Two idiots

[mobiushky]

Originally Posted by oblioman

Me generally agrees with your post with the exception of green house gasses in the atmosphere in relation to the greenhouse effect. It's understandable that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cannot transfer heat downward. Pretty basic that heat rises. But what is happening is that the amount of radiant heat that passes through the atmosphere, warms the earth, and a majority of it rises back up - but with the accumulation of more greenhouse gas, more of the radiant heat is blocked from transferring back through the atmosphere. Its the amount of heat not allowed to escape back out that is causing the problems. The second law of thermodynamics is not being violated since the heat source (the sun) is hotter than our earth.

Which is a great fairytale that 1st grade science teachers can pawn off on young minds, but the problem is that it just isn't as efficient as all that. See the problem is, CO2 actually has a secondary effect (which is more appropriately the primary, but we'll see why) that it blocks or absorbs infrared radiation from reaching the surface of the earth.

The part you are forgetting to mention (from the AGW ideologists) is the mechanism that they claim causes the heat to be retained. It's not just "not allowed to escape." It's deeper than that. The claim is that as the UV light reaches the earth it is absorbed by the earth and other stuff (trees, oceans, land, buildings, you). That energy is radiated back toward space in the form of IR energy. That IR is absorbed by the so called greenhouse elements and then half of that is radiated back to the earth. Viola, warming. That's the claim.

BUT, there's a problem with that:

http://objectivistindividualist.blog...as-global.html

This post by Dr. Charles Anderson (Ph.D), shows that in fact the cooling effects of these gasses outweighs the warming effects by a factor of 100 times. What that means is that as the gasses accumulate in the atmosphere, more of the sun's energy is blocked from even reaching the earth. And not just a little more, a LOT more. In the graph you posted, you will notice that the CO2 concentrations lag the temp drops. New information is actually starting to imply that the temps drop due to the higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically like drawing a shutter closed and blocking the heat from the sun.

If you need to know nothing about the debate, remember this. All of the major reports on AGW assume one major thing that is flawed. The IPCC is even guilty. they all assume the sun as a constant. That is an utter failure in basic science.

[mshulman]

The temperature goes up and down. There's nothing we can do to prevent it. Just take a look at the chart which shows the history.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

[oblioman]

Originally Posted by mobiushky

Which is a great fairytale that 1st grade science teachers can pawn off on young minds, but the problem is that it just isn't as efficient as all that. See the problem is, CO2 actually has a secondary effect (which is more appropriately the primary, but we'll see why) that it blocks or absorbs infrared radiation from reaching the surface of the earth.

The part you are forgetting to mention (from the AGW ideologists) is the mechanism that they claim causes the heat to be retained. It's not just "not allowed to escape." It's deeper than that. The claim is that as the UV light reaches the earth it is absorbed by the earth and other stuff (trees, oceans, land, buildings, you). That energy is radiated back toward space in the form of IR energy. That IR is absorbed by the so called greenhouse elements and then half of that is radiated back to the earth. Viola, warming. That's the claim.

BUT, there's a problem with that:

http://objectivistindividualist.blog...as-global.html

This post by Dr. Charles Anderson (Ph.D), shows that in fact the cooling effects of these gasses outweighs the warming effects by a factor of 100 times. What that means is that as the gasses accumulate in the atmosphere, more of the sun's energy is blocked from even reaching the earth. And not just a little more, a LOT more. In the graph you posted, you will notice that the CO2 concentrations lag the temp drops. New information is actually starting to imply that the temps drop due to the higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically like drawing a shutter closed and blocking the heat from the sun.

If you need to know nothing about the debate, remember this. All of the major reports on AGW assume one major thing that is flawed. The IPCC is even guilty. they all assume the sun as a constant. That is an utter failure in basic science.

So according to Dr Anderson,,and his hypothesis, the earth should be cooling. And according to his hypothesis, the earth should be cooling to a significant amount. Can he explain why it's warming? He can't because he is looking at one aspect and not taking the big picture into account. What happens with the depletion of ozone?

[mobiushky]

Originally Posted by oblioman

So according to Dr Anderson,,and his hypothesis, the earth should be cooling. And according to his hypothesis, the earth should be cooling to a significant amount. Can he explain why it's warming? He can't because he is looking at one aspect and not taking the big picture into account. What happens with the depletion of ozone?

I'll answer that with 2 reasons. First, you aren't paying attention. Phil Jones. Look up the name. Phil Jones, the now deposed head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. The guy who is pretty much responsible for all the global warming evidence found in the UN's IPCC report on climate change. THE guy who the world looked to for proof that the world is warming stated that there has been NO statistically significant warming for 15 years. None. There is no warming. for 15 years. He then went on to say that the cooling trend we've seen for the last 6 (7 now) years was not significant either. So THE AGW guy says there's no warming and infact we've actually seen cooling for 7 years now. How can you now claim that we're still warming?

2. The point isn't to say that we're massively cooling even though if you do a search on global cooling trends you'll see that we have had the single largest drop in temps in 1 year ever. The point is, the so called warming effect of CO2 is nothing nearly compared to the cooling it offers. And since we're not really cooling that much, obviously there is insignificant or no warming at all due to CO2. IF there is any warming, it isn't CO2 doing it.

[oblioman]

Originally Posted by mobiushky

I'll answer that with 2 reasons. First, you aren't paying attention. Phil Jones. Look up the name. Phil Jones, the now deposed head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. The guy who is pretty much responsible for all the global warming evidence found in the UN's IPCC report on climate change. THE guy who the world looked to for proof that the world is warming stated that there has been NO statistically significant warming for 15 years. None. There is no warming. for 15 years. He then went on to say that the cooling trend we've seen for the last 6 (7 now) years was not significant either. So THE AGW guy says there's no warming and infact we've actually seen cooling for 7 years now. How can you now claim that we're still warming?

2. The point isn't to say that we're massively cooling even though if you do a search on global cooling trends you'll see that we have had the single largest drop in temps in 1 year ever. The point is, the so called warming effect of CO2 is nothing nearly compared to the cooling it offers. And since we're not really cooling that much, obviously there is insignificant or no warming at all due to CO2. IF there is any warming, it isn't CO2 doing it.

What cooling trend? Perusing NASA's website, all indicators show that the earth is warming. And yes,,familiar with Phil Jones,,,whom has been re-instated (July 2010) as Director of Research at the IPCC. Apparently an inquiry into the "climategate e-mails" found no cause against Dr. Jones. Putting IPCC aside, the NASA GISS does a bit of research themselves - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

Don't know about the rest of you good gents,,,but we be burning up in Tennessee. Had one of our hottest and driest June's on record. Nice and hot today,,,good beer drinking weather,,,but afraid me air conditioning bill will be a bit high.

[blackbeagle]

The fact is that we'll be split down the middle on this topic just like we are with dozens of other topics (abortion, legalization of drugs, religion, etc.).

I'll just say that I think both Beck and Sactorum are both assholes. One shouldn't be on TV and the other one shouldn't be wasting his time running for president.

However I agree with BOTH on their takes. Global Warming is the biggest scam in the history of the world that has made billions to the man who came up with it (Mr. Internet himself....Al Gore).

The Fed should pack up their shit and get the hell out of Dodge because they are behind the imminent collapse of our dollar.

[Chris Gerhard]

Originally Posted by mobiushky

First off, nothing is settled. If 90% of the people who get funded to find problems are all in agreement that there are problems, then the 10% who said "no" will just lose their funding. The people who do the research have trillions of dollars of incentive to find problems regardless of if they exist.

That's a very cynical view and in my opinion does a very grave disservice to our scientists and doctors. My opinion, we owe a debt of gratitude to scientists and they are our best hope for the future, no professions include a higher percentage of intelligent people with great integrity. If scientific studies are fudged, their peers will catch the culprits and their careers come to an end. The bogus study linking autism to vaccines is one example of shoddy or unethical scientific studies and the parties responsible were dealt with harshly.

Now if attorneys are responsible for analyzing and reporting the findings, all bets are off as to the integrity of the reports. Scientific studies trying to answer difficult questions that can affect our children's and grandchildren's lives are the best use of money we have to try to solve the big problems this planet faces.

[mobiushky]

Originally Posted by oblioman

What cooling trend? Perusing NASA's website, all indicators show that the earth is warming. And yes,,familiar with Phil Jones,,,whom has been re-instated (July 2010) as Director of Research at the IPCC. Apparently an inquiry into the "climategate e-mails" found no cause against Dr. Jones. Putting IPCC aside, the NASA GISS does a bit of research themselves - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

Don't know about the rest of you good gents,,,but we be burning up in Tennessee. Had one of our hottest and driest June's on record. Nice and hot today,,,good beer drinking weather,,,but afraid me air conditioning bill will be a bit high.

Again with NASA data. Remember, they are the ones who revise their numbers all over the map without explanation as to why. Peers have condemned their actions openly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Qu4&refer=home

And btw, even though NASA has revised the temps to show that 1934 is the hottest on record, people still quote 1998. People ignore what doesn't fit the politically correct vibe.

IPCC is defunked. They put so many errors in their reports that the science community has done everything to distance themselves from IPCC.

Phil Jones was not the head of IPCC. He was the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in England. He was a major contributor to the IPCC reports. If he is now heading IPCC, that is no surprise as they are so riddled with fraud it's scary.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...participation/

Jones was "cleared" by his peers. Several of which were involved in the fraud. So of course he was cleared.

As for weather. We are currently having one of the coldest and rainiest July's on record for Denver. Localized weather patterns are not an indication of global conditions.

The fact is, we aren't going to change each others minds. BUT, you want the government to institute policy that will force me and others to bend to what you feel is needed. Even though according to the hallowed IPCC all the regulations in the world will sum to just 1 degree C over 100 years. Basically we are going to spend more money we don't have to accomplish nothing. That's where I start to really get irritated.

[mobiushky]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

That's a very cynical view and in my opinion does a very grave disservice to our scientists and doctors. My opinion, we owe a debt of gratitude to scientists and they are our best hope for the future, no professions include a higher percentage of intelligent people with great integrity. If scientific studies are fudged, their peers will catch the culprits and their careers come to an end. The bogus study linking autism to vaccines is one example of shoddy or unethical scientific studies and the parties responsible were dealt with harshly.

Now if attorneys are responsible for analyzing and reporting the findings, all bets are off as to the integrity of the reports. Scientific studies trying to answer difficult questions that can affect our children's and grandchildren's lives are the best use of money we have to try to solve the big problems this planet faces.

I don't. Why? Because I'm an engineer. With a degree in Physics. I know scientists and I know that often times they are just as corrupt as lawyers. Especially when ideology is involved. Many vaunted scientists are so blinded by ideology that they will make any study shade toward their bias. And yes, they do alter data to prove their theory when funding is on the line.

And btw, that last line in your post sums it all up. When people link science to emotion the money flows like rivers. Not saying its wrong or anything. Just this, what if it is a fraud? What if the only reason that we spend SO much money is because we THINK there is a problem because we're constantly being told there is by people stand to lose a LOT of money if there is no problem? What if that money went away? Who would be the most effected by that cut off of funding?

The following is a letter written by Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis to Curt Callan, President of the American Physical Society on Oct 6, 2010, I hope you take the time to read it:

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Some credentials for Hal Lewis:

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

[mobiushky]

To sum up both of my previous posts, scientists themselves are saying there is a climate in the industry of bullying to have them alter their own data to conform it to the politically expediant narrative. Scientists are committing fraud in order to maintain and increase funding.

[jkkyler]

I would like to personally thank mobiushky. I have learned more about the myth of global warming from him and his links than in years of pols, media, and so-called scientists bickering back and forth. I was never really convinced ever that AGW was real. Today I am as certain of its fallacy as I can be.

[Rick-F]

Originally Posted by jkkyler

I would like to personally thank mobiushky. I have learned more about the myth of global warming from him and his links than in years of pols, media, and so-called scientists bickering back and forth. I was never really convinced ever that AGW was real. Today I am as certain of its fallacy as I can be.

Indeed. Thank you, Mobi.

I often wonder why so many have already "drank the cool-aid" of global warming/climate change, and just will not / can not accept or even consider other possibilities.

Sometimes I think it may be be guilt. " My life is so very good, we have so much . . . we must be doing something wrong." I just think it so very egocentric/egotistical for man to believe that he is so all-powerful that all things on this planet are a result of his activity-- severe storrms, earthquakes, an ever-changing climate, volcanic eruptions--- "oh my, oh my we are messing up our planet".

It really would be almost funny, if these folks did not vote and hold office . . .

[Scottnot]

Originally Posted by Rick-F

Sometimes I think it may be be guilt. " My life is so very good, we have so much . . . we must be doing something wrong." I just think it so very egocentric/egotistical for man to believe that he is so all-powerful that all things on this planet are a result of his activity-- severe storrms, earthquakes, an ever-changing climate, volcanic eruptions--- "oh my, oh my we are messing up our planet".

Indeed, "WE" humans are a funny lot.
Many of us even have a "GOD" who favors us over all other creatures and tends to us personally if we praise Him and offer ourselves to Him in complete obedience to His laws.
Think I'll pray to Him for an end to global warming . . . and/or cooling, whichever the case may be.

[mobiushky]

Originally Posted by Scottnot

Indeed, "WE" humans are a funny lot.
Many of us even have a "GOD" who favors us over all other creatures and tends to us personally if we praise Him and offer ourselves to Him in complete obedience to His laws.
Think I'll pray to Him for an end to global warming . . . and/or cooling, whichever the case may be.

Belief is belief, regardless of the object of that belief. You believe there is no God. Others believe differently.

[mobiushky]

Originally Posted by Rick-F

Indeed. Thank you, Mobi.

I often wonder why so many have already "drank the cool-aid" of global warming/climate change, and just will not / can not accept or even consider other possibilities.

Sometimes I think it may be be guilt. " My life is so very good, we have so much . . . we must be doing something wrong." I just think it so very egocentric/egotistical for man to believe that he is so all-powerful that all things on this planet are a result of his activity-- severe storrms, earthquakes, an ever-changing climate, volcanic eruptions--- "oh my, oh my we are messing up our planet".

It really would be almost funny, if these folks did not vote and hold office . . .

There is more to it than that. There is an alarming trend of imposing over reaching and ridiculous controls on our behavior all in the name of "green" living. Why are incandescent lightbulbs not allowed in the US anymore? Why did the last manufacturer of them close up shop recently and leave the country? What happened to those jobs? Why are we trying to bankrupt the coal industry? We have more coal in this country than in the rest of the world combined. Why are we making ridiculous demands that even the top AGW preachers say will have little or no effect on temps? Why are we not allowing oil explorations? The tax income alone from increased oil production would be incredible, not to mention the job growth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090706933.html