Global warming and scientists.

by Forscher 82 Replies latest members politics

• 

  SixofNine

  By the by, AuldSoul you mis-quoted your own Limbaughian dis-quotations when you purported to quote yourself here:

  "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists." — Dr. Gareth Jones

  Climate researcher (he doesn't call himself a climatologist) Dr. Gareth Jones did not say that at all. In fact, he is mentioned in the article you were quoting this way (180 degrees opposite of the way in which you used his words, btw):

  Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.
  
  "The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity,"

  The article then rather out of context threw in the bit about the views of one David Bellamy, a "conservationist" (?) who indeed thinks that global temperature rise is "poppycock". Noticibly absent in the article is why Mr. Bellamy considers it "poppycock" or if his disdain for the common belief in ghg/warming has anything to do with the idea put forth regarding sun activity, (which was the subject of the article in the first place!)
• 

  AuldSoul

  SixofNine,

  You're obviously still a little out of touch with the whole concept of DISCUSSION forum. I'll give you a chance to reflect on that statement, then revise your last post as you see fit (or not), and eat whatever crow you feel is appropriate for lyingly stating that I am portraying myself as an expert on anything other than HTML, a few programming languages, the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, and my own opinions (the very fertilizer from which a discussion forum flourishes, and in its absence withers and dies).

  but it's pretty clear that your primary reason for being impressed with a scientist is how closely that scientist belief matches your own preconceptions.

  Actually, when I approached the subject the first thing I had to do was rid myself of very strongly held biases in favor of ghg's being the primary culprit. I was a preacher of reduced elimination until about one year ago. Someone just condidly asked me, "Which scientist believes that greenhouse gasses is the reason for global warming?" Note, this person asked about a specific scientist, not scientists in general. At the time, I had no speific answer, and I thought the question was absurd. EVERYONE knew ghg's were the culprit. In a huge huff, off I went to prove my point.

  I am now chastened by my study. So far, I can hold Dr. Tim Patterson's credentials up against everything you throw at them and he comes out on top. Smelling like a rose, in point of fact. He has nothing to personally gain from his stance, and much to lose. His stance is contrasting the consensus view. He has excellent credentials and is regarded as a leading world expert in the field on which he speaks. I have sought for a reputable climatologist with which to compare Dr. Patterson, and I have invited the help of the forum. So far, I got a PDF from Turd Burgler that stank of manipulated phraseology (it smelled like a Watchtower article, or a Awake! on pullution).

  As to advocating for beliefs, I think you are confusing beliefs and opinions. If you don't think your opinions are right, why do you have them? Maybe you should trade them in for some which you do believe are right. Long ago I witnessed your harranguing of someone for not couching every phrase with "it seems" or "in my opinion." Yet, when I do that it is still not satisfactory to you. Unless I agree with you, my opinions must be deceitfully derived or offered and no other answer will satisfy you.

  AND STILL, you bring nothing meaningful to the ISSUE under discussion. Attack of the person is all you seem to be able to muster. Grow a set. Just because we might have dated the same girl is no reason for you to get all pissy.

  But the very fact that Limbaugh chooses to ignore all the complexity, and to attribute the change in our climate to a single cause...

  ...eliminates his arguments from possible comparison to the arguments of AuldSoul, poster on JWD.

  Now, let's see if you have anythng of merit to offer this TOPIC or whether you just want to see if you can tit better than I tat. I strongly urge you to avoid that scalpel, I am deft with it. Have you come up with the names of the majority of scientists with whom you agree, yet?

  AuldSoul
• 

  SixofNine

  and who is David Bellamy? In one incarnation, he's the man who inspired George Monbiot to write the in The Guardian, May 10, 2005, "Junk science:David Bellamy's inaccurate and selective figures on glacier shrinkage are a boon to climate change deniers"

  ______________________________________________

  And from wikpediea:

  In 2004, he wrote an article in the Daily Mail in which he described the theory of man-made global warming as "poppycock" [1]. A letter he published in the New Scientist (April 16th, 2005) asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the world's glaciers were advancing, not retreating. He has since admitted that the figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times on 29 May [2] that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming" [3]. However he did not withdraw his views about the causes of warming.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Actually, smart-ass, I didn't quote Limbaugh and didn't know that he echoed what was reported in the UK Telegraph in 2004. I don't listen to Linbaugh. Ever. Even by mistake. I enjoyed his early broadcasts, but he quickly got so annoying that I couldn't bear it and turned him off. I don't think I am far from that point with you.

  As it stands, I am trying to obtain contact information for Dr. Jones so that I may obtain, firsthand, whether he is responsible for the quote. I will allow that it may have been a horrible editorial gaff on the part of the Telegraph, but this does not seem to me to be a quote from David Bellamy:

  Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.
  "The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.
  "Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

  The "he" is still contextually referring to Dr. Jones, with an aside interjected between sets of double quotes. Again, I allow for the possibility of their error and am currently digging deeper. If you are correct, it was horrible editing of the piece. I renew my assertion that you are not currently and have not ever attempted to dig deeply into the source of your climate information. Nor do you allow for error in your view. I think this is a case of the pot calling the Irish potato black. Your criticisms are pointing right back atchya!

  I AM allowing for my views to be wrong. I AM digging deeper. I am seeking the credibility of those positing opinions on this issue. I am searching for their motives. I am searching out their backgrounds and funding. On all sides. If you aren't, and you admit Rush isn't, who is more like him? Someone who posts viewpoints as proven without personal verification of the proof, or someone who admits that it is not proven and still needs more study?

  You are criticizing the mirror, SixofNine. Listen to yourself sometime, you might learn something. You are pretty smart fellow.

  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  SixofNine,

  Boy, I sure am glad I didn't tout Bellamy as an expert! Not that I would have done, anyway. For that matter, I didn't tout Dr. Jones as one either, I simply presented it as a quote I ran across. Which wasn't the least bit misleading or dishonest. I said I was in the process of trying to find Dr. Jones' biographical sketch. I hope the readers here can see why the way it was presented in the Telegraph would lead one to believe the quote was from Dr. Jones.

  I did tout Dr. Patterson as an expert. I haven't seen a single thing to make me change that view. And, to clarify, I do not believe that ghg's are a non-issue environmentally. I have not stated that anywhere (to my knowledge). I don't like your assertion that because I disagree with you I must hold the Limbaugh-esque view, especially in view of the fact that you are attempting to attribute dishonesty to me as well. You are acting like a neo-con, and you don't wear it well.

  For your edification, "ology" is a suffix which variously means "field of study, branch of science, or branch of learning." A climate researcher is a climatologist, and this moniker would apply to Dr. Jones. His opinion would be weighted by me to a greater or lesser degree by his experience and scholastic background, which is why I am seeking his bio sketch.

  AuldSoul
• 

  SixofNine

  I'm going to try and reply in one long post, to keep from confusing myself, lol.

  Before I do however, I'd really love to get a comment from you on this earlier post:

  whereas historically concentrations of greenhouse gasses shows no correlation whatsoever to global temperature shifts...

  I know Dan. It's stunning, the amount of conviction that comes thru in a sentence like that; a sentence that, if it was true, would effectively put an end to all debate about anthropogenic global warming.

  If your statement is true, then how is that we are even having this debate? Are scientist just largely a bunch of fukwing morons? Because honestly, only a forkding moron would argue for ghg caused global warming if "historically concentrations of greenhouse gasses shows no correlation whatsoever to global temperature shifts..." were true.
• 

  AuldSoul

  If you will note the context of your partial quote, you will find that I was stressing the results of a specific person. Not the results of my work.

  Historically, over a period much MUCH longer than 200,000 years, CO2 level and the levels of other ghg's show no direct correlation to surface temperatures, according to the research of Dr. Patterson and others.

  I look forward to your long post. I truly hope you don't take liberties with the English language as much as Limbaugh and your previous posts on this thread have done. I was in good faith counting on the Telegraph not to make such a huge error in editing, but I have confirmed that the source of the latter half was indeed the viewpoint of David Bellamy and not Dr. Jones.

  Thank you for the correction. Now, anytime you would like to list your scientists I will be happy to review their credentials, since as you posted that is what determines whether their viewpoint has merit. I am the only one who can possibly form my opinions, and, unfortunately for you, I don't mind sharing them and defending them as though I believe they are valid opinions to hold. I say unfortunately because this reality leaves you with three options: (1) act like a three-year-old pitching a fit instead of rationally addressing the issue under discussion, or (2) rationally address the issue under discussion, or (3) ignore the thread if you don't have a defense for your opinions.

  I can't wait to see what you have to say about the topic ISSUE. If you pursue another personal rant against me, instead, I will request Administratorial intervention. I hope you have more meaningful things to write than waspish, sound bite sniping at your equal (a fellow poster on a DISCUSSION forum). But if not, c'est la vie.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  SixofNine

  If you will note the context of your partial quote, you will find that I was stressing the results of a specific person. Not the results of my work.

  Historically, over a period much MUCH longer than 200,000 years, CO2 level and the levels of other ghg's show no direct correlation to surface temperatures, according to the research of Dr. Patterson and others.

  I understand that you believe that, and that you believe that to represent Dr. Patterson's position. I really am curious though as to your thoughts on what I asked you; "if your statement is true, how is it that we are even having this debate?". Are scientist really that clueless?

  I notice you injected "over a period much MUCH longer than 200,000 years," into the statement this time. Are you saying that looking at a <200,000 year window, C02 levels DO show a direct correlation to surface temperatures?

  You previously said it was "silly" to look at the past 100-200 years as any sort of barometer (paraphrased acurately I hope). Given that mankind has only been measurably affecting ghg levels in the past 100 years or so, isn't a "current to 200,000" year window not silly at all, but rather far more relevant than less solid data about what was going on 4.5 million years ago?
• 

  AuldSoul

  Good question, SixofNine!

  The 200,000 year window is derived much the same way as the 4.5 million year window. Not from recorded temperature measurements. What difference would it make, if any, how far back you go? If there is an ACTUAL direct correlation between the two phenomenon, should you ever reach a point within the past 4.5 million years when the two diverge? The answer is an obvious one. What makes data 200,000 years old reliable and data 4.5 million years old unreliable? Wishful thinking? Certainty of position? What?

  Now, you seem to assume that a small window that shows some apparent correlation is better and more accurate than a large window (of the same exact data source) that shows no direct correlation over a very long time span. I ask you, since CO2 was singled out on the chart, how did the other ghgs match up in the 200,000 and 160,000 year windows? There is an entire spectrum of gasses identified as contributors to global warming, how do their concentrations stack up?

  As I said, I used to be HUGE into promoting the reduction in waste, reduction in emmissions, etc. If you want to look at a low long-term cost, quick way to acheive relative stability in the total amount of above ground (already extracted) carbon, check out the thermal depolymerization process funded by ConAgra. It still operates at a loss at the Butterball turkey plant in Carthage, Missouri, but it is not nearly as expensive as disposal would have been and produces a grade 2 to grade 4 light crude oil. That is nearly kerosene! And it is in a much cleaner state for further refining than most barreled light crudes.

  I started asking specific questions about the Global Warming phenomenon that was clearly occurring, and the answers I got were not only short of specific, they were shady, shifty, misleading, and full of the language of possibilities I have learned to smell a mile off (thanks to the Society). I know for sure you haven't dug on this issue. I know because of how sure you are.

  I am not sure. And I said so. I am NOT a disbeliever, I am a self-confessed agnostic on this issue. I converted from near-religious certainty that the ghgs were the cause of Global Warming to agnosticism on the issue. I am totally open to the possibility of changing my position, but I wouldn't have the position I have if I doubted that I had a basis for it—so obviously I argue from the standpoint of one who has a strong opinion...I have strong opinions of lots of things, and I defend them. That is not deceit nor is it closed-mindedness, that is having a spine and using it.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  DanTheMan

  Auldsoul, you asked me for the name of a reputable climatologist who supported my view. I think that Chief Climate Scientist for NASA is pretty damn sufficient, regardless of your attempt to poison the well.

  I would love to know who authored the chart

  I think that it goes back to the NASA website, beyond that I'm not sure. But, again, are you saying that it's not accurate?