmosphere.

The warming trend on Mars is undeniable. Some people have tried to blame the global warming on NASA's rovers. Such accusations are pretty serious because NASA is already preparing plans to occupy Mars using the greenhouse effect, as ordered by George Bush. ;-)

Venus

Venus, our planet's evil sister, has already been identified as unusable for life because of ... yes, because of the greenhouse effect that occured in the past. Last month, the Venus express gave us some new hints why Venus has such a thick atmosphere that generated global warming.

Earth

The Earth is currently experiencing warming, too, although a less dramatic one than the previous examples. However, there is apparently a huge difference. The warming on the previous planets and moons was natural. On the other hand, the warming on Earth couldn't evolve naturally: it is caused by the humankind, evil corporations, and their intelligent design, most left-wing scientists believe. The warming trends can't have anything to do with the Sun whose activity is now highest in the last 1000 years: it is unethical to propose that the Sun plays any role, consensus scientists argue.

A comparison

You may ask the consensus scientists: why is there such a difference between the explanations for the warming of the Earth and the other planets and their moons? It's because the Earth is the center of the Universe, they would answer. You could also ask: why do all these planets and moons indicate warming? Shut up, the consensus scientists would answer.

Some of them would tell you that your paradox is resolved by the anthropic principle: the people on Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Mars, Triton, and other celestial bodies cannot complain about the anthropogenic global warming because... because these people don't exist! :-)

The debate is over, Al Gore, our prophet, has announced. Terrestrial global warming, caused by the human sins, is no longer a political issue: it is now a spiritual issue. Now it's time to punish the heretics who deny that the Earth as the center of the Universe is special because of the humans who were created to the image of God - and because of their sins and SUVs.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

[Bravus]

Hmm. Always willing to consider alternative explanations, and test existing theories to death. But we *know* atmospheric carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that leads to warming - which is one important reason Mars is cooler than we would expect for a planet with an atmosphere at its distance from the sun, and Venus is much hotter than we would expect for a planet with a thinner atmosphere. We also know that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising at a rate unprecedented in the past few thousand years (i.e. since civilisation began). So some of the observed warming (I note that the skeptics have already been forced by the reality of the data to move away from their original position, which was that the heating was purely illusory or within normal yearly variations) may be due to sun activity, but some is also due to greenhouse gas emissions. The key difference is that we can't do anything about sun activity.

[there buster]

How many times have we heard from Al Gore and assorted European politicians that "the science is settled" on global warming? In other words, it's "time for action." Climate change is, as recently stated by Hans Blix, former U.N. Chief for weapons detection in Iraq, the most important issue of our time, far more dangerous than people flying fuel-laden aircraft into skyscrapers or threatening to detonate backpack nukes in Baltimore Harbor.

Well, the science may now be settled, but not in the way Gore and Blix would have us believe. Three bombshell papers have just hit the refereed literature that knock the stuffing out of Blix's position and that of the United Nations and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC states repeatedly that 1) we have reliable temperature records showing how much the planet has warmed in the last century; and 2) computer projections of future climate, while not perfect, simulate the observed behavior of the past so well that they serve as a reliable guide for the future. Therefore, they say, we need to limit carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., energy use) right now, despite the expense and despite the fact that the cost of these restrictions will fall almost all on the United States, gravely harming the world's economic engine while exerting no detectable change on climate in the foreseeable future.

The IPCC claims to have carefully corrected the temperature records for the well-known problem of local ("urban," as opposed to global) warming. But this has always troubled serious scientists, because the way the U.N. checks for artificial warming makes it virtually impossible to detect in recent decades -- the same period in which our cities have undergone the most growth and sprawl.

The surface temperature record shows a warming rate of about 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1979. However, there are two other records, one from satellites, and one from weather balloons that tell a different story. Neither annual satellite nor balloon trends differ significantly from zero since the start of the satellite record in 1979. These records reflect temperatures in what is called the lower atmosphere, or the region between roughly 5,000 and 30,000 feet.

Four years ago, a distinguished panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that a real disparity exists between the reported surface warming and the temperature trends measured in the atmosphere above. Since then, many investigators have tried to explain the cause of the disparity while others have denied its existence.

So, which record is right, the U.N. surface record showing the larger warming or the other two? There's another record, from seven feet above the ground, derived from balloon data that has recently been released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In two research papers in the July 9 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, two of us (Douglass and Singer) compared it for correspondence with the surface record and the lower atmosphere histories. The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.'s hot surface history.

This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and its vaunted climate models. That's because the models generally predict an increased warming rate with height (outside of local polar regions). Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. When this was noted in the first satellite paper published in 1990, some scientists objected that the record, which began in 1979, was too short. Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the UN's climate models have failed, as well as indicating that its surface record is simply too hot.

If the models are wrong as one goes up in the atmosphere, then any correspondence between them and surface temperatures is either pretty lucky or the product of some unspecified "adjustment." Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong means that everything dependent upon that -- precipitation and cloudiness, as examples -- must be wrong. Obviously, the amount of cloud in the air determines the day's high temperature as well as whether or not it rains.

As bad as things have gone for the IPCC and its ideologues, it gets worse, much, much worse.

After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for "economic" signals in the temperature record. McKitrick, an economist, was initially piqued by what several climatologists had noted as a curiosity in both the U.N. and satellite records: statistically speaking, the greater the GDP of a nation, the more it warms. The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records. This worldwide study added fuel to a fire started a year earlier by the University of Maryland's Eugenia Kalnay, who calculated a similar 50 percent bias due to economic factors in the U.S. records.

So, to all who worry about global warming, to all who think that people threatening to blow up millions to get their political way is no big deal by comparison, chill out. The science is settled. The "skeptics" -- the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end -- have won.

Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of the forthcoming book, "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media." Fred Singer is emeritus professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. David Douglass is professor of physics at the University of Rochester.

here's the link

[there buster]

Last week's release of a National Academies of Science (NAS) report entitled "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" was the result of a congressional request to look into the controversy surrounding the now-famous "hockey stick" temperature curve. The media portrayed the findings of the NAS review panel as some sort of new statement about how warm the Earth is at present, and totally missed the real news: that the original claim of Mann et al. of unprecedented warmth in the last 1,000 years -- based mostly upon tree ring data, especially from the southwest U.S. -- was dubious at best.

For the last several years, the hockey stick has been a poster prop for manmade global warming. For instance, it figures prominently in Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." But the statistical and data analysis methods that Mann et al. used to arrive at their 1,000 year temperature reconstruction were strongly criticized by some. The hockey stick played down the warmth of the "Medieval Warm Period" of 1,000 years ago, as well as the later coolness of the "Little Ice Age."

Also, the uncritical acceptance of the hockey stick for inclusion in the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report on global climate in 2001 gave many scientists the impression that the editors of that report wanted to believe the hockey stick more than they were convinced of its validity.

In their attempt to not publicly scold Mann and his coauthors for questionable data analysis methods, the authors of the new report instead chose to restate the evidence for how warm the Earth has gotten recently. What the media didn't notice, however, is that the 1,000 year figure that was central to the whole hockey stick debate had now been replaced in the report by a figure of 400 years. Since most of the last 400 years was dominated by the "Little Ice Age," the warming during the 20th century should be welcomed by humanity.

The report says that surface temperature reconstructions before this period (about 1600) have "less confidence" and that "uncertainties...increase substantially backward in time..." for any of these proxy estimates of ancient temperatures. One review panel member told me that the statisticians on the panel were amazed when it was revealed that the method underlying the hockey stick had essentially no statistical skill when validated.

This is pretty harsh language for an NAS report written by review panel members, several of whom are equivalent to foxes guarding the hen house. Researchers who have bought into the validity of using proxy measures for ancient climate reconstructions aren't about to throw away the "best" method the paleoclimate research community has, even if it can not be validated with real temperature measurements (the thermometer was not even invented until the 1600's).

One rather amazing characteristic of the hockey stick is the so-called "divergence problem": the strong warming in the late 20th century is not even indicated in the tree ring data that were used to reconstruct the last 1,000 years of supposed temperature variations. Much of the 20th century warming (the blade of the hockey stick) represents real temperature measurements, not tree ring reconstructions, since they don't show the warming. This raises a natural question, which the panel shrugged off: If tree rings do not show the strong warming of the late 20th century, how do we know there wasn't a similar temperature spike 1,000 years ago?

Keeping the door open to the possibility that Mann might be right anyway, the new report says that it is at least "plausible" that we are warmer now than anytime in the last 1,000 years. But this is a much lower level of certainty than has been associated with the hockey stick by the media, bureaucrats, and movie stars (like Al Gore).

But what was the biggest news in the media coverage of the NAS report last week? The biased nature of the media coverage. It almost seems like the media covering the report looked for familiar phrases that fit their global warming paradigm (e.g., "...warmer than the previous 400 years..."), without noting the important conclusions that addressed why the report was written in the first place.

Indeed, much of the press coverage managed to connect the words "warmer than" with a report reference to "2,000 years" to come up with widespread statements (not supported by the report) that the Earth is warmer now than when Jesus Christ walked the Earth. Apparently, sound bites are still preferred over truth.

The NAS review panel report admits that it is difficult to conclude that we are warmer now than 1,000 years ago, but that we are very likely warmer than anytime in the last 400 years. Since what this really means is that we are warmer now than any time during the "Little Ice Age" (and thank goodness for that), one wonders whether we really know anything about past climate reconstructions from tree ring data.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.

read it here

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

So some of the observed warming... may be due to sun activity, but some is also due to greenhouse gas emissions. The key difference is that we can't do anything about sun activity.

I agree completely with this. Although that doesn't mean much since I don't hold a college degree or work in the field of science. One thing I do feel strongly about is that any restriction on greenhouse gas emissions apply to all nations. Any nations not complying with them should be banned from trading with the nations that do comply. Otherwise the industries that create much of these emissions are going to relocate to the countries that do not have restrictions on them.

Guess what? Mexico allows many greenhouse gas emissions that the US does not. This serves to attract industry from the US, South Korea and japan to build factories there.

[CyberGuy]

Scientists blame sun for global warming

Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth. Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow. The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem. Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle. And individual cycles can be more or less active. The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years. That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed. The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity. They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming. The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

[CyberGuy]

By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse

Global warming may not be caused by humanity's fossil fuel emissions, but could be due to changes in the Sun.

Research suggests that the magnetic flux from the Sun more than doubled this century. As solar magnetism is closely linked with sunspot activity and the strength of sunlight reaching Earth, the increase could have produced warming in the global climate.

The evidence for an increasingly energetic Sun comes from a new analysis of the magnetic field between the planets, carried out by scientists at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxford, UK.

Solar Wind

This magnetic field is caused by the Solar Wind, a stream of particles given off by the Sun which fills the solar system.

The scientists produce evidence that since 1964 the interplanetary magnetic field has increased in strength by 40%.

Evidence from before the space age suggests that the magnetic field is 2.3 times stronger than it was in 1901.

Scientists do not doubt that the increased magnetic field results from a more energetic Sun. Their problem is that the effect of these increases on the Earth is unknown.

Not our fault?

The research is published in Nature and in the same journal Professor Eugene Parker, of the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research, University of Chicago, comments that it could explain global warming.

He notes that the increased solar activity has occurred in parallel with an increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. And it may not be a coincidence, he says.

Professor Parker suggests that the Sun's increased activity caused the Earth's global temperature to rise and that in turn warmed the oceans.

Warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So a warmer Earth has more of the so-called greenhouse gases. Humanity's burning of fossil fuels may therefore not be the cause of global warming.

Perilous plans

Professor Parker adds that that more research must be done about the Sun's role in global warming before drastic action is taken here on Earth.

"It is essential to check to what extent the facts support these conclusions before embarking on drastic, perilous and perhaps misguided plans for global action," he says.

Measurements of the magnetic field are not the only evidence for the Sun's variable influence on the Earth. The planet went through a "little ice age" during the 17th Century, at a time when very few sunspots appeared on the surface of the Sun.

And the so-called "medieval maximum" was a period of warmer than average global weather in the 12th Century. Astronomers believe that the Sun was slightly brighter at that time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358953.stm

[Dr. Shane]

AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION

Quote:

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

[Woody]

Could we expand this thread to talking about Global Cooling? OR is it just open to Global Warming?

[Bravus]

The preferred term these days is global climate change, since the consensus view is that although the global average temperature is rising, what that will mean is added energy in the weather system as a whole. That will lead to more extreme weather of all types in different places, including floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes... and yes, blizzards and extreme cold snaps. It's definitely not the case that temperatures everywhere will simply, calmly rise by half a degree or three degrees or whatever.

At this stage I don't think anyone is arguing that the average global temperature is dropping, or is likely to drop any time soon, but that's certainly something we could talk about here.

[there buster]

Quote:

consensus view

Quote:

The noun consensus has one meaning:

agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief

This confronts us with an odd construction:

Scientists who have come to an agreement in "sentiment or belief."

[Bravus]

Fair point: is there a better term for the conclusion reached by the majority of competent scientists on the weight of evidence?

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Tagging on,

Global warming?

Job 1:16 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

Job 1:19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

The cause of our problem is Satan. We can ignore him if we choose but in the end everyone will see who caused all this. No one can prove that he is not doing this. Scripture says he's doing it and I'm not going to argue with that.

Norman

[there buster]

Quote:

the conclusion reached by the majority of competent scientists

Is there a better term? On the contrary, consensus is precise.

"man-made global climate change" is indeed an expression of scientific sentiment or belief.

just that "scientific sentiment" and "scientific belief" sound a bit oxymoronic.

Ordinarily we look to philosophers or theologians concerning belief, perhaps psychologists on sentiment.

[bevin]

When a religious person says "I believe" it means "regardless of the evidence I won't change my mind ..."

When a scientific person says "I believe" it means "my understanding of the currently available evidence, subject to change as the evidence or the analysis changes, is ..."

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

When a religious person says "I believe" it means "regardless of the evidence I won't change my mind ..."

There are thousands of religious people that attend Adventist crusades every year and change their mind because of the evidence. Quite literally there are thousands of Catholics, Protestants and other types of believers that change their mind and become Adventist every year.

Being a true Christian means being loyal to the light shown to them. A true Christian knows truth need not fear investigation.

[CyberGuy]

The cause is oceans heating, not greenhouse gases.

1. How could oceans be heating so much, and the air so little, if carbon dioxide were the cause?

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

2. All ice ages begin exactly as the present warming of the globe, and the process has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

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

3. There is not a scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide causing global warming. A lot of scientists tried to say so, but they were silenced by frauds. Narrative Page

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

4. The reason why CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing is because warmer oceans release more.

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

5. The hottest years on record are localized effects due to ice melting in the Arctic plus unrelated high pressure parked over the Rockies. The total global average air temperature, as measured by satellite, is slight cooling due to increased cloud cover.

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

6. Everything in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas including water vapor which is a hundred times more prevalent than carbon dioxide. People are given the false impression that it's all about CO2.

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

7. The latest claim is that humans are putting 8.3 giga tons of carbon into the air per year, which is one percent of the 750 giga tons in the air. If one percent per year were relevant, natural variations would have been catastrophic long ago.

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

8. The amount of CO2 presently in the air absorbs nearly all available radiation at its peaks of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 µM; so more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. details

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

9. The oceans regulate CO2 in the atmosphere to the minutest detail, as indicated by an El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, which causes CO2 measurements in the air to increase, and then they renormalize when the El Nino disappears. External Link

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

10. The oceans are heating up, and the atmosphere is not. The result is polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. This points to a hot spot in the earth's core heating the oceans, not human activity.

Nature Study

Same at Greenland

Ice Age Theory.

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

11. Measurements show ice increasing over land, but not over oceans, at Antarctica and Greenland due to increased precipitation as snowfall. This means sea levels will soon be falling, not rising.

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

12. Science is not an opinion, it's a measurement. But no one is describing the measurements which have been solidifying the claim that humans cause global warming through carbon dioxide, because there is none. Solidifying opinions without measurements is propaganda, not science. Examples

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

13. Seventeen thousand scientists signed a petition saying humans producing carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming.

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html