Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

[pbman]

I'm sure peebs thought a "visiting lectureship" was some kind of important post rather than (as it often is, especially with Oxbridge) part of an inter-institutional mutual backscratching system.

Now if it had been a visiting professorship I might have pretended to be impressed!

ARe you trying to pretend, they invite any old idiot?

 

[pbman]

Or you could make millions finding oil...

Geoplogists don't get anymore than their regular pay when they find oil.

You don't really have a clue how things work in the real wold do you?

 

[pbman]

Put the pipe down.



And he's done really well, made an absolute fortune. I haven't read this book, but I did read Swarm... now it has some interesting ideas... but science it is not. If you use Michael Crichton as your source, you have already lost.
.

And if you ignore his popularity with the masses you will loose as well.

Liberal masses as well as conservative, since he is a liberal.

He's an extreamly sharp man, as his success and his medical degree proves, and he resurched the issue, with his own paid experts to help him, the same as with the other books he wrote.

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1521.htm

As you can see his point is greater than global warming, thats just his example of the real problem he is talking about. And its a problem you guys pretend to be familer with.

 

[pbman]

Perhaps you could tell me exactly how any of this, qualifies him as an expert on climate change?

No one in the world has advanced degree's in all the fileds relatd to global warming.

Not one person. So they all study small parts of it.

And this allows them to ignore evidence that dosen't fit their alarmest theorys.

And thats not some dodgy computer model predicting the future, like the global warming alarmest rely on. That graph is a direct correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. One that shouyld be extreamly obviouse proof, that the sun controls global temperatures far more than anything else.

 

[pbman]

Here's a little background on solar activity, that you wouldn't see in the baised press.

Space Weather is a modern phrase for the conditions in space that are deterimined by the intensity of hard radiation, the magnitude of electric and magnetic fields, the level of electric currents, and other disturbances. Space "storms" often result from flare or coronal mass ejection events at the Sun which greatly intensify the solar wind. With a delay of a few days such disturbances may impact the near Earth environment.
Space weather conditions are extremely important for the behaviour of satellites and space probes. Radiation damage from high energy particles may destroy the solar panels, cause upsets in the onboard computer systems, and may sometimes cause destructive sparking in space instruments. The atmosphere can get heated and expand to cause satellite braking and subsequent re-entering.
Space weather conditions may also affect systems at ground. During geomagnetic storms with brilliant auroras in the polar regions, currents of millions of amps may flow in the upper atmosphere at heights around 100 km. These currents induce secondary electric fields and currents at ground level, for instance, in high-voltage power lines, where they may cause failure in line protection relays and damage to transformers resulting in power outages over large regions. Extended telephone lines and other signal lines may also be disturbed and damaged. Even steel pipe-lines carrying oil and gas from fields in the arctic regions to consumers south of the auroral zone are damaged by the corrosive effects of such Geomagnetically Induced Currents (GIC).
The Solar-Terrestrial Division of DMI conducts observations in the auroral and polar regions of magnetic disturbances and precipitation of high-energy radiation. The division is also active in the Oersted satellite project. These observations are used for monitoring of actual space weather conditions and for research in space weather effects. Data and results are, among others, exchanged via this web site.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/

How the global warming alarmenst ignore such things is complety beyond me. Changes in "space weather" would have to change the earths weather.



This is what "space weather" looks like when it hits the earth.

And clearly it does affect the atmostpher.

 

[pbman]

I'm having trouble downloading pdfs' at the moment (computer is causing me big headaches) dont want to appear like I'm ignoring vital links though...

No we wouldn't want that.

 

[Graymalkin]

See pbman this graph you posted shows how dishonest you are in your presentation of evidence. The website you took that from isn't even about climate change, rather it's a resource about the sun for educators and primary and secondary school students. All it has on global warming (found here) is a guide for personal research and a list of links for further research which includes a reference to the paper that that graph is published in.

You fail to tell us that listed in that set of links is a press release from the University of Arizona about a study showing that solar forcing can only account for 40% of the global temperature rise in the 20th century and can't explain the particularily high temperatures we've had in the last few decades.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm still chuckling over the idea that climate scientists lives are an endless round of five star hotels where they bask in the tropical sun (in Exeter?) surrounded by flashy cars and beautiful arrogant women in expensive hats, while the climate contrarians shiver and starve in their pathetic garrets and can survive only by dumpster diving etc.

The use of this tiny group of "skeptics" became clear in the spring of 1995 when they were forced to disclose for the first time under oath how much funding they had received from industry sources. The disclosures came during a utility hearing in St. Paul, Minnesota.

source

It makes interesting reading, and offers figures for some of the most prominent climate change contrarians. Singer, Balling and Michaels each received sums totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars from assorted oil companies, mining companies, far-right think tanks and in Singer's case, also the Rev Sun Myung Moon.

more details here including the references to follow up if you're so inclined.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

To clarify the relative impacts of solar variability on radiative forcing, this graph may prove useful. As you can see, solar variability is taken into account by climate science and appears to have a significant, but not conclusive role.

 

[nino_savatte]

ARe you trying to pretend, they invite any old idiot?

Are you familiar with what a "visiting lecturer" does?

 

[nino_savatte]

A couple of relevant questions for peebs: Are you a climatologist? Are you a scientist of any description? I'm neither but you try to present yourself as both knowledgeable and expert in these areas. All I've ever seen you do on threads like this is post up propaganda and disinformation; or research that has been funded by the automobile industry.

 

[aurora green]

No we wouldn't want that.

You can roll eyes all you want, but I wish you'd follow some other peoples links.

Your own always seem to be from the same few people, who are easily discreditable.

 

[ViolentPanda]

ARe you trying to pretend, they invite any old idiot?

I'm not "trying to pretend" anything, so don't try to put words in my mouth, okay?

I'm saying that any of Crichton's peers who applied for a place on a postgrad student exchange programme and had suitable grades could have been given a "visiting lectureship" (otherwise known as attemptng to teach snotty undergrads), whereas you appear to believe that a "visiting lectureship" is a singular mark of Crichton's brilliance.

Get real.

 

[pbman]

You can roll eyes all you want, but I wish you'd follow some other peoples links.
.

And i wish people whould read mine.

 

[pbman]

See pbman this graph you posted shows how dishonest you are in your presentation of evidence. The website you took that from isn't even about climate change, rather it's a resource about the sun for educators and primary and secondary school students. QUOTE]

Of course, i wanted to teach you guys the basics, since you same to be complety obliviouse.

But that chart is correct their is a corilation between solar activity and the earths temp, and that is the original topic of this thread.

You fail to tell us that listed in that set of links is a press release from the University of Arizona about a study showing that solar forcing can only account for 40% of the global temperature rise in the 20th century and can't explain the particularily high temperatures we've had in the last few decades.

40 % is a damn good start, how many people here on urban knows that at least 40% is due to normal solar activity?

I'd say only one of us.

Now if you need a "globallwarming site" and can't process that basic science fact wtih out it,here you go.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/


And here is a artical in an astronomy magazine, that will help you out.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.

"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.

I guess your baised left wing press, never mentions these baisc facts of science.

Or shown photo's like this.

AS you can see those are significant changes,you going to try and blame them on us as well?

 

[pbman]

A couple of relevant questions for peebs: Are you a climatologist? Are you a scientist of any description? I'm neither but you try to present yourself as both knowledgeable and expert in these areas. All I've ever seen you do on threads like this is post up propaganda and disinformation; or research that has been funded by the automobile industry.

Like i've said, by brother is a Geophysist., who has worked on/with computer modeling since the late 80's, i trust his judgment, and i trust him not to lie to me. Anyways, all of us, have to decitions on things like this that we are not trined on, so we can vote and such.........

Anyways that was CRICHTON point, i'm glad to see you agree, that it is a problem.

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

Here's a few other nice quotes from his comonwealth speach.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

And since he is an anthropolgist, that is in his area, of training.

 

[aurora green]

Now if you need a "globallwarming site" and can't process that basic science fact wtih out it,here you go.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/

But Pbman another look at sourcewatch and indeed Bernie Gunthers' link reveals the editor of that site is funded by coal and Exon oil (yet again)

Michaels has written papers claiming that satellite temperature data shows no global warming trend. But he got this result by cutting the data off after 1996. (Every year after 1996 the satellite measurement showed warming)...

Bad science, no?

 

[pbman]

But Pbman another look at sourcewatch reveals the editor of that site is funded by coal and energy interests.

lol. it takes money to apose all the propganda from your side.

But your right enrgy companies have a vested interest in the truth getting out.

Just as the alarmest have a vested interest, in crying the sky is falling.

We have to do the hard work of looking at all the evidence, and thinking about it logicaly. Thats what CRICHTON said. And you guy have to realize the very real possibility that over reacting, will harm people in very real ways. If you spened tons of money and resources, on a non-existant problem, that is money that can't be spent on real problmes.

 

[pbman]

And honest people who stand up and speak are slapped down.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1612958,00.html

PROFESSOR David Bellamy is likely to lose his role as the figurehead of two leading wildlife organisations because of his refusal to believe in man-made global warming.

Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed,” he said.

He added: “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything. When I say that they say ‘You must be in the pay of the oil industry’. I’m not. I’m not in the pay of anybody.”

 

[aurora green]

And honest people who stand up and speak are slapped down.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1612958,00.html

Ahh...perhaps you have exhausted the (very small) supply of climate change skepics out there, well at least those funded by untrustworthy sources,
and get to our very own David Bellamy.

I agree with those who think he's gone slightly mad

 

[aurora green]

.... If you spened tons of money and resources, on a non-existant problem, that is money that can't be spent on real problmes.

Are you seriously suggesting that climate change is a non-existant problem?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you seriously suggesting that climate change is a non-existant problem?

Are you seriously suggesting that isn't what he believes?

 

[nino_savatte]

Like i've said, by brother is a Geophysist., who has worked on/with computer modeling since the late 80's, i trust his judgment, and i trust him not to lie to me. Anyways, all of us, have to decitions on things like this that we are not trined on, so we can vote and such.........

Anyways that was CRICHTON point, i'm glad to see you agree, that it is a problem.



Here's a few other nice quotes from his comonwealth speach.






And since he is an anthropolgist, that is in his area, of training.

What the hell are you babbling on about?

 

[nino_savatte]

lol. it takes money to apose all the propganda from your side.

But your right enrgy companies have a vested interest in the truth getting out.

Just as the alarmest have a vested interest, in crying the sky is falling.

We have to do the hard work of looking at all the evidence, and thinking about it logicaly. Thats what CRICHTON said. And you guy have to realize the very real possibility that over reacting, will harm people in very real ways. If you spened tons of money and resources, on a non-existant problem, that is money that can't be spent on real problmes.

So it's all down to information/propaganda is it? There may be propaganda but it is coming from the side of the auto industry/fossil fuel lobby. All you're doing is regurgitating this biased data as part of your efforts in the 'info' wars. But it's a phoney war, like the research data obtained by bought scientists and pseudo-scientists.

 

[pbman]

Are you seriously suggesting that climate change is a non-existant problem?

Since you guys don't actualy have a shred of proof.

Of course thats what resonable people think.

 

[pbman]

Ahh...perhaps you have exhausted the (very small) supply of climate change skepics out there, well at least those funded by untrustworthy sources,
mad

I see none of you are capable of checking the list yourselves.

Its all online even, so i'm shocked that this low rent propganda, is still being sold.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition of 1998, which claimed to have the signatures of 18,000 scientists, all disagreeing with global warming. The OISM, which is run from a remote shed in an Oregon wood by a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, was so lax about the names on its petition that they included Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox, according to PR

PhD, R Foster, MD, Randall Foster, Robert G Foster, Robt John Foster, PhD, Scott Foster, Stanley L Foster, Walter E Foster, PhD, Marilyn Fotheringham, William A Fotheringham, Daniel Foty, PhD, George Fournier, Chris Fountain, PhD, Doyle F Fouquet, Raymond A. Fournelle, PhD, Nancy Fournoy, PhD, James D Foust, PhD, Thomas Fowke, Elliott Fowkes, PhD, Dan Fowler, Eric B Fowler, PhD, Frank C Fowler, PhD, Gary D Fowler Jr, James Fowler, Jutta Fowler, Louis H Fowler, Mark Fowler, Mike Fowler, Grant R Fowles, PhD, Dwaine Fowlkes, Bennett R Fox, Corri Fox, David Wm Fox, PhD, Earl Fox, Forrest L Fox, G Sidney Fox, Gerald Fox, Irving H Fox, MD, J Fox, James M Fox, Joseph Fox, Michael R. Fox, PhD, Mike Fox, Neil S Fox, PhD, Philip Fox, Russell E Fox, PhD, James J Foy, PhD, Wade Foy, PhD, Stephen J Fraenkel, PhD, Walter J Frajola, PhD, David Fraley, PhD, Donald Frames, Roger Frampton, PhD, Matthew France, Lee Francis, R D

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p340.htm



You see any Michael J fox as your dodgy blog asserts?

No Ginger Spice either.

Robert R Speers, PhD, Steven Tremble Spees, PhD, John L Speier, PhD, Richard Speight, Philip Speir, Aaron B Speirs, Jim Spellman, Anna Spelman, Edward L Spence, PhD, Kemet Spence, PhD, William H Spence, PhD, Brian Spencer, C R Spencer, Charles Spencer, Daniel Spencer, Gordon R Spencer, Michael S Spencer, PhD, Thomas Spencer, William Spencer, MD, James P. Serber, Richard J Sperley, PhD, William J Spezzano, Charles L Spiegel, Firth Spiegel, MD, Frederick Spielgelberg, Earl Spieles, Lawrence Spielvogel, Felix A Spies, Andrew Spiessbach, PhD, Charles W Spieth, Leroy Spilde, PhD, D Erik Spiller, Leo H Spinar, PhD, Robert Joseph Spinard, PhD, Bill Spindler, Robert F Spink, Joel S Spira, James Spires, Marion E Spitler, A J Spitzer, Jan J Spitzer, PhD, John G Spitzley, Paul Spivey, WB Spivey, Gary A Splitter, PhD, D R Spodyak, Marie T Spoerlein, PhD, Norman P Spofford, Ralph J Spohn, PhD, Robert B Spokane, PhD, Arthur Spoo, Harry Spooner, Rock Spraggins, Douglas S Sprague, Lucian M Sprague, PhD, Richard Sprague, John Obert Spreiter, PhD, Alfred C Spreng, PhD, Robert Spriggs, Harry Spring, Robert C Springborn, PhD, Allan Springer, PhD, David T Springer, PhD, Robert H Springer, PhD, Timothy A Springer, PhD, Pete Springsteen, MD, Colette Sprinkel, Robert L Sprinkel Jr, James Kent Sprinkle, J C Sprtsbergen, PhD, G J Sprokel, PhD, Julien C Sprott, PhD, Mark W Sprouls, D Sprowl, PhD, Eve S Sprunt, PhD, Hugh Sprunt, Michael Spurlock, PhD, Richard K Spurlock, James P Spurrier, Edward J Spyhalski, Donald P Squier, PhD, Alexander Squire, Charles F Squire, PhD

Thats pathtic propganda, when all the name are online for anyone to check.

But i'm glad you brought it up, as we have 18,000 against a few hundred alarmests on your side.

 

[aurora green]

To clear things up a bit...

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

The whole petition sounds really dodgy

 

[nino_savatte]

We've been through this before peebs. The OISM is funded by the oil and auto industries and is therefore biased in favour of the status quo.

 

[ViolentPanda]

We've been through this before peebs. The OISM is funded by the oil and auto industries and is therefore biased in favour of the status quo.

So not only have they sold their scientific impartiality for a mess of potage, but they like crappy 1970s hard rock as well?

The bastards!!!

 

[pbman]

We've been through this before peebs. The OISM is funded by the oil and auto industries and is therefore biased in favour of the status quo.

Yes, and we all know everyone is funded by someone.

Except Chrition.

He has his own money.

And he's a liberal environmentalist.