Global Warming in a few slides - thanks to Dr. John Christy.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

The level of rhetoric aimed at those doubting CAGW easily leads a person to a conclusion there is something far deeper than mere good stewardship lurking in the background.

Nope, not at all!! If people wish to contribute to the demise of their enviroment, so be it! But to simply say 'it ain't me' seems to be short sighted. To always associate it with 'politics' or it's 'anti West' or 'its about controling people'.....well....that has not been demonstrated by or part of those who do scientific research everyday. If one chooses to not believe, okay! I find it even more interesting to see some conspiracy behind all of this as if that disproves GW.

Well, CoAspen, you just proved my point - either agree with GW, or get labelled. There is just no middle ground where one remains skeptical of GW, yet desires to practice good stewardship of the earth and its resources. With the global warming (GW) believers, any skepticism is taken to mean the skeptic is deemed bought out by those hateful polluters who buy out scientists to do their bidding. That, my friend, is a political doctrinaire statement, not a scientific one.

You really have that much faith in those doing the academic side of scientific research? I don't, because I worked doing science in the academic and regulatory environments for 25 years every working day, saw just how it works, and how easily it is corrupted by the pursuit of money and agenda. Academic scientists are just as easily bought by grant monies as are private lab scientists and politicians. Accepting the monies comes with the strings of demonstrating the grant giver has a point to make. Academic and regulatory scientists are also just as bought out by department politics and agendas. Science is no longer the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, letting what is genuinely true come to the top. It hasn't been like that since Albert Einstein broke through in the physics realm with General Relativity.

That's my experience, CoAspen, in the very areas GW believers hold as sacred. "My side is pure and true, so your side MUST be bought out" is the general runaround I get, so I am not disappointed when I see that paraded and agreed to here. It is my position BOTH sides' zealotry are bought, hence I look to those who don't have a vested interest one way or the other. What I see there is an increasing amount of skepticism in the research which is propounded to "prove" GW. The science is far from settled.

After the East Anglia-Penn State scandal broke, it was quite revealing just how deep the corruption went in GW. Cherry-picked data. Manufactured data. The peer-review process (the sacred cow of science) corrupted and rigged to squash dissenting research. E-mail communications obtained which spoke of covering up the corruption and how to deal with problematic issues (like the Medieval Warm Period, and the then 5 year global temperature plateau). Simply put, the science conducted between East Anglia and Penn State (upon which the Kyoto Accords and CAGW warnings were based) was found to be all just as "bought" as the data from the fossil fuels labs is "deemed" to be. Due to this, there are now indeed a good many scientists who are taking a much deeper look at the issue - and are coming away skeptics, just like I did.

To be fair, most of the senior scientists involved in the GW research were persuaded to "move on"...but the junior scientists - who were trained in the same agendas and beliefs under these men and women - continue the work in the same fashion as before, under the ruse the issues are all now somehow "fixed".

I don't believe it. Not a bit. To fix such a situation, ALL (or nearly so) of the old perspective must be moved out, and fresh perspectives - usually in agreement with the agenda being set - brought in. I witnessed just such a changeover in A&M's Plant Pathology department while it was transitioning from being largely field-based research to being largely molecular biochemistry/genetic research. Research ALWAYS flows from the vision/agenda set by those at the top...just like it does in the private sector.

My apologies if my experience disagrees with the GW believer's perspective of academic science.

In the atmospheric thermodynamics realm, the input from solar radiation, plus the greenhouse capacity of water vapor, cloud cover/albido, and methane, all far outweigh any contribution carbon dioxide could make toward GW - by magnitudes of order. Some scientists have concluded carbon dioxide's contribution to GW is basically a rounding up/down factor to the 3rd decimal place as far as global temperature goes. In essence and effect, the gas is more along for the ride than making a real contribution, as the usage of the models have proven. Solar input, water vapor, and methane have to be statistically weighted out of the equations and data just to even investigate the issue. Hence, carbon dioxide's contribution is miniscule, compared to the heavweights.

Also, I have noted no indisputable research which studies how these gases all work together, where carbon dioxide works as a catalyst (or contributes synergistically) to produce an effect far more pronounced than its thermodynamic contribution would indicate. Such an effect by carbon dioxide is just not there.

Believing CAGW is the darling of environmentalists is no conspiracy theory. The political and money links between these groups and the scientists they fund is quite demonstrated and very well-known. That you consider the opposing data as "bought by the fossil fuel industry" simply underscores my points above. Furthermore, regarding the fossil fuel research as a conspiracy/cover-up, yet being unable to accept the opposing view that the research of the proponents of CAGW being just as conspiritorial, again underscores my point this is not real science at work. Scientists on both sides can, and have been, bought with a price. Yet, there are real scientists out there, with no vested interest one way or the other, who are looking at the science of the proponents of CAGW, and deeming it not to be as clear and convincing as believers declare it to be.

If it were all so very true, there would be a concerted crack-down on all the carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere by China, India, and other countries in the emergent Developing World. The PR campaign would be against the biggest, dirtiest contributors right now, who haven't poured billions into research in scrubbing carbon dioxide (and other gases) out of energy production and transportation emissions (as the US has). China is now the country with the highest contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. India is not far behind the US, and contributes more carbon dioxide than several of the European countries combined. Yet, the major hit falls upon...who again??? Certainly not China nor India. Certainly not the Middle East or Brazil. That's pure agenda politics, and indisputable at that.

So I remain just as skeptical of CAGW as I do those who say man isn't impacting his environment by his industry. The truth is in the strait and narrow path between these two extremes, so I will look for it there. Let me know when the sacred cows of politics have been removed from the scenario - perhaps it will become more relevant to practical application in the global economy.

As for Neil's reference to the Revelation 16's 4th plague and GW, a little exegesis would be in order.

John says the angel pours his bowl upon the SUN, not the atmosphere - in compliance with the scientific fact that the earth's global climate is far more driven by radiation input from the SUN than by any atmospheric greenhouse gas...including water vapor (which, at the time, would be static/declining in presence and contribution, as the seas - the overwhelmingly major source of water vapor - are all turned to blood at this point in Revelation).

As always, blessings and food for thought...

[Bravus]

Quote:

Very nice summary as to the stand and practice of the vast majority of global warming skeptics, Hair. It is sad one cannot convince the CAGW zealots this is true - one either accepts their view, or one is a Neanderthal polluter of the very worst kind...

Good discussion all, and as always I enjoy Ted's contributions, even (or perhaps especially) in areas in which we disagree.

There are two separate issues, though:

1. Is the climate changing and is it plausible that human activities are contributing to the change?

2. What should individuals, nations and societies do to mitigate the change?

The first is a scientific question, the second a political/economical policy question. The kinds of evidence and argument that go to addressing each of them are quite different.

What I am seeing a lot of on this thread is people who advocate different approaches to the second question making different claims about the first. Some of those claims are objectively, scientifically wrong. I challenge them, not out of some strange Gaia-worship, but because I value truth and evidence.

In my view, the answer to Question 1 is 'yes', to both parts. The evidence shows that global climate is changing, and it is plausible that human activities are contributing (although there may also be other contributing factors such as solar radiation).

But once we accept that scientific evidence, the question of what is the most appropriate policy is a different question.

I *don't* believe the evidence is there that the whole thing is a hippie/socialist plot to bring down capitalism. There might be a few fringe voices that have that objective, but in the main the concern is to find ways to accept responsibilities for the consequences of our own actions. (Something my friends on the right should find quite comfortable.)

I'm in favour of using more nuclear power. I'm in favour of investment in new energy technologies. I'm *not* in general, in favour of using legislation and fines and taxes to reduce emissions. I think we need to innovate our way out of this issue, not punish our way out. There is growth to be facilitated and money to be made in addressing this issue, not a reversion to sitting in the cold and dark.

I hope people will come to realise that we can have views on politics and policies, and different approaches to addressing the issue, without feeling we need to deny the reality of the real changes that are happening, and impugn the honesty of the scientists who are telling us about those changes.

[phkrause]

[CoAspen]

Ahhhhh Ted,

Quote:

ell, CoAspen, you just proved my point - either agree with GW, or get labelled.

Just where and What Label did I use for those that disagree with GW? The fact that there are so many conspiracies theories surrounding this, is not a label. When people put forth reasons for the GW issue as having ulterior motives, your words, with out substantiation....why is pointing out that called "Labeling"? I want to hear people opposing GW to use factual data.

It sort of like some who try to besmirch WO by saying 'Well, next they will want lesbian preachers"! It is the giant jumps, in attempted logic, that some will take to avoid facing an issue head on with supporting data.

Sorry you don't trust science, I have spent many years involved in doing medical research and reading a ton of materials. There is always some one who is less than honest in what they are doing, but that is a part of all humanity not a particular group. Science has been the whipping horse for a mighty long time, since the earth was declared.....round! I was on the fence for a long time about human causes of warming, waiting for more data. For me it became a

stack of data so high, it could not be ignored.

I will say again, all issues have two sides, just show me the data, not rhetoric. I am perfectly comfortable with people choosing to not believe in GW!

[CoAspen]

[phkrause]

Excellent points CoAspen

[Ted Oplinger]

Ahhhhh Ted,

Just where and What Label did I use for those that disagree with GW?

It was this response in reply to my post earlier...

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Nope, not at all!! If people wish to contribute to the demise of their enviroment, so be it!

...that left the distinct impression that if one does not believe in GW, they are contributing to the demise of their environment. I am not the only one who saw in this a labelling (Hair's reply indicates he did as well).

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

The fact that there are so many conspiracies theories surrounding this, is not a label. When people put forth reasons for the GW issue as having ulterior motives, your words, with out substantiation....why is pointing out that called "Labeling"? I want to hear people opposing GW to use factual data.

Yes, there are a great many conspiracy theories out there. With the environmental movement, though, there's some that aren't so...lunatic fringe.

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

It sort of like some who try to besmirch WO by saying 'Well, next they will want lesbian preachers"! It is the giant jumps, in attempted logic, that some will take to avoid facing an issue head on with supporting data.

Women's ordination is a whole different kettle of fish, so to speak - but it is just as fraught with emotion and leaps to conclusions as is the GW issue.

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Sorry you don't trust science, I have spent many years involved in doing medical research and reading a ton of materials. There is always some one who is less than honest in what they are doing, but that is a part of all humanity not a particular group. Science has been the whipping horse for a mighty long time, since the earth was declared.....round! I was on the fence for a long time about human causes of warming, waiting for more data. For me it became a stack of data so high, it could not be ignored.

Science has taken turns being the whipping boy as well as being the one wielding the whip over the last 100 years. It is not the innocent victim some would have it be seen as.

Yes, there is some good science out there, even some great science work. That does not take away from the fact most science conducted today is indeed agenda driven.

Indeed, there is also a significant amount of junk science which gets passed off as legitimate.

As for trusting science...let's say that I have a great deal of respect for the true scientific process and those who use it. I worked 25 years in the academic and regulatory labs, and regularly saw what happens to the "dissenting perspective" when it collided against grant money and/or the directives from superiors. During that time, I became very well read in chemistry, microbiology, and plant sciences journals - and was taught what to look for when it came to deciding if the article before me was indeed communicating a good example of science...or if it was junk science passed along just to build someone's publications list.

Most of my literature searching and evaluation came in the last 15 years, during my tenure as an Analytical Chemist in a State regulatory lab, where I had to constantly review methods and methodologies for possible adoption into our repertoire of chemistry and microbiological procedures. This was particularly true if our work was being contested in court. We had to know how close the private lab methods and practices were in relation to our own, to make certain apples were being compared to apples, rather than to oranges.

Getting back to CAGW...I do not trust many scientists in relation to the GW issue, as most continue to use the data which was thoroughly discredited in the East Anglia scandal. That particular scandal decimated the possibility of my considering the issue of AGW to be a credible one, for the foreseeable future. Up until then, I was neutral, waiting for the evidence to become clear and convincing one way or the other, in spite of the political circus that was being made of the issue. When it was opened before the world to see how these scientists had conducted their science, saw the money connections to those using the extremely spiteful rhetoric, and saw the peer-review process get a black eye in the way it was corrupted, I simply could not accept their work as credible science.

That is my position; if any one else wishes to place credibility in that data, that is their choice. As for me, what Dr. Mann did with his colleagues at Penn State and East Anglia is worse in terms of credibility than some of the Creation Scientists' usage of junk science in their attempt to debunk OE geological modeling and evolution.

Strong terms, but what happened there infuriated me, because it was a real time demonstration of what science ISN'T to be: a political tool. It went much farther than the usual regulatory/private lab disagreements; this science was to be the basis of rationale to cripple/hamstring nation's economies, not just a few companies not in compliance with the regs...

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

I will say again, all issues have two sides, just show me the data, not rhetoric. I am perfectly comfortable with people choosing to not believe in GW!

Actually, I have found that most issues have (at least) 3 sides...the "my" side, the "your" side, and the truth (being somewhere in between). I am firmly in the camp that believes this is true of GW - the truth isn't with the polarized sides in the debate, but somewhere else.

In answer to Bravus' question before...do I believe global climate is changing? I believe that global climate has never recovered from the shock of what happened in the global flood. At times it will appear stable for awhile, but the cycles in temperatures, gas contents, cloud volume continue to reflect a lack in real stability in our atmospheric processes, from my perspective. I do believe that as time closes in on the very last movements in the this Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, I am of the thought this lack of stability will become more pronounced.

Does man's environmental impact reach the point it causes pronounced swings in global climate? Count me as doubting that premise. In CAGW, the usage of carbon dioxide as an indicator is virtually useless, as it is far less a warming contributor than the real heavyweights of solar input, water vapor, and methane - none of which man can do anything about.

Do I believe one should be responsible and accountable for how they steward the corner of earth they are given to care for? Absolutely! Is there more than one accepted way to do this? Again, absolutely!

Hope this helps explain where I gain my perspective on the issue. As for me, I need to be as it is really late here.

Blessings,

[Bravus]

Humans can do a fair bit about methane by becoming vegetarians.

At least until the clathrates melt...

[Bravus]

Might be helpful to read some better sources on the East Anglia 'scandal', Ted. (A) the minor issues do not effect the vast bulk of the data and ( the completely independent NASA data show the same effects.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Nope, not at all!! If people wish to contribute to the demise of their enviroment, so be it!

Okay, when I wrote the above post, it did not cross my mind that you would take it as a "label". So, as clarification, I was thinking about those that do contribute to the destruction of the enviroment with out thought such as the deforestration in South America or the wanton strip-mining of our own past. I do believe that some people who choose not to believe that GW has a human componet are ignoring readily available data that suggest we do. If they choose not to believe, so be it, but don't give me various conspiracies as support for the belief. Give me actual data. Freedom of choice means decision making one way or the other. I can disagee with interpretation of data but at least there is data to exam. That does not seem to be a strong point of those who disagree with GW having a human componet.

I find it interesting when people when site historic data, glacier, etc, for the support that it, weather changes, is cyclic while disavowing the same data when it comes to determining ages of those changes.

Hope you got your rest!

[olger]

Quote:

...that left the distinct impression that if one does not believe in GW, they are contributing to the demise of their environment. I am not the only one who saw in this a labelling (Hair's reply indicates he did as well).

Absolutely true. I have had conversations with CAGW alarmists that went like this "In our country we have reduced production emissions by 99% (at tremendous cost). Now to remove the remaining 1% would cost five times what it cost to scrub the preceding 99%. I think we should evaluate the EPA & environmentalist demands on a cost/benefit ratio." Their response "WHY DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BREATHE DIRTY AIR??!!!" You simply cannot reason with an individual like that.

Quote:

Women's ordination is a whole different kettle of fish, so to speak - but it is just as fraught with emotion and leaps to conclusions as is the GW issue.

Indeed.

[LifeHiscost]

It does rather fall into the trap our American brethren fall into sometimes, though, of mistaking the United States for the world. US records are not the same thing as global climate...

[Guest]

"Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, causing it to scorch everyone with its fire" Revelation 16:8

For those who think this is somehow talking about global warming, (Neil comes to mind) then that would mean that the first three bowls have already been poured out.

So where are these noisome and grievous sores upon the people who have the mark of the beast?? (1st bowl)

It is my understanding that nobody has the mark of the beast yet. And the last time I checked the sea and the rivers have not been turned to blood yet. (2nd & 3rd bowls)

Have there been any reports of ANY rivers or seas being turned to blood? Maybe I missed it. All of these things have to happen first, before the fourth bowl is even poured out.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Have there been any reports of ANY rivers or seas being turned to blood? Maybe I missed it.

I have, RLH. However I do not believe either the global warming or the waters have been either widespread enough or severe enough to meet the characteristics of any of the seven last plagues. However I do believe it to be altogether possible for

smaller beginnings to occur that would draw attention of people, those who sincerely desire to be where God wants them to be, in which the smaller happenstances give some warning signs before the fulness of God's wrath becomes overwhelming to them.

I'm satisfied to believe that those who wish the Creator of the universe to rule over them, whatever the influence that prompts them to feel that way, are constantly searching for signs to verify their hopes, whereas the persons who desire God to have little or no control over them, continuously search for signs to verify to them that He either doesn't exist, or He's so impotent they have no trust in anything He could give them.

The human race is lining up, ready to do battle, and the God who is really sovereign is preparing to take His children home, while letting those who disdain His love for them, to reap the ends prepared for the devil and his angels which is the natural result of failing to receive Him Who is Life Himself.

"“Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

“Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

“Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’

“And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’"Matthew 25:37-45 NLT

God cares!

[olger]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Nope, not at all!! If people wish to contribute to the demise of their enviroment, so be it!

If you don't believe the people who do these "scientific experiments everyday" then you are "contributing to the demise of our environment"

Exhibit A of my previous post.

None of us want to contribute to the "demise". Those people who do scientific experiments everyday are also of the same type that bring us the teaching of evolution... no proof for either, just scientific (man's) reckoning.

This is a good line of reasoning, except I believe coaspen has already accepted evolution.

[Guest]

Hook, line, and sinker.

[olger]

"Fish on !!!"

[CoAspen]

Guys...guys, do you all know how to function with out making assumptions?

For ya'll it's either about evolution or homosexuals!!!!!

Ya need to get out more!!!!!!

Quote:

..........I believe coaspen has already accepted evolution.

[Neil D]

CoAspen,

Would you say that the choice here is that we either believe in sight without faith or we believe in faith without sight?

Such a radical choice is inconceivable for either side...........for the Christian, for him to be lead, he needs evidence and a belief tempered with guidance in that evidence and that means he needs sharp eye to see the evidence....And yet, for those who don't like the religious overtones, they must exercise faith to believe in the evidence of what they see....

I don't like either side presenting the evidence....On one side, my guidance has to be the 10 commandments[it's the only value system that God personally handed out]...and on the other side, the guidance system says that one needs to hate homosexuality[biblically it's a abhorrence] or one needs to sharpen their skills on observation...[which is a good thing to do, just not trust in your abilities or mankinds abilities without moral support....

So, which one do you see as more fanatical?

[CoAspen]

Conundrum......

Beliefs aren't fanatical, people are fanatical in their beliefs.