Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

[pbman]

To clear things up a bit...


The whole petition sounds really dodgy

Nice try.

They were freeped a bit, by you guys when they first started.

But try and keep up, your source is from 1998.

They have vearified most of the names and cleaned up the list.

Because of various criticisms made of the two (Click link for more info and facts about Leipzig Declaration) Leipzig Declarations, the Oregon Petition Project adopted a number of measures to meet such criticisms:
The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not ((computer science) a system of world-wide electronic communication in which a computer user can compose a message at one terminal that is generated at the recipient's terminal when he logs in) electronic mail.
Signatories to the petition were requested to list an (An award conferred by a college or university signifying that the recipient has satisfactorily completed a course of study) academic degree; 86% did list a degree, of which approximately two thirds held higher degrees.
Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline; 13% were trained in physical or environmental sciences ( (The science of matter and energy and their interactions) physics, (Geology that uses physical principles to study properties of the earth) geophysics, (Meteorology of climates and their phenomena) climatology, (The earth science dealing with phenomena of the atmosphere (especially weather)) meteorology, (The branch of science dealing with physical and biological aspects of the oceans) oceanography, or (The branch of biology concerned with the relations between organisms and their environment) environmental science) while 25% were trained in (The science of matter; the branch of the natural sciences dealing with the composition of substances and their properties and reactions) chemistry, (The organic chemistry of compounds and processes occuring in organisms; the effort to understand biology within the context of chemistry) biochemistry, (The science that studies living organisms) biology, or other (Any of the branches of natural science dealing with the structure and behavior of living organisms) life sciences.
The Petition Project avoided any funding or association with the (Click link for more info and facts about energy industries) energy industries, and had no staff with any such association.
Signatories' identities and qualifications were to be subject to independent (A methodical examination or review of a condition or situation) auditing; as at 2001, just over 90% of signatories were said to have been independently verified.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/o/or/oregon_petition.htm

 

[pbman]

This is interesting.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was an unusually warm period in history lasting from about the (Click link for more info and facts about 10th century) 10th century to about the (Click link for more info and facts about 14th century) 14th century.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/me/medieval_warm_period.htm

Anyone care to guess what the temperature was then compared to today?

 

[nino_savatte]

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

Except Chrition.

He has his own money.

And he's a liberal environmentalist.

Please make up your mind who it is you are referring to. Is it Crichton or some other loon called "Chrition"?

 

[nino_savatte]

This is interesting.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was an unusually warm period in history lasting from about the (Click link for more info and facts about 10th century) 10th century to about the (Click link for more info and facts about 14th century) 14th century.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/me/medieval_warm_period.htm

Anyone care to guess what the temperature was then compared to today?

Do you still deny the work of the OISM is funded by the oil and auto industries?

 

[bigfish]

Do you still deny the work of the OISM is funded by the oil and auto industries?

What about Campbell and Leherrere and the "peak oil" myth? These two darlings of the Greenshirt doomsday mob are funded by the oil industry too, you know.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Colin_J._Campbell

 

[aurora green]

Is there anybody who doesn't think that oil is a finite resource?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Is there anybody who doesn't think that oil is a finite resource?

Erm... Bigfish?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Certainly a lot more people than Campbell, Laherre and Ivanhoe think that a peak will inevitably occur.

They are unusual in predicting an early peak, but only those people who follow the strong abiotic thesis or expect the last judgment to occur in the nearish future don't think there will be a peak at all.

 

[Jo/Joe]

pbman, my regular global warming question to you, still unanswered - how much greenhouse gas would we have to release through human activity to have an adverse effect?


How relevant is Michael Crichton? Should we place his opinions above all others? Should we fear the return of dinosaurs too? And how do medieval climates relate to the present? I understand this is your favourite period of history, what with it providing you with your belief system, but help us out. We know the earth's temperature has not been constant for 5 billion years, what's your point?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Talking of SourceWatch. Here's their page on the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

 

[Bernie Gunther]

OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:

"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.

Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot. [5]

(source above) Evidently their patrons are generous.

 

[bigfish]

... how much greenhouse gas would we have to release through human activity to have an adverse effect?

Quite a bit I expect, bearing in mind that CO2 levels in the Cenozoic period are known to have been 5 times what they are today. The Cenozoic is the period in the evolution of our planet which gave rise to our mammalian ancestors.

By the way, CO2 is not a 'pollutant', but rather a natural atmospheric constituent and vital plant food.

How relevant is Michael Crichton?

Crichton, speaking not as a climate scientist but as an anthropologist, has made the point rather well in my view that that certain human social structures continually reappear and that one of those structures is religion. He goes on to note that one of the most powerful religions in the Western World today is something called "environmentalism"... "the religion of choice for urban atheists."

Off course, all the climate doomsday mob can do is contrive to ignore the anthropological context so they can then pillory him instead for not being an 'expert' on "climate change" like all of them.

Personally, I think Crichton is on to something quite important and should not be so lightly dismissed.

 

[Jo/Joe]

By the way, CO2 is not a 'pollutant', but rather a natural atmospheric constituent and vital plant food.

Who said otherwise?

We don't know is the answer to the question I asked pbman. Especially since small effects can have larger consequences.

Pb is using Crichton to bash global warming (as in 'even Crichton doesn't believe in it'). It's his back up plan when he's run out of arguments.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Personally, I think Crichton is on to something quite important and should not be so lightly dismissed.

As a cultural observation, that's not without interest. Related criticisms have been levelled at the "Deep Greens" by social ecologists and similar pragmatic environmentalists.

That's culture though. It doesn't change the science.

 

[pbman]

Do you still deny the work of the OISM is funded by the oil and auto industries?

You hav't presented any proof of were they get their money.

I bet its mostly small donations, from scientists who are/were outraged by the dodgy sceince and the blatant politics of the IPPC............

 

[pbman]

What about Campbell and Leherrere and the "peak oil" myth? These two darlings of the Greenshirt doomsday mob are funded by the oil industry too, you know.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Colin_J._Campbell

A friend of mine in the oil buisness told me that offshore california, and the eastern gulf are off linmits to drilling and have the potential of equaling saudi arabia. Hell they have never even done, any sismic to speak of. In california it seapes out of the ground naturaly and washes up on the beach. And then the dumbass hippies, blame that on the oil companies......

 

[bigfish]

... That's culture though. It doesn't change the science.

I've witnessed, first hand, how you and the rest of the doomsday mob handle science, when I reproduced the findings of Sir Robert Robinson, a Nobel Laureate and member of the Royal Society, who made detailed studies of natural petroleum and concluded: Actually it cannot be too strongly emphasized that petroleum does not present the composition picture expected from modified biogenic products, and all the arguments from the constituents of ancient oils fit equally well, or better, with the conception of a primordial hydrocarbon mixture to which bio-products have been added.

Tell me BG, are you a Nobel laureate by any chance?

Or what about the Russian Academician Vladimir B. Porfir’yev, senior petroleum exploration geologist for the U.S.S.R., who informs that: The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.

Or even, Professor Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, who tells us that: Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration.

And finally what about the papers I've presented which show quite clearly that methane can be synethized in laboratory conditions which mimic the thermodynamic regime of the earth's mantle?

I'm still waiting for you and the rest of the gang to divi-up a single peer reviewed paper that shows the same for your own preferred 18th century squashed fish hypothesis.

Cue: a fusillade of vacuous narrative as a mediocre substitute for hard scientific evidence.

 

[bigfish]

A friend of mine in the oil buisness told me that offshore california, and the eastern gulf are off linmits to drilling and have the potential of equaling saudi arabia. Hell they have never even done, any sismic to speak of. In california it seapes out of the ground naturaly and washes up on the beach. And then the dumbass hippies, blame that on the oil companies......

Yes, I'm hearing similar stuff myself from people who work in the oil industry. if you look at maps plotting oil wells in any given region, the first thing you notice is that they follow the line of deep tectonic faults. This is true for california where huge reserves of oil can still be found either side of the San Andreas fault. Off shore exploration and deep drilling will undoubtedly produce enormous quantities of petroleumfor mankind in the future... if you can get past the Greenshirts that is who would rather wind the clock back to feudal times when humanity scratched a living of the land and generally died aged 35.

​

 

[bigfish]

We don't know is the answer to the question I asked pbman. Especially since small effects can have larger consequences.

But what we do know is that CO2 levels during the Cenozoic were 5 times what they are today. We also know that mammals (from which we are all descended) thrived and multiplied in this period of the planet's evolution and were not wiped out by the catastrophic event of the polar ice caps melting.

Pb is using Crichton to bash global warming (as in 'even Crichton doesn't believe in it'). It's his back up plan when he's run out of arguments.

But Crichton is standing up to the doomsday mob quite forcefully... and quite eloquently, in my opinion. He is a scientifically trained anthropologist and medical doctor, not to mention a successful best selling novelist, who by dint of this fact is not beholden to any vested interests, as far as I am able to ascertain. The only people trying to rubbishing Crichton are... well, you guys. and that's because you haven't got any real arguments, only blather.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

But what we do know is that CO2 levels during the Cenozoic were 5 times what they are today. We also know that mammals (from which we are all descended) thrived and multiplied in this period of the planet's evolution and were not wiped out by the catastrophic event of the polar ice caps melting.



But Crichton is standing up to the doomsday mob quite forcefully... and quite eloquently, in my opinion. He is a scientifically trained anthropologist and medical doctor, not to mention a successful best selling novelist, who by dint of this fact is not beholden to any vested interests, as far as I am able to ascertain. The only people trying to rubbishing Crichton are... well, you guys. and that's because you haven't got any real arguments, only blather.

Training =! knowledge.

He's able to cut a person open and remove an apendix, or tell you why religion is the opiate of the masses, he can't tell you how the mathematics for weather modeling works. He's not qualified, the fact he writes good fiction should tell you how persuasive he can be when talking shite.

 

[bigfish]

Man-made greenhouse gases saved world from big freeze

RHIANNON EDWARD
The Scotsman
HUMANS may have unwittingly saved themselves from a looming ice age by interfering with the Earth’s climate, according to a new study.

The findings from a team of American climate experts suggest that were it not for greenhouse gases produced by humans, the world would be well on the way to a frozen Armageddon.

Scientists have traditionally viewed the relative stability of the Earth’s climate since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago as being due to natural causes.

But there is evidence that changes in solar radiation and greenhouse gas concentrations should have driven the Earth towards glacial conditions over the last few thousand years.

What stopped it has been the activity of humans, both ancient and modern, argue the scientists.

Over the last 8,000 years carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have gradually risen, when previous trends indicated that it should have dropped. Methane, another greenhouse gas, had also increased instead of falling.

The unexpected trends could be explained by massive early deforestation in Eurasia, rice farming in Asia, the introduction of livestock, and the burning of wood and plant material, all of which led to an outpouring of greenhouse emissions.

The research was carried out by an American team , led by William Ruddiman from the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who used a climate model to test what would happen if these greenhouse gases were reduced to their "natural" level.

They wrote in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews: "In the absence of anthropogenic contributions, global climate is almost 2C cooler than today and roughly one third of the way toward full glacial temperatures."

Backing this up, the research showed that without the human contribution to global warming, Baffin Island would today be in a condition of "incipient glaciation".

Dr Benny Peiser, from Liverpool’s John Moores University, said: "Instead of driving us to the brink of disaster, human intervention will be seen as vital activities that have unintentionally delayed the onset of a catastrophic ice age."

 

[bigfish]

Training =! knowledge.

He's able to cut a person open and remove an apendix, or tell you why religion is the opiate of the masses, he can't tell you how the mathematics for weather modeling works. He's not qualified...

So how does the mathematics for weather modeling work then bob?

Any idea?

 

[pbman]

Training =! knowledge.

He's able to cut a person open and remove an apendix, or tell you why religion is the opiate of the masses, he can't tell you how the mathematics for weather modeling works. He's not qualified, the fact he writes good fiction should tell you how persuasive he can be when talking shite.

You just admited that no one in your country is qualified to evaluade any of the science involved in global warming except, those who are paid to be alarmests.

No wonder your F-ed.

You blindly follow, and shout down anyone who questions you, without understanding it yourself.

 

[pbman]

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2003/09sep/gulf.cfm

According to the MMS the undiscovered resource assessment is approximately:

For the western Gulf of Mexico, 37 billion barrels of oil equivalent.
For the central Gulf, over 92 billion BOE.
For the eastern Gulf, about nine billion BOE.

Don't forget the huge potentintial in the Gulf of Mexico bigfish.

 

[bigfish]

The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago

http://cires.colorado.edu/events/lectures/ruddiman/

William Ruddiman

Professor Emeritus
Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia

The anthropogenic era is generally thought to have begun 150 to 200 years ago, when the industrial revolution began producing CO2 and CH4 at rates sufficient to alter their compositions in the atmosphere. A different hypothesis is posed here: anthropogenic emissions of these gases first altered atmospheric concentrations thousands of years ago. This hypothesis is based on three arguments. (1) Cyclic variations in CO2 and CH4 driven by Earth-orbital changes during the last 350,000 years predict decreases throughout the Holocene, but the CO2 trend began an anomalous increase 8000 years ago, and the CH4 trend did so 5000 years ago. (2) Published explanations for these mid- to late-Holocene gas increases based on natural forcing can be rejected based on paleoclimatic evidence. (3) A wide array of archeological, cultural, historical and geologic evidence points to viable explanations tied to anthropogenic changes resulting from early agriculture in Eurasia, including the start of forest clearance by 8000 years ago and of rice irrigation by 5000 years ago. In recent millennia, the estimated warming caused by these early gas emissions reached a global-mean value of ~0.8oC and roughly 2oC at high latitudes, large enough to have stopped the initial stages of a glaciation of northeastern Canada predicted by two kinds of climatic models.

CO2 oscillations of 5-10 ppm during the last 2000 years are too large to be explained by external (solar-volcanic) forcing, but they can be explained by pandemics that afflicted western Eurasia and the Americas. The pandemics led to forest regrowth on abandoned farms, and they reduced carbon emissions from ongoing deforestation. The disease-driven CO2 changes were a significant factor contributing to temperature changes during the Little Ice Age (1300-1900 AD)

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So how does the mathematics for weather modeling work then bob?

Any idea?

http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~hve/MAS209/

http://www.math.ufl.edu/help/matlab-tutorial/

If you've done either of those i'd be shocked, but it doesn't take an expert to recognise someone who doesn't have any qulaifications in a subject. There is nothing you've said to imply he is capable of analysing the physics and the maths behind the models.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You just admited that no one in your country is qualified to evaluade any of the science involved in global warming except, those who are paid to be alarmests.

No wonder your F-ed.

You blindly follow, and shout down anyone who questions you, without understanding it yourself.

You don't have any more maths than a 15 year old who's just passed his GCSEs (equivalent to your High school exams) so why don't you worry about your own lack of knowledge.

 

[pbman]

You don't have any more maths than a 15 year old who's just passed his GCSEs (equivalent to your High school exams) so why don't you worry about your own lack of knowledge.

I passed college calculus .

I'm only about 20 credits short of a degree.

 

[bigfish]

http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~hve/MAS209/

http://www.math.ufl.edu/help/matlab-tutorial/

If you've done either of those i'd be shocked, but it doesn't take an expert to recognise someone who doesn't have any qulaifications in a subject. There is nothing you've said to imply he is capable of analysing the physics and the maths behind the models.

Myself and I would think every literate person contributing to this thread, apart from you, can see quite clearly that nowhere am I implying that he is capable of analysing the physics and the maths behind the models. Chrichton value to this discussion comes from his anthropological observations not his mathematical prowess.

I'm becoming more and more fearful that you're going to flunk your exams, you know bob.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Myself and I would think every literate person contributing to this thread, apart from you, can see quite clearly that nowhere am I implying that he is capable of analysing the physics and the maths behind the models. Chrichton value to this discussion comes from his anthropological observations not his mathematical prowess.

I'm becoming more and more fearful that you're going to flunk your exams, you know bob.

So he's not capable or qualified to tell us if the science is good then. That's all i needed to hear. As for my exams, i'll worry about them, you keep on going about how the guy who shot JFK is after you now truthseeker!