[Bobboau]

if anything we will care less about the starving africans.

[karajorma]

Not when they decide that they won't be starving if they stop sending you all their food.

[Bobboau]

but they aren't sending use there food, they can't feed themselves now.

[WeatherOp]

You've pretty much refused to believe anything they say about global warming, believing your own interpretation of the matter. By doing so you help make the "scientific controversy" surrounding global warming seem more real. By implication you're accusing them either of being guilty of a hoax or being so biased that they can't see the truth. Neither of which is good for public confidence in them.

You also give aid to bull**** sites and groups like those belonging to Steve Millroy who are getting money for "research" into climate which otherwise might have gone to real scientists like NOAA. If companies like ExxonMobile weren't funding him they might actually have to accept that they won't manage to bury the truth about global warming under a pile of bull**** and might actually have to spend that money on real climate research.

Refused to accept anything they say about global warming? Nah, I actually agree with some of their points, and no where did I say I didn't believe everything they say.

Make the scientific controversy more real? It is real.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

There is still of debating going on about global warming.

Now the say part is you decided to pull the old "the industry is funding the anti-global warming movement" which is actually pretty funny, due to everyone is funded by someone. Maybe the hippies fund the IPCC, as there is more hippies than rich old people.

[Uchuujinsan]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/

an interesting indirect "reply" to the op:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/#more-576

[Mika]

Food for thought for those who are interested of the scientifical side of the human effects in global warming. Or at least in critical thinking in any case.

Tom Segalstad's homepage contains quite a lot of stuff regarding this. He is a professor from the university of Oslo. He was formerly a reviewer of the IPCC.

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef2.htm (Explains that it is impossible to melt polar ice caps with recent human addition of CO2 in atmosphere. Basic thermodynamics, college and elementary school level stuff. Contains references to published papers.)

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef3.htm (Critique that the measurements of the CO2 levels are not accurate. Especially drillings of the ice caps receive flak. The referenced Jaworowski's original paper regarding drillings can be found from here: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/stoten92.pdf <- HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READ)  [Prof. Jaworowski was chairman of UNSCEAR]

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm (The ocean's capability absorb CO2)

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef5.htm (Calculation about the circulation time showing why IPCC's model's 200 years is impossible number. The result is that human output of CO2 is insignificant.)

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef6.htm (Conclusions)
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef7.htm (References)

Segalstad's homepage can be found at: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
Yeah, it is ugly, it looks like advert, but I found that all the stuff is pretty much downloadable, so it seems he doesn't have a personal interest in selling books at least. Information on his homepage is shortly referred in:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/np070707.pdf

Jaworowskis statement to US senate committee (2004) can be found at: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm (includes references at the end). More of his critique can be found in:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Jaworowski%20CO2%20EIR%202007.pdf
On first page, there is a reference to two Nature articles which state that review process of IPCC doesn't meet scientifical standards. This is further explained and examined in the article. Please see the actual measured data of CO2 (directly from atmosphere) spanning the whole industrial era. It is clearly shown that human effect in CO2 output (Page 8) is insignificant. The data was complied by Beck in 2007, including measurements by several Nobel prize winners. Contains references.

This is again Gray's response to call to abolish IPCC (Gray was reviewer in the beginning of the IPCC). This is regarding how temperatures are measured.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
Even though strikingly named, Gray has recently wrote a conclusion of criticism about these issues:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Gray_Global-Warming-Scam_2008.pdf (This also contains references)

Then, this is the reviewing process of the IPCC. Worth reading for those who think there are a lot of scientist backing it up.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/McLean_ipcc_review.pdf

One more numerical analysis of CO2.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Icecap_CarbonDioxide.pdf

Ach, I'm tired and cannot be bothered to write my thoughts about this yet. "I'll do that tomorrow"

Mika

EDIT: Stupid me writing in the middle of the night. Corrected Prof. Zakorowskis name to Jaworowski. I'm sorry about this mistake.

[Uchuujinsan]

I just wondered Mika, who tells the truth, your recent link(s) or the link(s) you gave us from page 3?
They are stating contradicting positions.

[achtung]

Maybe the hippies fund the IPCC, as there is more hippies than rich old people.

Hippies are usually broke. 

[WeatherOp]

I just wondered Mika, who tells the truth, your recent link(s) or the link(s) you gave us from page 3?
They are stating contradicting positions.

I don't think he is trying to prove which one is right, more than just showing how much varying thoughts, data sets, and different reasons and theories there are on the subject. The fact of the matter is, the debate is not over like most of the media says, in fact the true debate is likely just getting started.

Nice sources Mika, I'll take the time to read through them tomorrow. Although, I'm pretty sure Gray will be counted a conservative dingbat by most on here. But despite his views, he is an extremely capable scientist.

Maybe the hippies fund the IPCC, as there is more hippies than rich old people.

Hippies are usually broke. 

If I used the word manic tree-huggers would that be better?

[MI123645]

I'm not pretty keen on the technical details of global warming but I've found an interesting link.

http://www.ncas.ac.uk/communications/nature_paper_destruction_of_ozone_june08.html

I don't really know much about this source, is it legit?

[karajorma]

Maybe the hippies fund the IPCC, as there is more hippies than rich old people.

So wait, against the proven fact I have that Steve Millroy, the GW sceptic you yourself cited, is funded at least in part by ExxonMobile you have an unproven assertion that scientists on the other side are funded by hippies?

I suppose you're going to tell me they funded NASA too.

[Bobboau]

I think that was a joke. he used a smiley and everything.

[karajorma]

Not so much.

Now the say part is you decided to pull the old "the industry is funding the anti-global warming movement" which is actually pretty funny, due to everyone is funded by someone. Maybe the hippies fund the IPCC, as there is more hippies than rich old people.

As I pointed out the website he held up as an example of good science turned out to be run by a quack with a history of providing scientific sounding bull**** tailored to the requests of whoever paid him.

I'd love to see him try to do the same to IPCC.

[Warp Shadow]

This topic=

[WeatherOp]

Not so much.

Now the say part is you decided to pull the old "the industry is funding the anti-global warming movement" which is actually pretty funny, due to everyone is funded by someone. Maybe the hippies fund the IPCC, as there is more hippies than rich old people.

As I pointed out the website he held up as an example of good science turned out to be run by a quack with a history of providing scientific sounding bull**** tailored to the requests of whoever paid him.

I'd love to see him try to do the same to IPCC.

Well the IPCC is funded by UNEP(United Nations Environment Programme) and lets look at there online store page.

http://www.earthprint.com/

You can make your own assumptions. 

And Kara you said this.

You also give aid to bull**** sites and groups like those belonging to Steve Millroy who are getting money for "research" into climate which otherwise might have gone to real scientists like NOAA. If companies like ExxonMobile weren't funding him they might actually have to accept that they won't manage to bury the truth about global warming under a pile of bull**** and might actually have to spend that money on real climate research.

So understandably you basically claimed that big oil pays for research to dis-prove global warming, which no doubt they likely do. So it is just as likely really the pro-global warming organizations pay off people to research to prove global warming. Now does the IPCC receive funding by radical green groups, who knows, but is it possible, yep.   

[Grizzly]

We should STIMULATE the greenhouse effect! Then we might just live trough the next ice age!.

[karajorma]

So understandably you basically claimed that big oil pays for research to dis-prove global warming, which no doubt they likely do. So it is just as likely really the pro-global warming organizations pay off people to research to prove global warming. Now does the IPCC receive funding by radical green groups, who knows, but is it possible, yep.

So as I stated before, I've got proof, you've got nothing but assertions.

And it's not just the funding that is the issue. If they fund actual science that's one thing. But if they fund research which throws out anything they disagree with then the science is tainted. The website you linked to has a habit of finding in favour of whoever paid them even when all the independent science on the matter states the opposite.

Milroy gets money from big tobacco - He finds that second hand smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Milroy gets money from pesticide manufacturers - He finds that indiscriminate spraying of DDT is called for to kill malaria.
Milroy gets money from ExxonMobile - Guess what he finds?


And before you start complaining I'm being paranoid have a look at this.


So quite frankly I wouldn't trust a word from that site and neither should you. The fact that you still consider it to be a good site is pretty telling about how willing you are to swallow obvious corporate bull**** due to an unsubstantiated feeling that global warming research is funded by hippies. 

[General Battuta]

Kara's right. Milroy is rotten.

Too many distinct groups (not just the IPCC but NASA, independent researchers, universities, academies) have found compelling data for global warming for it all to be caused by environmentalist funding.

[Mika]

Now that I'm on vacation and enjoy the +28 degrees of Celsius here (6 degrees less than in the beginning of the 1900s actually), it is quite difficult to find any motivation to write here. Anyways, I also had sometime to refine my thoughts about this.

First of all, I find it quite surprising how the hell IPCC can even think of using those ice drillings as a proof of climate warming by CO2. It is pretty much inconceivable how the hell they have managed to make that go through the scientific review process, and even more so, I find it strange that so many scientists have swallowed it. I hope this is simply because of ignorance of the drilling process itself. Please read that 58 page report which is quite revealing about the "accuracy" of those measurements. Sometimes even tobacco smoke has been found inside those small bubbles! The actual measured CO2 level is a function of drilling depth, and explanation for this behavior is given there.

Also, another thing is to consider the report in 2007 by Beck where he has combined all the direct measurement data from the atmosphere and it is shown that the CO2 levels have been wildly fluctuating with no correlation to temperature.

Now, silencing criticism about global warming as being "non-coherent and not agreeing" is a cheap trick. All of the links I have posted are coming from persons that are capable in their own scientific sector. They simply show the errors in IPCC's report from their own area of expertise. Gray, shows that the statistics are seriously skewed (yeah, reading through that makes one think how is it possible to concentrate all information to a single temperature number). Spencer's article shows that the model doesn't contain critical parts of the climate actions, since the observed phenomenom is directly opposite of what is thought in the model (the same as the earlier posted Nature article). Segalstad and Jaworowski show that ice drillings as a proof of human CO2 output in climate are by at least misleading.

Also, little bit of history: this is actually the third time scientists are alarming about the human CO2 output. Arrhenius made the comment about this first in 1890s (or something, can't recall years that well), but was shush-shushed under the rug since the climate turned cold, even though human CO2 output was growing. Then, in 1940s Callendar was saying the same, and again the topic was shush-shushed under the rug since it turned out cold again.

Though, as a supporting thing of CO2 effecting the climate, it is stated that the ocean surface layer can be saturated with CO2, and further absorption will take a lot longer, which would support "200 years in air" theory. Though, I'm on a process of finding out more about this.

However, I never said I question the global warming itself. It is the human part on it which I'm questioning.

Mika

[karajorma]

I'll have a look at your links in a little bit. They're rather new to me rather than the same old arguments I've seen from others. However from reading the first one I am already wondering how scientific this stuff actually is. I've seen people try to do thermodynamic calculations before and stuff it up completely. (There's a really good example of someone doing just that on Junkscience IIRC).

I'm not going to say that the site is wrong but if it is right I'm wondering how that thermodynamics explanation can explain periods in Earth's history when there have been significantly more or less ice than there is now.

For instance in the last ice age the ice caps were significantly larger than they are now. The amount of energy the Earth needs to lose to cool by say 1 degree is likely to be of the same order of magnitude as that required to warm by 1 degree (even if the scale is non-linear). So where did that energy go? And the last ice age wasn't only a 1 degree change.

My inkling is that there is a fundamental scientific error being made somewhere either by me or by that site but I can't quite put my finger on it yet.