This thread is funny for a number of reasons, most I will keep to myself. However, it is interesting how the pro-global warming persons seem to immediately disregard and attack the motives of the anti-global warming persons. The pros remind me of how the Dubs attempt to win arguments. Say something with enough bluster, and you will win, right?
I am not trying to pick on XJW4EVER on this, but merely post his comment to point out the straw man that is being constructed of people like myself, BA and others.
STOP TAKING WHAT WE SAY OUT OF CONTEXT!!!
It is not at all fair to call this debate that has evolved by either "Pro Global Warming" and "Anti Global warming" (or the "Denyers") As far as I can see those who have posted here virtually all agree that the earths temperature is rising, thus global warming during this interglacial is a fact that is hard to dispute. The simple truth is that since we are not in an Ice Age at present that we are either ascending (warming) or descending (cooling) in what is commonly called an Inter Glacial period.
What is disputed is the causality of the warming. One camp insists on dwelling on the human component. Do humans have an impact on the environment, YES. That is impossible to deny.
Does this impact or footprint play a role in the warming trend that we are observing? Possibly! So let's apply the scientific method to that hypothesis!
No "we" do not deny Global Warming, but merely contest that Global warming is caused by CO2 levels (at all, in part or let alone just those emitted by mankind)
How much of an impact (scientifically proved) are we having on earths temperature rise and what are the fundamental contributors? CO2 emissions? How can we go all in on this poker hand without due process or shall we say - proof? Scientific data shows that rising CO2 levels have never preceded warming trends but rather have followed in the wake of warming trends. In fact many ancient periods of cooling either resulted from or merely follow increased or increasing CO2 levels.
It is quite simply like going to a mechanic with an overheating engine and he pops his head out from under the hood and says, "you need a bottom end rebuild that will cost $4500". You ask him how he came to that conclusion and he tells you "I can just tell by lookin at her". Unsatisfied with his explanation you go to another mechanic and he replaces the thermostat and gives you a bill for $85 and your problem goes away.
I am not saying there is a solution that will make global warming go away like changing a thermostat, but are we all so stupid that we want our governments to spend billions of dollars of our tax money (we are the ones paying the bill when governments implement policy I hope we are all in agreement on that one) rebuilding the bottom end of our global economy only to find out that it was the Thermostat after all?!!
One outspoken and equally characterized Canadian Scientist (Tim Ball) has faced the same narrow minded criticisms of his comments. He has never denied that we are in a warming trend but has actually pointed it out over his extensive career (he is now retired), in fact his biggest opposer David Suzuki (self proclaimed naturalist and TV personality in Canada) has himself changed the debate from that of Global Warming to his present position which is simply "Climate Change". So who is denying Global Warming here? People who have adopted the new speak on the issue are positioned to be correct no matter what happens to the global temperature or weather picture. It is like the weatherman on Channel 5 saying "next week we are going to see weather each of the 5 days of our 5 day forecast". That is not a position at all and neither is the one being taken by the supporters of Kyoto who have adopted this new hedged bet!
Dr Tim Ball: I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Likewise those who are skeptical about the emotional and sensational conclusions being put forward are accused of not caring about the environment, natural resource waste and mismanagement and a host of other environmental claims. That is just not true. For example this Dr Timothy Ball has been assassinated as not caring for our environment, being in bed with the oil companies and the usually ad hom attacks. Note his resume as it pertains to the environment:
Dr Tim BallChairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a renowned environmental consultant and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development.
His other work in such areas as water resources, sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics will be invaluable as NRSP tackles other issues starting later in 2007.
Al Gores $20,000,000 documentary has not been well received by scientists. Note what some have said:
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that (Al Gore's) propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans.
a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years,"
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Dr Tim Ball In April 2006 sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canadian Prime Minister (Steven) Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand: ”I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands have fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific.”
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden: “We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry if applied properly.”
Richard Lindzen's an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans.
Misleading statistics in Al Gores Documentary:
Al Gore "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap."
Dr Tim Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Does that seem scientific?
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, comments on Gore’s belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes: “Gore is completely wrong here - malaria has been documented at an altitude 2500 m - Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1500 m. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the “30 so called new diseases” Gore references are attributable to global warming, none.”
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Manager, Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada: “Our information is that 7 of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world’s estimated total) are either stable, or increasing …. Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change. No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has.”
Statistics Lie and Liars use statistic!?
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: “Mr. Gore suggests that Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new ice age is just around the corner.”
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California: “The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling. … Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all.”
Dr. R. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia: “Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than 1 degree C since 1950. And the area of sea-ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years.”
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Colombia, Canada comments on Gore’s belief that the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) is an “invasive exotic species” that has become a plague due to fewer days of frost: “The MPB is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”
There is simply too much more Science to post here!
Lastly does anyone think that what is most likely the cause of the debate is a mostly bible thumping Apocalyptic majority who basically believe that God created the earth in 6 days and a doomsday catastrophe is inevitable? Is it easier to believe the sky is falling than to part with cherished beliefs that do not include much love for the science community or the existence of Ice Ages and continental drift?
Just a thought
Frank75
, Makiko Sato * , 
, Reto Ruedy * , Andrew Lacis * , and Valdar Oinas * , §