'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...

[Brad Johnson]

So horse meet water - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ - now, the thirst is definitely on you.

Linky no worky.  Hard to drink from a pond with no water. 

Also, I did some digging this Terry Root.  Turns out she is Al Gore's pet global warming quote source, serving on the same boards and in the same groups as Gore and most of the other global warming zealots who routinely make the news.  She has authored, in whole or in part, many of the papers submitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is also the source for most of Gore's quotes/data.

Brad

[Iain]

Works for me. Google - AIP weart - should be first iink.

[Brad Johnson]

Went to www.aip.org and the page isn't loading.

AIP is the American Insitute of Physics if anyone cares.

Brad

[zahc]

I remember reading some paper looking at certain glaciers, and how they were melting away. They came to the conclusion that they were melting away because of changing sea currents or some other reason unrelated to global warming. Which goes to show how dangerous global warming really is, if the glaciers are melting away even without it! Yes, people (even scientific people) are that dumb.

[PTK]

Iain:

I see your link with a link of my own.  http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Spring2004/global.html

[Iain]

Iain:

I see your link with a link of my own.  http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Spring2004/global.html

Read the book. Read the criticisms. Read anything and everything, and then see if you can come back and read these endless and repetitive threads with their three line self-important dismissals of climate science, their claims of conspiracy and their endless recycling of nonsense and take any of it seriously.

I've largely quit these threads because the more I read about it the less certain I am and the less capable I am of making short posts on the internet in the face of deliberately ignorant snide. The reason I give you guys Weart is that many of you clearly have never read anything serious on the subject, anything that wasn't a columnists hatchet piece. Only those that will only read short, generally snidey, articles with conclusions that they already like can be so certain and so dismissive.

[PTK]

Like I stated earlier, the HUGE number of variables has left me unable to choose a side in this debate. In all actuality, I'll be dead before it matters... 

[Desertdog]

Read anything and everything, and then see if you can come back and read these endless and repetitive threads with their three line self-important dismissals of climate science, their claims of conspiracy and their endless recycling of nonsense and take any of it seriously

As for me, the GW scenario would possibly sound more reasonable if they hadn't allowed Al Gore to be the key spokesman, and if in the 70's they hadn't been screaming "Global Cooling, Global Cooling."  

Then it warmed up.  So what did they say then?  "Global Warming, Global Warming."

Then it started getting colder again.  Now what were they saying?  How about, "Climate Change, Climate Change."

With this record, why the hell should we listen to them??  What ever they say, they, change their war cry to oppose what ever happens.

The climate changes constantly.  Man is not going to be able to make climate do what they want it to.  Just look at what the world's weather history has been.   Ice ages, hot periods, cold periods, always changing and always doing what it wants to.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I've largely quit these threads because the more I read about it the less certain I am and the less capable I am of making short posts on the internet in the face of deliberately ignorant snide.  The reason I give you guys Weart is that many of you clearly have never read anything serious on the subject, anything that wasn't a columnists hatchet piece. Only those that will only read short, generally snidey, articles with conclusions that they already like can be so certain and so dismissive.

There's a nugget of wisdom in that remark, although I'm sure it's not what you intended.

Most of us here doubt the global warming 'hypothesis'.  You assume it's because we're ignorant on the subject, when in fact it's because we're a lot like you.  The more we actually learn about global warming, the less certain we are that it's real, and the less certain we are of the facts and data that underpin it.  The more we learn about global warming, the more we realize that it's unproven, and in fact unprovable. 

It's not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that anyone who professes that global warming is proven fact is either lying to us, or lying to themselves, or completely ignorant on the subject and too dumb to realize it.  Whichever is the case, I don't see why ridicule is inappropriate.

[Uncle Bubba]

I well remember when the exact same historical data were cited in the 1970s to "prove" that we were killing the planet and were all going to die because of global cooling. I guess none of us actually exist now.

[Nitrogen]

I well remember when the exact same historical data were cited in the 1970s to "prove" that we were killing the planet and were all going to die because of global cooling. I guess none of us actually exist now.

More misquoted mythology.

Sure, the media picked up on a couple rotten papers, only about 8-10% of which seemed inclined to future cooling.

Also, there are a lot less aresols in the atmosphere than there were then.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

More misquoted mythology.

It's all mythology.

[gunsmith]

Read the book. Read the criticisms. Read anything and everything, and then see if you can come back and read these endless and repetitive threads with their three line self-important dismissals of climate science, their claims of conspiracy and their endless recycling of nonsense and take any of it seriously.

I've largely quit these threads because the more I read about it the less certain I am and the less capable I am of making short posts on the internet in the face of deliberately ignorant snide. The reason I give you guys Weart is that many of you clearly have never read anything serious on the subject, anything that wasn't a columnists hatchet piece. Only those that will only read short, generally snidey, articles with conclusions that they already like can be so certain and so dismissive.

Well, the same people that were yelling "Global Warming" & now "climate change" also yelled "blood in the streets"
when the awb rode off into the sunet and tell me that ccw is a terrible thing.

But I can prove climate change is real, last summer it was warm in Wyoming, this December it is cold there, Cheney is from
Wyo .... Bush knew!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i know a group of old fart meteorologists. so old that some of them were recruited to be weathermen by the airforce with scholarships to college just after ww2   mind you at least one guy had to be told what a meteorologist was. he had already signed up for free college .,   they spent the majority of their careers designing computer models  using punch cards. strangly enough exactly zero of them believe in the gorical or his church. they do laugh at it a bunch

[grampster]

Iain,

The problem that most of us have with global warming, now climate change, has to do more with the arrogance and smug knowitallism perpetrated by mostly leftist scientists, or scientists who's existence depends on government grant.   Isn't it strange that most defenders of this "science" are avowed socialists or live in socialist leaning communities?  Defenders of their conclusions brush off scientists that are funded by private industry but are quick to give credence to scientists funded at the public trough.  Guess which entity has the power to force changes. 

As for the snideness, that comes mostly from those who defend government fiat over freedom with respect to this issue.  I think scepticism more properly defines those of us who are having this stuff shoved down our throats.  It is absolute arrogance to believe that humans are the major influence, or much more than a blip with respect to climate change. To me that is also the arrogance of the Humanist movement; that humans are so powerful they can alter an entire planet's ecological system by themselves. That arrogance is elevated when reasonable folks are expected to believe that any group of people other than the most advanced and free states in the world will pay any attention to any proposal by climate change disaster zealots.  The biggest polluters always seem to be exempted.  The countries that have contributed more treasure to, and at least try and be a good husband of our resources are vilified.

I suggest that those who are so convinced and believe that they can have any appreciable effect upon reversing a planetary weather cycle, pool your money and go do it.  I suggest you leave the rest of us alone.

[Josh Aston]

and if in the 70's they hadn't been screaming "Global Cooling, Global Cooling." 

Then it warmed up.  So what did they say then?  "Global Warming, Global Warming."

Then it started getting colder again.  Now what were they saying?  How about, "Climate Change, Climate Change."

With this record, why the hell should we listen to them??  What ever they say, they, change their war cry to oppose what ever happens.

1984?

[Desertdog]

How many of you remember the dire warnings of the catastrophic facing the world because of all the fires in Kuwait?  The fires were put out, the smoke cleared, and nothing more said about any bad happening.

[Nitrogen]

Grampster, So you are saying you don't believe in climate change because you disagree with certain people's politics?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Grampster, So you are saying you don't believe in climate change because you disagree with certain people's politics?

Would that be unreasonable?  Global warming alarmism is inescapably political.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

more like global warming is a political agenda   or since its not warming anymore  climate change

[Nitrogen]

Would that be unreasonable?  Global warming alarmism is inescapably political.

I think that's the worst reason to disagree with the global warming/climate change thing.

Disagree with it because you don't believe the science.

[grampster]

Grampster, So you are saying you don't believe in climate change because you disagree with certain people's politics?

Isn't that statement equally applicable to those of you who hold to the notion of human caused climate change?  In fact, in my opinion, it is more so.

See, you've walked right into my point and don't even know it.  My whole problem with the human caused global warming issue is that your side is the one who has politicized it.  The left is demanding governments tax/regulate human behavior because the left has no faith in the possibility of free people actually caring enough for their surroundings without being subjected to draconian at best, and bellicose at worst, government oppression.  The fact is, the most oppressive governments are the ones who are the worst husbands of their natural resources.  I hope I wouldn't have to list them for you.  The global warming scientists are to more likely to be wrong or lying because the issue is politicized by the left.  That's where their funding comes from.  Without it, no one cares what they have to say because a lot of what they say is speculation not fact.  I trust them less than the scientist on the other side of the spectrum for the obvious reasons.

[Desertdog]

Disagree with it because you don't believe the science.

When the "science" can tell me accurately what the weather will be just one month in advance, then I might, just might, start believing them when they forecast six months in advance.  But to believe they know what is going to happen in ten years, or more, no way Jose.


Right now they cannot forecast what will happen in a week, except in cetain cases.  Like Fargo ND will be cold and possible snow on the ground in January.  Or the desert of NM will be sunshine and hot in the summer

[roo_ster]

Iain:

Don't assume ignorance on the part of those who don't agree with you, O Uniquely Wise and Informed One.  For some, usually those who have been around the block a few times, the GW/CC racket sets off their BS detector and that is enough for them to kick it to the curb.

Others, such as myself, have some expertise in one of the fields that have a part to play in climate analysis.

Glacier activity, for instance, is not one field I claim to have any expertise, other than my physics education and survey courses in other sciences.  So, when I read about glaciers retreating, advancing, and flanking other hostile glaciers with the intent to plunder and rape their way to the sea; I can not judge much of the analysis of what is presented on that subject.

Computer models (especially stochastic force-on-force) , OTOH, are my bread & butter.  They are how I make my living.  When some PHB (Pointy Haired Boss) needs a MS&A (Modeling, Simulation, & Analysis) SME (Subject Matter Expert), I am frequently the guy they call. Every so often they determine it makes sense to have me model and analyze something.  Do this often enough and, over time, one can stay employed.

A very simplified explanation:
http://www.vertex42.com/ExcelArticles/mc/MonteCarloSimulation.html
http://www.vertex42.com/ExcelArticles/mc/StochasticModel.html

Which brings me back to how computer models interface with the GW racket.  To put it bluntly, the GW racketeers who develop, use, and market the output of climate models predicting GW due to human action are dishonest scum I would not trust to jockey a checking account spreadsheet, let along develop and run a climate model.  They may be intelligent, but they have no integrity, so they are unworthy of trust.

The errors and methodology can not be explained away as rookie mistakes or simple oversights.  If I were to do something similar and present it to my customer, I would expect to be fired and prosecuted.  My company would also face some pretty severe consequences, not the least of which is having their reputation dragged through the mud.

I look at the GW/CC contingent as the fraudulent faith healers of the scientific community.  I almost expect Peter Popoff to jump on the GW bandwagon, since his talent for fraud could improve the GW racketeers'.  Oh, wait, some of the off-the-reservation Christians have already done so.  They know an opportunity and sucker GW believer supporter of their ministry when they see one.

[Iain]

jfruser - I won't assume ignorance when posts are actually thoughtful and well informed. Many here qualify - when they decide to contribute seriously to the discussion.

Others - well they repeat the global cooling/no water vapour/volcanoes/they now call it climate change/etc talking points...

When the "science" can tell me accurately what the weather will be just one month in advance...

...over and over. There is vast amounts out there to dispute these easy assertions - but as we've seen, some won't read it because they don't like its conclusions.

Most of us here doubt the global warming 'hypothesis'.  You assume it's because we're ignorant on the subject, when in fact it's because we're a lot like you.

Again - not assuming ignorance on the part of those who do more than repeat something they heard on talk radio. And repeat it. And repeat it. But cannot back it up, and cannot or will not respond to counter arguments.

I think scepticism more properly defines those of us who are having this stuff shoved down our throats.  It is absolute arrogance to believe that humans are the major influence, or much more than a blip with respect to climate change.

This is not a sceptical position. This position clearly defines what it will not accept, it is not an open position, it rejects all contrary scientific - the preponderance of scientific evidence.

But yes - this is all political, which is exactly why everyone has such strong opinions, everyone has their trusted 'experts' and there is so much heat and so little light on internet forums.