RSS feed for comments on this post.

70 Responses to “Climate change fanatics build a “replica” of Noah’s Ark”

Comments

1. Sunsettommy says:

   May 17, 2007 at 10:39 pm

   Why can’t the AGW fanatics go to Al Gore’s MANSION.

   Surely that place qualifies as an ark?

   
2. Sunsettommy says:

   May 17, 2007 at 11:07 pm

   But more importantly, the existence of trends within arbitrarily selected dates is nothing more than cherry-picking to obscure the long-term warming trend. The existence of those trends within trends only shows what everyone already admits — CO2 is not the only forcing in play. But it is not coincidence that the rise since ‘75 has corresponded with an explosion of CO2 emissions, and we see this because no other forcing accounts for the rise.

   Comment by Settembrini @ 5/17/2007 – 3:53 pm

   Umm the data fails to support your claim of an “explosion of CO2 emissions”

   The 1997-1998 CO2 PPM increase was the biggest on record measured and by gosh it was the massive El-Ninyo year! It has been smaller since then.

   Try this link:

   LINK
3. Sunsettommy says:

   May 17, 2007 at 11:38 pm

   Settembrini, you really don’t have much of a clue, you whine about lasers indicates you don’t understand, or are deliberately ignoring the issue. It’s not lasers, although I do know a great deal about those, it’s about the atmospheric effects on propagation of light, you know, in other words it’s all about a method of measuring the earth’s atmosphere, it’s composition, and effects at multiple wavelengths and over a wide variety of locations/areas. It gives me significant experience and insight into exactly how the atmosphere absorbs, scatters, and reflects energy over a broad band of wavelengths. And the postulation about CO2s effect does not jive with what I know first hand to be true about the atmosphere and IR. At least I have first hand experience, all you can do is make snide inferences and quote alarmist articles while pretending to understand the issues. You have never once addressed the issue of absorption vs concentration for atmospheric CO2, either you completely don’t understand, or you are being disingenuous.

   Once again, CO2 is nearing saturation with respect to its effect on atmospheric transmission at the wavelengths of interest. What is so difficult to understand about that? Oh yeah, it doesn’t support the belief that CO2 will have an ever increasing effect on temperature, so it is the real “inconvenient truth.”

   Comment by Severian @ 5/17/2007 – 4:41 pm

   This link might educate him:

   Cold Facts on Global Warming

   LINK
4. Severian says:

   May 18, 2007 at 7:28 am

   Why can’t the AGW fanatics go to Al Gore’s MANSION.

   Surely that place qualifies as an ark?

   Maybe then can all hide out in Clinton’s Presidential Library, after all, it’s in ARKansas!

   The “explosion of CO2″ line is a corker ain’t it?

   CO2 is going up pretty darned linearly, but the level of industrial society has been growing rapidly, that is, man’s contribution has gone up as the world has gotten more industrialized and more affluent. But CO2 hasn’t risen at the same rate as human expansion? Why, that means that humans contribution to CO2 levels are pretty insignificant, but that doesn’t sell social change so they pretend we are the major cause.

   The whole AGW alarmist argument rests on an incredibly flimsy foundation:

   1 – CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for most or all of the warming observed, which is patently not true, particularly in light of Svensmark’s work on clouds, cosmic rays, and solar activity. Just solar effect on clouds alone appears to account for up to 2/3 of the observed warming over the past century.

   2 – Man is responsible for the CO2 rise, again, demonstrably not true, we are a drop in the bucket compared to natural forces. It may salve the ego of some to think we have that large of an effect, but we’re pretty insignificant compared to nature.

   3 – Increasing CO2 levels will lead to runaway warming, again demonstrably false, we are near saturation, and the only way you can postulate runaway warming is by twidling with the knobs on a simulation to introduce positive feedback loops that have never been observed, and if they did exist would have doomed the planet millions of years ago to being an uninhabitable ball.

   Even more basically, the whole idea of a “global average temperature” is kind of useless. For a system as large, chaotic, and diverse as the planets atmosphere, a simple average is a useless statistic. I can show you distributions that give a mean value of, say, 50 deg C where the whole planet is 50 deg, the poles are at 0 and the equator is at 100, or the poles are at 40 and the equator at 60. I defy anyone to tell me that the condition where the ocean is boiling at the equator and frozen at the poles is the same thing as the others, but all three will have the same global average temperature. It’s a nearly useless metric.

   And even that metrics value is suspect, it’s curious that the same year that the number of ground stations were drastically cut marked the same year that temperatures spiked upwards in the data. Discontinuities like that should make the hair stand up on the backs of the necks of scientists everywhere. There are just not enough well calibrated temperature measuring stations to give a temp distribution that is reliable enough to make sweeping pronouncements. Add to that the fact that it’s becoming apparent that the stations are often not setup right, not painted correctly, located near buildings or other heat sources, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the baseline temp data indicating temperature rises is probably overstated, the real temp increase is less than claimed. Which is what the satellite data has been showing all along, but since the ground data gave the answer the alarmists wanted, they “corrected” the satellite data to match, when they should have been looking closer at the ground data.

   This entire issue is overhyped and being used as a lever to enact social changes that are not justified. It’s a perversion of science in the worst way, as bad as the misuse of genetics to justify genocide in the name of eugenics and racial purity.
5. Sunsettommy says:

   May 18, 2007 at 11:02 am

   Not so. Checkout CO2 trends, the Mauna Loa site is a good one, and you will find that CO2 levels have risen with a smooth curve for many decades. There has been no “explosion” in CO2 emission as you characterize it.

   I forgot to mention that Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring station only covers a REGIONAL area.It is not represenative of worldwide Atmospheric CO2 level.

   Just like SURFACE temperature data.It covers a very limited area and subject to possible regional bias because of the pacity of worldwide data sampling points.

   Satellite temperature data and Sea surface temperature data are more valid since it is WORLDWIDE in coverage.

   That is why AGW’s hate Satellites.

   LOL
6. Severian says:

   May 18, 2007 at 3:29 pm

   I forgot to mention that Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring station only covers a REGIONAL area.It is not represenative of worldwide Atmospheric CO2 level.

   You bring up a point I’ve not seen discussed adequately, which is, is it wise to measure atmospheric CO2 from an active volcano? I mean, why is Mauna Loa chosen as a site for this? I can understand wanting to measure it in the middle of the ocean away from land masses, but wouldn’t some place like Christmas Island be a better choice?
7. Sunsettommy says:

   May 18, 2007 at 3:52 pm

   Severian:

   You asked questions,

   You bring up a point I’ve not seen discussed adequately, which is, is it wise to measure atmospheric CO2 from an active volcano? I mean, why is Mauna Loa chosen as a site for this? I can understand wanting to measure it in the middle of the ocean away from land masses, but wouldn’t some place like Christmas Island be a better choice?

   Atmospheric carbon dioxide record from Mauna Loa

   C.D. Keeling and T.P. Whorf

   Carbon Dioxide Research Group, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California 92093-0444, U.S.A.
   Period of Record
   1958-2004

   SNIP:

   Trends

   The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program.

   Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.

   LINK
8. Severian says:

   May 18, 2007 at 4:06 pm

   Thanks for the info/link Sunsettommy. I’d be curious as to how they exclude volcanic emissions, do they monitor the active vents and have a method for predicting their effect on the general readings? I can understand using a remote location away from human activity, one of the reasons Christmas Island came to mind, although if you were to setup a station there now there would be inevitable issues with relating measurements from different locales.
9. Sunsettommy says:

   May 18, 2007 at 5:07 pm

   This should help.

   From:

   USGS

   Hawaii Volcano Observatory

   Volcanic gas Measurements on Mauna Loa are an expanded challenge

   LINK
10. Bluedog49 says:

    May 18, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    Do any of you remember the Tobacco Institute? For many years throughout the 60’s and 70’s, the Tobacco Institute, which was funded by the tobacco industry, paid people to write opinion pieces about how there was no real scientific evidence that tobacco caused lung cancer. The medical science community objected to the Tobacco Institute’s propaganda with the complaint that none of its findings were peer reviewed.

    Just thought I’d point that out. Food for thought.
11. Severian says:

    May 18, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    Yup, they were just as dishonest as the global warming alarmists and the IPCC. Good point bluedog!
12. Severian says:

    May 18, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    Having sat on peer review committees and also having my own work submitted to the process, I can tell you it is not the be all and end all of accuracy and such that lay people seem to think it is. It can, and often is, very flawed, even when people are trying to do their best, and can be cynically manipulated in the worst ways as well. One of the reasons I no longer work with academia is the old say is too true: Why are the battles in academia so vicious? Because the stakes are so small. If you add in funding to the usual ego driven agendas in some departments, it can get really ugly in a hurry. Even in the cases where no real political or personality biases exist, most of the people on the panel have their own work and lives to attend to, so even if they are honest and ethical and seriously try and do a good job they are limited in the amount of depth they can go into when reviewing work.

    This article is right on the money in my experience:

    How many times in the past year as global warming has become a headline issue have you heard a liberal media member or Hollywood elite talk about a consensus of peer reviewed scientists?

    So much so that you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one, correct?

    As an example, pop singer Sheryl Crow during her recent Stop Global Warming College tour would toss the term “peer-reviewed science” around to her audience like a frisbee, as if she had any idea what it actually meant.

    With that in mind, a Senior Fellow in Political Economy for the Independent Institute, Dr. Robert Higgs, published an article Monday that should be required reading for folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his followers (emphasis added throughout):

    I have served as a peer reviewer for more than thirty professional journals and as a reviewer of research proposals for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and a number of large private foundations. I was the principal investigator of a major NSF-funded research project in the field of demography. So, I think I know something about how the system works.

    It does not work as outsiders seem to think.

    Tell us more, Doctor:

    Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from important, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions.
    
    As for the other buzzword folks like Gore, Crow, and Laurie David like to throw around:

    At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about to enter a new ice age. Drastic proposals were made, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over the polar icecaps (to melt them) or damming the Bering Strait (to prevent cold Arctic water from entering the Pacific Ocean), to avert this impending disaster. Well-reputed scientists, not just uninformed wackos, made such proposals. How quickly we forget.

    Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the “best” journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nut cases―until it becomes impossible to deny their findings, a time that often comes only after one generation’s professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the ebola virus. Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea’s bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives.
13. Great White Rat says:

    May 19, 2007 at 8:39 am

    At one time, “scientific consensus” held that the earth is flat and the sun revolved around it. And anyone who dissented was condemned as a heretic and a denier. It’s not too dissimilar from the antics of the global-warming devotees today.

    In the end, “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron. Science is not decided by voting. Something is either a proven fact, or it’s a theory. The idea that man is responsible for global warming is hardly a proven fact, despite the cult-like fanaticism of its followers.
14. Crabby says:

    May 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    Severian:

    You are right, the peer review process is a flawed, but it still beats an unchecked flow of “information” submitted by people who may or may not be quailified and those who may or may not have an agenda. Flawed or not, it is the only process we have to try and weed out bad science. However, you are right, in that the peer review process can be hijacked by members who are part of a consensus.

    Unfortunately, in the case of anthropogenic global warming activist scientists, along with their fellow travelers at the journals and those who fund research, are in a position to enforce an orthodoxy. As has been mentioned previously in this thread, this has happened before, and it will happen again. I hesitate to call this process a conspiracy, but when it happens, it seems like agenda-driven scientists are aided by powerful forces, such as the media or government, which empowers them and enables them to stifle dissent. For those who don’t believe the global warming movement is enforcing orthodoxy and stifling dissent, consider a few examples:

    - A number in the media have suggested that dissent in this area should be called “climate change denial”, and that such dissenters are criminals. Trials, like those for the Nazis at Nuremberg, have even been proposed.

    - Heidi Cullen, chief climatologist for the weather channel, has proposed de-certifying any meteorologist who does not tow the AGW line.

    - George Taylor, David Legates and Patrick Michaels, state climatologists from Washington, Delaware and Virginia, respectively, have all been fired or threatened by their governors for having the wrong opinions on global warming.

    - Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball has received death threats after speaking out on global warming issues.

    These examples are not isolated. Global warming skeptics are, in general, marginalized and called crackpots. It is small wonder that many scientists prefer to remain silent on the issue, especially when speaking out could literally mean losing or limiting their careers. Unfortunately, it will take courage on the part of these scientists to bring the curtain down on this charade. The truth will eventually emerge when another cooling period occurs, but probably too late to prevent handing over control of much of the economy and much of the freedom in our lives to enviro-fascists.
15. Severian says:

    May 19, 2007 at 9:04 pm

    Peer review is better than nothing, except in cases where it’s used as a weapon to enforce orthodoxy. You’re right that it’s usually better than nothing, in much the same way as the old saying “Democracy is the worst system in the world except for everything else.” It’s flawed, but it’s what we got. I get a kick though at people who treat it like some kind of blessing from on high and an infallible check system, cause it sure ain’t. And as you note, it can and is often abused. And too often it acts like an echo chamber, when everyone involved in the process is of the same mind it doesn’t even take a conspiracy or bad intentions for it to act to preserve the status quo.

    In 5 to 10 years max I believe we’ll be in another cooling phase, perhaps a significant one. Unfortunately, given the current political climate by then we’ll be hamstrung with all manner of idiotic regulations based on poor science that, like most laws and regulations, will live on with their negative effects long after they’ve been proven to be unnecessary.

    And to further gall everyone like us, the usual suspects will claim that the cooling is due to the laws, regardless of the fact that no real reductions have occurred in CO2, and even if CO2 was the culprit they claim not enough time would have elapsed for reducing it to have an effect even if it had been reduced. And the press and greenies and governments will all publicize their “success” story regardless of facts just as they are pushing this AGW story regardless of facts.
16. Severian says:

    May 19, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    In addition to the fact that we are near saturation with regards to the effect of atmospheric CO2, that is, pumping more into the air won’t make much difference, the following is illustrative of just how small an effect humans have:

    LINK

    Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

    “If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.”

    The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

    However, carbon dioxide as a result of man’s activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

    “That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,” he said.

    “We couldn’t do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates.”

    Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as “The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2″ and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

    “The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

    “It’s become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt,” he said.
17. sunsettommy says:

    May 23, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    Settembrini,

    Where are you?

    Has all the postings since a week ago scare you off?

    
18. sunsettommy says:

    May 23, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    At my website as a Site Administrator.

    We have had a total of TWO AGW members since the forum was funded in March.All the rest have been rational.

    The funny part is that those TWO have been BANNED! Just those two.

    The rest have been good and they are skeptics.

    I have detected a trend on many forums I go to that AGW’s are in retreat.They seem to have just one website they drool over.Realclimate

    A website that contains several discredited authors of foolish climate claims.

    LOL
19. Severian says:

    May 23, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    The pro-AGW crowd generally act like a bunch of power mad barbarians, more in line with members of the Inquisition than logical and rational scientists sunsettommy. It’s no surprise they behaved in a way that caused them to be banned. I think some of them do it deliberately when their arguments are going nowhere, then they can rationalize it in their minds that they are really right and it’s the evil deniers who banned them because they don’t want to hear the TRVTH.

    Realclimate, yeah, there’s an honest site. And I am being facetious. Their response to the claim that the retreat of the ice/snow pack on Kilimanjaro was illuminating. They shrieked that claims that the loss of snow were not due to global warming were lies, lies I tell you! All based on one newspaper article, that’s it, there were no papers or truth to it. 5 minutes of googling and anyone could and did find at least 4 papers in peer reviewed journals that stated the real reasons, deforestation and land use changes leading to less precipitation, and the fact that the temps at the summit had actually cooled over time. Their response to this was that the papers didn’t actually say that it wasn’t global warming!!! Because they didn’t start off with “GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT WHAT’S CAUSING THE SNOW TO MELT” in large friendly letters, even though they proved it was another factor, wasn’t enough proof for them.

    Sheese, you can’t make this stuff up. I wonder if they’ve ever updated their excuses on this or if they are still hawking the same lies.
20. sunsettommy says:

    May 23, 2007 at 11:12 pm

    The pro-AGW crowd generally act like a bunch of power mad barbarians, more in line with members of the Inquisition than logical and rational scientists sunsettommy. It’s no surprise they behaved in a way that caused them to be banned. I think some of them do it deliberately when their arguments are going nowhere, then they can rationalize it in their minds that they are really right and it’s the evil deniers who banned them because they don’t want to hear the TRVTH.

    One was banned for arguing with the Administrator.

    The other was banned for his obnoxious attitude.

    Realclimate, yeah, there’s an honest site. And I am being facetious. Their response to the claim that the retreat of the ice/snow pack on Kilimanjaro was illuminating. They shrieked that claims that the loss of snow were not due to global warming were lies, lies I tell you! All based on one newspaper article, that’s it, there were no papers or truth to it. 5 minutes of googling and anyone could and did find at least 4 papers in peer reviewed journals that stated the real reasons, deforestation and land use changes leading to less precipitation, and the fact that the temps at the summit had actually cooled over time. Their response to this was that the papers didn’t actually say that it wasn’t global warming!!! Because they didn’t start off with “GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT WHAT’S CAUSING THE SNOW TO MELT” in large friendly letters, even though they proved it was another factor, wasn’t enough proof for them.

    They have been picked apart by other forums.

    There has been scientists who show up making comments at Realclimate tearing them apart.Niv Shaviv was one of them.It was a real treat!

    Here is his website:

    LINK

© 2003 - 2009 Sister Toldjah • All Rights Reserved

Powered by: WordPress • Design by: E.Webscapes • Hosted by: Hosting Matters