Sorry, Dave. You need to click on the "causes" link. Here it is: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

This is one of the more compelling statements:- Jack

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-m...-warming-fraud

That's the I.P.C.C. In all their glory.

 

Frank, "Get over it"! That's VERY old news, a mountain out of a molehill. In true science, there are always questions, disagreements and uncertainties. This is totally unlike pseudo-science which takes up a "belief" and sticks to it regardless of the facts that are all around them.

The researchers were simply discussing how it might be difficult to get their point across and that pseudo-science would seize on ANY disagreement to bolster their sadly unsupported position.

You don't suppose this "New American" rag has an agenda of it's own, do you?

- Jack

 

Jack, please don't tell me that you think the United Nations and the IPCC do not have an agenda. The New American was just reporting on what you won't find on the General Electric owned news outlets of NBC, MSNBC, etc. There are many other places that have reported the same news. General Electric is in line to make billions/trillions over the next 20 years on "green" projects.

"Old news" or not, it still is true. Not to mention, Mr. Mann's hockey stick being a fraud because of the temperature reporting stations.

 

Fine, your mind is made up. No point in trying to help you see the flaws in your thinking.

I really was not trying to convince YOU of anything anyway. I already know that's a lost cause.

- Jack

 

Only a complete moron would argue the earth's climate does not ever change. Fern fossils have been found in the Arctic, we have historical claims of great wine being grown in England and paintings of the River Thames frozen over. Anyone alive knows the Arctic is too cold for ferns to grow, England is too cold for great vineyards and is too warm for large rivers to ice over. Yet the history books all show these items as historical facts.

The real question is the reason for the change. All of the items l have listed above have happened before the Industrial Revolution so anyone would be hard pressed to argue that man is responsible for the wild swings in the Earth's climate swings in the past. Why would the changes now be any different? I think the real problem would be if the world stopped changing, then we would know things really have gone wrong!

So since we can agree the the world has always been a changing place why would the current changes be of much alarm unless someone has found a way to make money off of it? Take two of the leading proponents of this 'problem" Al Gore and John Travolta. Al Gore lives in a house that has a carbon foot print larger than a neighborhood and flies around in a custom DC-9. Travolta does the same and flies around in a custom 707. Both of these aircraft are some of the oldest most inefficient aircraft currently flying! I work in the aviation industry, I want everyone to fly! This is how I earn my paycheck but come on, don't preach at me but while you are the biggest waster of natural resources. At least fly in a fuel efficient private aircraft!

I will believe in man made global warming when the preachers of it act like it is true. Until then they are just snake oil salesmen looking to make billions off what has been naturally occurring for thousands of years.

 

this summer was almost double record breaking, and broke many daily records. Explain that

 

It just barely beat the 1934 record. Just nature doing it's thing.

 

Since you brought up the IPCC one thing I have to mention....The IPCC's report is supposed to be a peer reviewed piece of work. That is good. The problem lies in the pier review process, and who does the reviewing. The people working on the piece did the reviewing. So the person who wrote chapter 3, might review chapter 6 and so on and so on. The problem with this is you get people who are making a living off the ideas presented in the report reviewing the report. Even thought this was a peer reviewed piece somehow unsupported data was allowed to get into the paper. That leads to the question, how much review is conducted on this thing? As one of the AGW scientists complained in the released e-mails, they can not allow the people questioning GW to review their research, because they ask to many questions. As a scientist I would want people who disagree with me to review my work. If I can't convince them then there might be problems with my research. That was the reason and the point of having peer review.

Honestly who here knows exactly what the scientists are talking about? Most might get a general idea of what the scientists are talking about, but not much more. The peer reviewed papers are written for other scientists, not the lay person. That also supports the idea that the scientists must have people with opposing views review their work. The scientists are the only people who can really tell if something hinky is going on, because they have the background and education to look at the numbers and figures and know exactly what is being said. By not allowing the "deniers" to review the work and ask the hard questions the scientists don't really receive a good review and aren't asked the hard questions that might expose a flaw in their research, thinking, or methods. Being asked the hard questions and providing a proper answer might also result in convincing more people that the science is good and accurate. Without the trial by fire the science is just fluff.

 

1depd, you raise valid points, except - the competition in academic circles is really fierce. When something is submitted for peer review, it is generally gone over with a fine tooth comb looking for holes that might discredit the research. In academia, there are only a few top positions, and everyone is in competition for them, just like in the "normal world". So, the peer review process is hardly a "rubber stamp". People whose research makes it through peer review get promoted. Those whose research is rejected, believe me, much of it is, look for jobs elsewhere.

Now, do they sometimes get it wrong? Of course! The process is not perfect, but, it IS a "vetting" process. When something is favorably reviewed, it leads to further research along those lines. If something is rejected as flawed, that line of research is either abandoned or, the flaws in the research are corrected.

The whole subject of IPCC came up though because Frank diverted the discussion from NASA. A claim had been made that NASA rejected the concept of human-caused or human-aggravated climate change. I simply pointed out that was not true. Frank then took it upon himself to question NASA's sources, since it could no longer be said that NASA was in his camp.

Now I'm sure Frank's sources are MUCH more reliable than NASA's. After all, look at Frank's qualifications compared to those of the NASA scientists. And, look at the respected publications he cites to support his opinions. In the New American article he brings up, one of the authors, Rebecca Terrell, seems little more than a staff writer who spends all her time on this subject. I can find no bio that lists her qualifications. The other author, according to a New American bio is Ed Hiserodt, who, "...is an aerospace engineer and has been president of Controls & Power, Inc. since 1983. Mr. Hiserodt is an expert in power generation techology (sic)."

Since Frank brought up General Electric's possible interest in renewable energy, I don't suppose Mr. Hiserodt might have an opposite agenda? But, here's a link to his "company": http://www.manta.com/c/mm2drhy/controls-power-inc. Wow!

- Jack

 

There's the problem the people they had doing the peer review WERE rubber stamping the research. The few emails I read concerning the peer review process contained little more than rearrangements, spelling errors, and clarity issues. The few "research" related reviews were items where there was a typo from data sources in one part of the paper to another or inadvertently using data from an old paper in the new paper. That is hardly peer review. That is editor review. You don't have to have a science background to perform that type of review. But that is all that the papers were going through thanks to journal editors who were friendly toward the authors of the papers. There literally was no review of the science, methods, or data used to develop the papers. Something else I noticed was that there was a concern that the papers would be reviewed by inappropriate people (those doubtful of AGW). Reassurances were made that the "correct" people would be reviewing the papers.

If somebody can shoot holes through the research then you are correct that line of research needs to be either rethought or abandoned. Unfortunately the papers weren't being presented to people willing to shoot holes through them, so no real review was being conducted. It is no different than sending someone to jail for a crime, simply because they were accused of the crime without the benefit of the peer review from a jury. If a paper can not stand up to the scrutiny of a doubter then the science is wrong. If the doubter simply is not convinced then the science can still be good, but needs more research.

 

1depd, you are posting thoughtful points, and I don't have the knowledge to refute them.

Is it possible though, that try as they might, there was no way for peer reviewers to "poke holes" in the research? Perhaps it was just too sound? This can happen too.

I just know that when the majority of the scientific community that concerns itself with climatology agrees that human activity is problematic, I tend to pay attention. Much more than I do to a John Burch Society publication (The New American) that publishes an article with the inflammatory headline: "IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud", a headline that was not supported by the accompanying article (which I read VERY carefully).

But really, notice that there ARE "uncertainties" in this research and the researchers freely admit to that, as does NASA. If there were no uncertainties, human-influenced climate change would no longer be "theory", it would be "law". This is where the lay public misunderstands how scientific inquiry operates. They seem to think an uncertainty disproves a theory - it doesn't, as I'm sure YOU know from the way you're discussing this with me.

But, scientists and engineers are notoriously poor at selling their ideas to the public. And, I think the climate researchers are genuinely alarmed at what they are witnessing. They are motivated to reverse a trend they see as a disaster and they just don't know how to do it.

As an example, and I'm not trying to change the subject, the "theory" of aerodynamics is really pretty poor, in fact when I studied it at Ga Tech in the 60s it was characterized as "rotten". It is mostly empirically based (based on testing, not on prediction). Yet, aircraft continue to fly just fine, each and every day. Would you stop flying because the science of aerodynamics is so full of uncertainties?

- Jack

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Oh Jack, if you were so worried about anthropogenic global warming (which is based on the false 'assumption' and 'probabilities' that it is caused by high CO2 levels), you wouldn't be driving a gas guzzling pick-up truck.

What is laughable about the entire CO2 argument is that CO2 is essential to life and our bodies of water emit it everyday when sunlight hits them.

Couple that with--as I mentioned before--many temperature reporting stations being moved, and you have what you have: An 'appearance' of higher temps in the last 20 years. And that's a fact, Jack.

 

Great post Wookie.

 

Sterilize the poor and mentally ill and you can fix a lot of our problems. Maybe even slow down Global Warming.

Then sterilize all felons, child molesters, rapists and murders and overall crime will diminish greatly.

Then euthanize MOST of the old and we’re on our way to being in a great society. We need some of them.

Furthermore, sterilize all women who smoke.

This would be a start.