NASA Shocker: Climate change might be caused by the Sun

posted at 12:19 am on March 21, 2007 by Bryan

Interesting stuff:

Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth’s climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun’s activity influence Earth’s long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past.

So, to shorten the story significantly, a couple of science teams cross-checked between two ancient data sources–one, Nile river records from ancient Egypt; and two, ancient European and Asian records of aurorae. The Nile records show patterns of flooding, which indicate climate change. The aurorae records show patterns of solar activity, since the lights are caused by the solar wind slamming into earth’s atmosphere. And the records reveal a thing or two about climate change:

The researchers found some clear links between the sun’s activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.

“Our results characterize not just a small region of the upper Nile, but a much more extended part of Africa,” said Ruzmaikin. “The Nile River provides drainage for approximately 10 percent of the African continent. Its two main sources – Lake Tana in Ethiopia and Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya – are in equatorial Africa. Since Africa’s climate is interrelated to climate variability in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, these findings help us better understand climate change on a global basis.”

So what causes these cyclical links between solar variability and the Nile? The authors suggest that variations in the sun’s ultraviolet energy cause adjustments in a climate pattern called the Northern Annular Mode, which affects climate in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. At sea level, this mode becomes the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale seesaw in atmospheric mass that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean. During periods of high solar activity, the North Atlantic Oscillation’s influence extends to the Indian Ocean. These adjustments may affect the distribution of air temperatures, which subsequently influence air circulation and rainfall at the Nile River’s sources in eastern equatorial Africa. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter.

The one phrase that never made its way into this story: “carbon footprint.” Because Ramses II didn’t have much of one, and even if his carbon footprint was bigger than the Goracle’s it wouldn’t have done diddly to the Sun’s output.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Bryan…Wait wait wait….let me get this right…the Sun might be the cause of environmental change? Riiiiggghhhttt…like the sun is more influential than Bon Jovi’s aquanet, or my Honda Civic non-hybrid 32 mpg guzzler. Bryan…I do believe you drank the kool-aid. It not only my fault, but the fault of every insensitive meat eater and (dare I say) Conservative!

Wait…you didn’t know? Democrats create no waste, and their carbon footprint is made of medium density tofu.

Sigh…

StoutRepublican on March 21, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Hmmm…an inconvenient tan?

Not surprising. I read an article about the amount of toxic waste spewed out by volcanoes (naturally occurring, of course) every year which has exceeded the toxic output of mankind since the dawn of the industrial age. I’d love to get my hands on that article again. Not sayin’ we aren’t wasteful to a degree, but we’re definitely NOT causing climate change – at least to any degree that scientists can actually agree on.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 12:28 AM

Quick MSM, dig, dig, dig… This needs to be buried by tomorrows news cycle.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 12:28 AM

And by the way, insinuating that the Sun could affect the climate is as ridiculous as saying that it makes sense, given that our heat comes from the sun in the first place… wait…..

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 12:29 AM

In a purely chemical sense Carbon = Bad for the Ozone.

Ozone = O3 (oxygen). O3 is broken up by the sun into O2 and O. The O2 and O recombine with each other at night when it is cooler. When more and more carbon are put into the atmosphere the carbon binds with the oxygen to form a very strong bond, now the O2 and O can’t recombine to form O3 and thus the Ozone is depleting.

And on the subject of the article it’s just pick who you want to believe. Some people who don’t believe in human-caused global warming will pick some scientists (truthfully a minority of scientists) and people who believe in human-caused global warming will pick some scientists (in the majority). Posting a report by one scientist doesn’t mean that it is true, it just means one scientist believes something. The overall scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 12:28 AM

No kidding. Even though it comes from NASA scientists, don’t expect this to be relayed by the MSM.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 12:32 AM

HAHAHAHAHA! You are falling for that old “the sun is important” trick. It is only seen 12 hours a day, our CO2 is there day and night. We are constantly adding to the destruction of the earth, every hour of every day.
Don’t believe the above story, they are in a state of de-nile.

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 12:33 AM

This is obviously a Karl Rove plan to distract us away from Alberto Gonzalez.

The sun has something to do with Global Warming. Now that’s very funny!!

Next thing you’ll tell us is that 9/11 wasn’t caused by the Neo-cons to control the oil throughout the world.

Really Brian, we’re not THAT stupid

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 12:33 AM

Some people who don’t believe in human-caused global warming will pick some scientists (truthfully a minority of scientists) and people who believe in human-caused global warming will pick some scientists (in the majority). Posting a report by one scientist doesn’t mean that it is true, it just means one scientist believes something. The overall scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming.
Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Hold off RW…I’ll bite this one.

So Nonfactor, where is your proof? What documentation do you have on the exact number of scientists who either agree or disagree with global warming science?

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 12:35 AM

And also note that the article isn’t about global warming; it’s a geological article about the Nile river and the science of the sun.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Hold off RW…I’ll bite this one.

So Nonfactor, where is your proof? What documentation do you have on the exact number of scientists who either agree or disagree with global warming science?

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Please, read the IPCC. Once you’ve finished you can come back and ask me all the questions you want.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Nonfactor
More CO2 is emitted by the ocean in one year than all the output of humanity since we found fire.

Go sell crazy some place else…

unamused on March 21, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Is the fact NASA is a little late to the game the same analogy as President Bush? What is it, “Don’t let facts and truth get in the way of the Left’s Spin and the MSM gulping of it?”

Hey Al Gore, how many credit do we need to counter this?

Al Gore, you are and IDIOT! Before you sell me that “humans” are causing “Global Warming”, stop the Earth from tilting into “Spring”, stop a volcano from erupting, stop “plate tectonics“, or stop termites and cows from farting……

“Houston, we have a problem, Al Gore just farted and he is all out of credits…………”

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 12:38 AM

Consensus =/= scientific fact. It’s just consensus until it’s overturned by better data. Which creates a new consensus, that eventually gets overturned by better data. And so on. Perhaps this story represents better data, since it goes farther back in time than the hockey stick hoax and takes into account data from widely dispersed parts of the world, perhaps it doesn’t. Time will tell.

Relying solely on consensus is an appeal to authority, which is a classically fallacious argument.

Bryan on March 21, 2007 at 12:39 AM

Relying solely on consensus is an appeal to authority, which is a classically fallacious argument.

Bryan on March 21, 2007 at 12:39 AM

Who said I’m relying solely on consensus? I just pointed out what the scientific consensus was. Evidence is produced if you read the IPCC.

It’s scientific consensus that the lithosphere moves on the asthenosphere to form earthquakes, but this isn’t to say that the scientific consensus isn’t backed up by evidence. It’s a scientific consensus because evidence backs it up.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Bryan et al,

One of the true problems is that Global Warming is a theory. I completely agree that a consensus is NOT scientific proof. If that were the case, there is “proof” that a God exists, just by the consensus that most people believe in God.

Are scientists willing to state beyond fact that Aliens (not the illegal) exist? Scientifically speaking, the odds are for it, aren’t they?

Consensus is NOT scientific fact. Just think, in another 30-50 years, where Global Warming could go.

Evolution “was” a theory until it was brought into the mainstream and now it’s “scientific law”.

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Evidence is produced if you read the IPCC.
Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Well why don’t you link us to it, Nonfactor? Some of us may not know of this “IPCC” of which you speak. We’d love to examine your evidence.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 12:48 AM

It’s a scientific consensus because evidence backs it up.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:42 AM

No…see, that’s the problem. Within the past 40 years or so, science seems to have taken a vacation. Evidence is used to “prove” a theory.

The problem nowadays is that scientists seem to be going in reverse. That is, they have a result and try to work backwards towards a theory vs. having a theory and finding the evidence for it!!

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 12:54 AM

Maybe James Cameron would be interested in this so he can claim to have disproved the religion of the left. It’s hard to believe that crap when my furnace keeps kicking on, reminding me how cold it still is.

Remember the “No Nukes” movement and movie from thirty years ago, about how nuclear power was going to kill us…didn’t.

My mom told me about the “Zero population growth” movement 50 years ago said we’d all be starving by now…I’m still stuffed from the Golden Corral.

Sorry, but in fifty years global warming will be forgotten like the above…if the sky doesn’t fall first.

Buck Turgidson on March 21, 2007 at 12:56 AM

I think NASA’s on Bush’s payroll.

aero on March 21, 2007 at 12:57 AM

The overall scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Dude….. Science is not a consensus….. it starts with a Hypothesis, then an experiment, then the results (documented), compared to the Hypothesis, proven or not.

Listen to me carefully, in EVERY NON-POLITICALLY CORRECT FORUM, where science was allowed to function, the SUN is the major cause of our warming and cooling cycle on this planet, (add in water vapor and termite and cow farts) as presently seen on other planets of this solar system, that does not have one SUV.

(Now, “Pollution” is a problem, just look at the Tijuana River that flows into San Diego with dead bodies, livestock, and needles, but we can’t blame Mexico, they are just like China and India, but pollution doesn’t cross a map line, does it?)

Can you explain why Venus and Mars (to be frank) are heating at the same rates as Earth and I don’t see a single gas station on them, do you?

Knowledge, Science, Facts….. the true enemies to the Eco-Facists.

No hit against you Nonfactor, if you would like to learn more about the topic, I would be more than happy to provide more sites……. education will set you free.

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 12:58 AM

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Evolution is still a theory, as is plate tectonics, as is universal gravitation, as is global warming. Does this mean they aren’t based in fact? No.

Well why don’t you link us to it, Nonfactor? Some of us may not know of this “IPCC” of which you speak. We’d love to examine your evidence.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 12:48 AM

http://www.ipcc.ch/ Should provide hours of fun.

The problem nowadays is that scientists seem to be going in reverse. That is, they have a result and try to work backwards towards a theory vs. having a theory and finding the evidence for it!!

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 12:54 AM

When did something like this happen in science?

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:58 AM

Posting a report by one scientist doesn’t mean that it is true, it just means one scientist believes something. The overall scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM

I love this “one scientist” stuff.. H&C scroll the names of MANY scientists throughout segments on the topic. There are at least 2 or 3 state climatologists in trouble and in jeopardy of losing their jobs for coming out against man made global warming. The former top climatologist in Canada doesn’t buy man made global warming. There are plenty.

You can talk IPCC all day long, but you should consider above all else that it’s the “InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel On Climate Change”… First of all, the set agenda is written in the name of the group, but more importantly it’s governmental and political. And if the “scientists” (much lower number than reported in the media, and of those who are actually scientists, many aren’t even involved in related fields). Note that these “scientists” need to keep the myth going or their funds dry up, and their jobs are in jeopardy. But be sure, some brave scientists are daring to speak out… Just this week a Danish scientist called it a myth, while a socialist French geochemist who 15 years ago signed the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” with “1500 prominent scientists” (sound familiar?), has reversed his position and now doesn’t buy man made global warming.

We’ve been over and over the science. I can’t believe you still think you’re going to convince anyone of anything NF.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 12:58 AM

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 12:48 AM

Well? We’re all waiting, Nonfactor. I believe the criteria pre-established from your prior posts on this blog is that all comments must be backed up by irrefutable, factual evidence. So…where is it?

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 12:59 AM

Relying solely on consensus is an appeal to authority, which is a classically fallacious argument

Absolutely right, Bryan.

The argument that consensus is a scientific practice is idiotic. Science deals in fact, or peer review and replication of theory and validation of experimentation.

Consensus is opinion. It’s like getting 50 idiots to agree that 2+2=5 and saying that it must be true.

Folks like Nonfactor love to quote politicians and career diplomats espousing science. Then cry foul when their one “expert” is held up to the light of day.

Cyclical solar activity and the effect on our average temperature is well documented.

Besides, my 7th grade daughter’s question baffles my global warming conspiracy pals. Her question is, how come the ice age ended if the earth didn’t get warmer. Not many SUV driving soccer moms around 70,000 years ago.

BacaDog on March 21, 2007 at 1:00 AM

Are scientists willing to state beyond fact that Aliens (not the illegal) exist? Scientifically speaking, the odds are for it, aren’t they?

Evolution “was” a theory until it was brought into the mainstream and now it’s “scientific law”.

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Evolution is not “scientific law”, even evolutionists don’t call it that. And by the way, it’s supporting “facts” are being knocked down one by one on a pretty much daily basis.

As for the odds of aliens, that’s ridiculous too, and based almost entirely on evolutionary assumptions. That said, it is revealed more and more ever day that we do have a unique spot in the universe, that our Sun is much less “ordinary” than they had previously thought, etc. etc.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 1:01 AM

With a straight face, Nonfactor

a) ignores the fact that the consensus 30 years ago on climate was that the earth is freezing, not warming;
b)attempts to separate climate change from global warming, even though the alarmists warn constantly that global warming will inevitably lead to climate change; and
c)asserts that changes in solar output would have a regional rather than global effect even though the data presented in this article comes from widely dispersed regions on the globe.

That’s comedy gold.

Bryan on March 21, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Got it Nonfactor, thanks! Lot’s of info, so point me to the area where a “majority” of scientists believe global warming is caused by humans?

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 1:03 AM

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM

So you are saying the IPCC is the end all. How many climatoligists signed on to the IPCC? It is already being debunked by some of the formost scientists in the world.

Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.

You mean this quote that has been disproved already?
Or this quote

Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures
averaged across the region.

Even they admit not much of a change, but wait…there is more.
I am assuming you are talking about the fourth assesment.

“Note that almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGO’s and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.”
Lindzen also questioned the postponement of the full report and cited numerous factual misrepresentations in the Summary, including one from a chapter he knew a little about:

‘The summary does not reflect the full document (which still has not been released although it was basically completed last August). For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments especially with clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized with the following sentence: “Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.”‘

Richar Lindzen, MIT professor and probably the most noted and respected climatologist in the world had those things to say about the IPCC.

Besides reading it won’t do much good, they are leaving out the stats that back up their reported findings. They want to make sure the stats are accurate. Don’t you think they would first make sure the stats are accurate, than write the report? We will have the background studies and facts in a few months.

That must make you feel real secure about the validity of the report.
I think if I were you I would stick with your first love, the one Gore uses, it is just as reliable…after all, if you believe what the IPCC is putting out, you will believe anything.

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 1:05 AM

In a related story, the scientific community has reached consensus that Mars has an advanced civlization that is addicted to oil to feed their internal combustion engines. It’s the only explanation that is consistant with the sea-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil PC crowd’s argument.

Coyote D. on March 21, 2007 at 1:10 AM

It’s hard to believe that crap when my furnace keeps kicking on, reminding me how cold it still is.
Buck Turgidson on March 21, 2007 at 12:56 AM

That’s ’cause you’re living in the previous theory of when the earth was “cooling”. Get with the times, dude!

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Evolution is still a theory, as is plate tectonics, as is universal gravitation, as is global warming. Does this mean they aren’t based in fact? No.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:58 AM

Please tell me you are smoking crack and are posting here just to bust our balls? Please, because if you believe that plate tectonics is not based on fact, then anything you have to post after this will be…….. well, based on your “Global Warming Theory”, well, idiotic, brainwashed, and insane… you have no concept of reality, and have been totally compromised by the Left’s agenda…..

Nonfactor, here is a tip, get as close to an erupting Volcano as you can, then get back to us………

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Can you explain why Venus and Mars (to be frank) are heating at the same rates as Earth and I don’t see a single gas station on them, do you?

Well, I wouldn’t go that far. But Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Titan (I think) are all showing signs of warming. There is no data to indicate the extent of that warming, though, so it is a bit of a fabrication to state bluntly that it is the same rate as the earth (or even that we know for sure).

Also, regarding consensus… my complaint is simply that nobody has tried to actually ask a lot of climate scientists what their opinions are. The last time someone did that in a real survey involving only climatologists, US state climatologists disagreed with the IPCC’s “consensus” at 60% against.

There is an analysis of published research (which is fradulent) and of endorsements by organizations, etc., but, conspicuously, nobody has felt the urge to actually ask climatologists lately.

DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 1:12 AM

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 1:05 AM

This is way too much fact for Nonfactor to digest all at once. I’m still waiting to see where a “majority” of scientists all agree that the earth is heating up because of human intervention.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 1:12 AM

a) ignores the fact that the consensus 30 years ago on climate was that the earth is freezing, not warming;

Reread what I said about scientific consensus. I agree, basing an argument for something solely on a consensus wouldn’t be too smart, but I’m not arguing that because a majority of people believe in something it must be true, I’m arguing that because facts back up this belief that a large majority of scientists believe in it is most likely the truth. Just as I believe plate tectonics is true, not because a majority of scientists believe in it, but because the facts back up their beliefs.

b)attempts to separate climate change from global warming, even though the alarmists warn constantly that global warming will inevitably lead to climate change

A fallacy, and on top of that when did I attempt to separate the idea of climate change from the idea of global warming? The article on the Nile isn’t about global warming, any more than an article about a Blizzard in northern New York would be about global warming.

c)asserts that changes in solar output would have a regional rather than global effect even though the data presented in this article comes from widely dispersed regions on the globe

I don’t believe that at all. Another fallacy.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 1:12 AM

Evolution is still a theory, as is plate tectonics, as is universal gravitation, ……

You must have slept through science class Nonfactor. Let’s just set aside the theory of evolution, which is never going to be settled definitively. To doubt universal gravitation or plate tectonics is akin to tossing out E=mc2 as the ramblings of a madman.

Newton and Einstein astounded the world of physics with their work on gravity and how it factors into the natural universe. Granted, the universal constant is basically a “plug number” to make things work, nobody has devised a contrary theory to dispute the force of gravity. It’s a given.

Unless you have a theorum disputing the laws of physics as we know them, Nonfactor, put down the Nostradamus and get out the Hawking, Greene and Einstein works and look them over. Prove them wrong, and you’ll be an icon.

Until then, quit being a moonbat.

BacaDog on March 21, 2007 at 1:14 AM

Can someone please ‘splain to me how a heavy gas like co2 can make it into the outter atmosphere?

- The Cat

MirCat on March 21, 2007 at 1:15 AM

When did something like this happen in science?

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:58 AM

Let’s just start with Evolution and Global Warming.

In Science 101, the Hypothesis “should be” that man descended from apes (or others). There is NO such thing…at all…Period!!! Oh, they will find a skull here, a skull there, etc BUT…they try and place these individual pieces to a puzzle to FIT into THEIR theory vs. proving/disproving a theory.

What actually happened is the opposite. The scientific” conclusion (Science 101) is offered first. Man descended from something. Scientists have worked backwards towards this vs. provigin/disproving a theory.

Global Warming being caused by man is the EXACT SAME THING!! Scientists are starting…STARTING with the fact that it’s caused by man. OK, let’s work backwards now and try and put the pieces in the puzzle to fit our supposed theory.

That’s scientific proof of what’s been wrong NonFactor.

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 1:15 AM

I’m arguing that because facts back up this belief that a large majority of scientists believe in it is most likely the truth.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 1:12 AM

I don’t care “what” they believe, show me their data…., Please.

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Well? We’re all waiting, Nonfactor. I believe the criteria pre-established from your prior posts on this blog is that all comments must be backed up by irrefutable, factual evidence. So…where is it?

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 12:59 AM

That’s not really fair, td. How can he link to the IPCC when it hasn’t been released yet?
Now how nonfactor knows it will provide him with the irrefutable proof he needs to shut down us holocaust global warming deniers once and for all is a little more troubling.

billy on March 21, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Wow, IPCC represents maybe hundreds of scientists.
Right here I have over 17,000 US scientists against the “theory”.
If my number is higher, I must be correct.

redshirt on March 21, 2007 at 1:18 AM

Evolution is not “scientific law”, even evolutionists don’t call it that. And by the way, it’s supporting “facts” are being knocked down one by one on a pretty much daily basis.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 1:01 AM

RightWinged,

I agree with you. My point was that based on “consensus”, “scientific odds”, etc., scientists should feel the same way about Aliens.

As far as Evolution goes, pick up any school book. It’s not called a theory anymore. It’s pronounced as fact. I feel that this whole Global Warming is going to be the same thing in 50 years, that’s all

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 1:21 AM

Collective DOOOOHHH!

So a full Moon is not just a someone with their pants down, bowing.

Can someone please ’splain to me how a heavy gas like co2 can make it into the outter atmosphere?

Yeah, it called Hot Air!

Kini on March 21, 2007 at 1:21 AM

DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 1:12 AM

With respect, I will just take Mars……..

Explian the melting of the polar ice? (Don’t mention on the same scale as that of the Earth’s0

Make sure your answer is in the form of a question?

Could be “Double Jeapordy”?

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 1:22 AM

MirCat on March 21, 2007 at 1:15 AM

No Cat, they can’t. And don’t hold your breath for an explanation. It won’t be offered in any logical sense that a majority of people can understand. It’s all about a “majority” of unseen scientists who seem to have a hidden consensus that this is somehow real.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 1:24 AM

billy on March 21, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Actually the summary has been released. That is the problem it is a summary. The data backing up the summary is missing, they are still working on it. Several months it will be presented. Richard Lindzen has already stated on record that his papers were not presented correctly, meaning they twist the results to meet their beliefs.

Think about it, they present a summary of facts and information, and then they go about massaging the facts to fit the summary. Some science.

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 1:26 AM

So… if I put another log on the fire it actually gets HOTTER? Dude!

So.. if the sun is heating up then the earth will heat up too. My head just hurts.

Mojave Mark on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 1:05 AM

I’ll point back to my first post: it’s just pick who you want to believe. Some people who don’t believe in human-caused global warming will pick some scientists (truthfully a minority of scientists) and people who believe in human-caused global warming will pick some scientists (in the majority).

Can someone please ’splain to me how a heavy gas like co2 can make it into the outter atmosphere?

- The Cat

MirCat on March 21, 2007 at 1:15 AM

Look up CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and their effect on the stratosphere.

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 1:15 AM

You make it sound as if scientists are constantly manipulating evidence to fit their hypotheses. I was asking for factual examples, not hypothetical ones. What scientific theory came into being because someone thought up a concept and changed the evidence to fit how they believe? Do you have evidence to prove that when these theories came into place the evidence used to back them up was manipulated? How was it manipulated?

Scientists make a hypothesis. If they are wrong, they’re wrong. If they are right, let the evidence back them up.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

OK I link poorly, maybe this will work…
17,000 scientist can’t be wrong!

redshirt on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Even worse, the summary baldly states that the report(i.e. the “science part) will be edited to conform with the summary. Now if that isn’t as ass-backwards as it get…

billy on March 21, 2007 at 1:32 AM

I’d really like to make a great contribution to this thread, but I’m getting ready to head outside and get a nice tire fire going. It’s cold here, man!

jaleach on March 21, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Just to add a little more insight. The great majority of scientists who wrote the IPCC, or contributed to it, were not climatoligist, or meteorologists, they were other life scientists. Kind of like a person who manufactures underwear telling a computer manufacturer how to make computers. A biolgist, or anthropologist, is delving into the complex world of climate change. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Remember the orginal “climate change” document that was signed by so many people (“scientists”) had on the back side a referendum to stop nuclear sites. It was a two sided, two different position paper. If you signed one, you were signing both.

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 1:36 AM

You make it sound as if scientists are constantly manipulating evidence to fit their hypotheses.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

What about scientist contantly manipulating eveindence to fit a political agenda? The Earth is flat, isn’t it?

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 1:37 AM

Nonfactor…so many replies to your assertions. The sound of crickets is deafening. Do tell. And based on the criteria you, yourself, established in prior posts, we expect all your replies to be backed up by absolute, irrefutable evidence! Where is it?!?!?! We’re waiting with baited breath.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 1:38 AM

Remember the orginal “climate change” document that was signed by so many people (”scientists”) had on the back side a referendum to stop nuclear sites. It was a two sided, two different position paper. If you signed one, you were signing both.

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Not to mention that the answer to stop “Global Warming” is Nuclear Power……..

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 1:38 AM

You make it sound as if scientists are constantly manipulating evidence to fit their hypotheses.
Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

Really? Do you think? I’m still waiting to see where a “majority” of scientists disagree with current global warming theories? Can you point me to this or not?

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 1:42 AM

IPCC is a creature of the UN.
Has the UN come to consensus as to the definition of terrorism yet?

Pffft!

I suspect there’s a whorish political component afoot, D’oh!

Stephen M on March 21, 2007 at 1:44 AM

he overall scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming.
Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM

The scientific method has nothing to do with consensus. It’s either a hypothesis, theory, or fact. So far the ‘global warming’ thought is a hypothesis.

lsutiger on March 21, 2007 at 1:46 AM

I think one of the most important things we could do in debunking the global warming hoax is to demand a precise definition of the term “scientist”. As another poster mentioned, far too many supporters of this con job are operating way out of their area of expertise.

What global warming really comes down to is the all important funding. Create a big enough problem and the money flowing in will keep an academic career going for decades.

jaleach on March 21, 2007 at 1:47 AM

You make it sound as if scientists are constantly manipulating evidence to fit their hypotheses. I was asking for factual examples, not hypothetical ones. What scientific theory came into being because someone thought up a concept and changed the evidence to fit how they believe? Do you have evidence to prove that when these theories came into place the evidence used to back them up was manipulated? How was it manipulated?

Scientists make a hypothesis. If they are wrong, they’re wrong. If they are right, let the evidence back them up.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

NonFactor,

Are ya kidding me? I just laid out 2 specific examples for you on how scientists have worked backwards from Proof to Theory vs. Theory to Proof. Believe it or not, there is a HUGE difference!!!

It is IMPOSSIBLE, with all of the dynamic changes on the Earth (Winds, Solar Winds, Sun, Sun Spots, Sun Flares, Atmospheric Changes, Mankind, etc, etc) for anybody to pick up on that single piece and say, “Yup..that’s what’s doing it UNLESS they’re working backwards”.

You asked for examples and I gave you two. As far as data being “manipulated”, that wasn’t what I had said. Data doesn’t have to be manipulated. It can be ignored.

OK…here’s my “Global Warming Theory”.

Humans are causing Global Warming. Why? W

ell, 100 years ago we didn’t have half of the people that are on the planet today. That’s why the planet is warming up, because we have twice as many people putting out twice as much CO2.

Does that “theory’ work? You bet it does but only when I work backwards to make MY theory fit.

It doesn’t work the other way.

It’s really that simple.

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

It is widely reported that the facts of the IPCC report is not being posted for several months. Already scientists (one being Lindzen) has reported that his findings were distorted and he is demanding the facts to be printed. The IPCC is refusing to publish the data that supports their suppostions. Again I ask, is this the type of research you are comfortable with? One that openly states that the facts are being researched after the summary?

As for relying on scientists. Don’t you feel more comfortable relying on scientists who are experts and work in that field. Or do you accept a biologist making complex decisions about a field he has no expertise in? It is not a matter of scientists, it is a matter of what scientists. The vast majority of contributing scientists had no background in climate science. You rely on Hall or someone else who is receiving monumental amount of money to research global warming…in fact if he said there is no global warming his research would dry up, as would 12 billion dollars of other research. Richard Lindzen, he receives almost no grant money through MIT, he still researches global warming without the political ties. Who would you trust? One dependent on govt. and private grants to prove global warming, or a noted scientist who is objectivly studying it? As an excercise, can you find a more noted and respected climate expert than Richard Lindzen?
Remember, nonfactor, that the players who were pushing for a global ice age in the 70′s are the same players for global warming. Do you like being duped twice, by the same con men (Stephen Schneider and Crispin Tickell)?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…watch out for your kneecaps.

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 1:57 AM

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 1:42 AM

Come on Nonfactor! Whatever you post on this blog must be factual! That’s what you say! Where’s the evidence? We’re waiting… Don’t tell me you’re a hypocrite, man! I can’t believe it.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 1:57 AM

Nonfactor, what ever you do, don’t look into the light….

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 1:58 AM

I guess nonfactor we just have to agree on disagreeing…and that you are a little dense.

Goodnight

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 2:00 AM

Sorry, Nonfactor, what ever you do don’t look into this light…..

“The Earth is Flat”

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 2:02 AM

So not only do we have to slaughter all cows so they don’t poop..but we now have to block the sun.

For some reason, life just isn’t as fun anymore..go blow gore!

Highrise on March 21, 2007 at 2:03 AM

In the world of Liberalism, there is an Unholy Trinity: Reason, Fact, Logic.

These are things that strike fear in a Liberal’s heart. These are things that require them to declare the debate on Global Warming over.

Though I am sure that BushCheneyHalliburton is somehow responsible for the warming of Mars…

Montana on March 21, 2007 at 2:07 AM

So…what did we learn? Nonfactor does not practice what he preaches (dull surprise). When Nonfactor insists on “facts” to back up asserstions, it’s only when it applies to YOU, not him. I’ve been saying it for a long time folks: NF tries to pick apart your points for no other reason than a need to feel “right” about something (probably gets kicked around at home alot). No substantive response is ever offered, but he’ll sure pick apart any statement you offer to make himself feel special. Word of advice: Don’t feed the trolls. They only come back for more.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 2:12 AM

As far as Evolution goes, pick up any school book. It’s not called a theory anymore. It’s pronounced as fact. I feel that this whole Global Warming is going to be the same thing in 50 years, that’s all

HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 1:21 AM

Again, even evolutionists (who may believe evolution is fact) don’t call it “scientific law” as you stated earlier, they still call it the “theory of”.

That said, they do disturbingly treat it as fact and somehow they’ve won the ability to block criticism of certain aspects (not “religion” being taught, simply criticism of dots that don’t connect). I would rather not pick up school books who’s pages are full of false assumptions that are being knocked down regularly… Hell, even in recent years, Haeckel’s drawings were still in them.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 2:17 AM

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 2:17 AM

Exactly! It’s still a “theory” to this very day. Do people not understand what theory is? It’s not proven, yet somehow people treat it like the freakin’ gospel truth. Even Darwin, later in his life, questioned how his “theory” became so popular.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 2:24 AM

Evolutionists shouldn’t be concerned about Global Warming they should look at it as an opportunity.

Scientists once reached a consensus that the world was flat.

With that said I don’t have a problem with anyone who has positive ideas about reducing CO2 or any pollution from the planet. I do have major problems with the political agenda of this man made Global Warming bunch with the Kyoto treaty and who it exempts. And I have a huge problem with using man made Global Warming to make money selling scammy “carbon offsets”.

Buzzy on March 21, 2007 at 2:29 AM

To combat the “environmental” (it’s not really about that, of course) lunacy now enveloping the globe, we need an alternate, environment-free agenda, and we need to stop using the Left’s terms and mental template:

1. There is no such thing as “the environment”. There is the natural world, including Man and earth.
2. There are no such thing as “resources”. There are elements of the natural world which Man must exploit for his survival and health.
3. Man’s progress and well being are entirely dependent upon the conquest, not the preservation, of nature. The successful conquest of nature can be measured in the reduction of poverty and disease.
4. Life on earth is not, nor has it ever been, fragile. It is the most powerful, robust, and adaptable force we know.
5. Most of what is currently labeled “pollution” is simply the chemical by-product of human progress. It is denounced in order to increase guilt about that progress, not out of concern for health or beauty.

Any takers?

Halley on March 21, 2007 at 2:32 AM

Exactly! It’s still a “theory” to this very day. Do people not understand what theory is? It’s not proven, yet somehow people treat it like the freakin’ gospel truth. Even Darwin, later in his life, questioned how his “theory” became so popular.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 2:24 AM

Worse than that, assumptions that have been added to the theory over the years are shattered regularly, not to mention virtually everything Darwin himself came up with. The evolutionists basically just say it’s okay because he got the ball rolling. Evolutionists even now admit that Darwin’s “Tree of Life” is bogus, but they’re okay with it having been around for so long because it was a “ladder” to “acceptance”. Wait, “scientists” are happy that the non-existant “Tree of Life” (read: lies) got people to accept their ideas, rather than actually using science? Yup.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 2:40 AM

Wow, IPCC represents maybe hundreds of scientists.
Right here I have over 17,000 US scientists against the “theory”.
If my number is higher, I must be correct.

redshirt on March 21, 2007 at 1:18 AM

My scientists go to 11.

rokemronnie on March 21, 2007 at 2:43 AM

Oh, and by the way… I don’t like to bring this up, because I become a “tin-foil hat” wearing Truther type in people’s minds, but much of global warming (movement today) is about the New World Order. It’s about getting global laws and taxes impelemented.

And now at least I have more solid proof:
The Brits will soon be financially penalized for not making their homes more energy efficient (could other penalties be that far down the line?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=442150&in_page_id=1770
Further, the likely next PM of UK, Gordon Brown, says we need a “New World Order” to combat global warming!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 2:46 AM

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 2:40 AM

No matter how bogus, it’s all they have to offset Creationism even if they can’t prove it. Sad, really. After all these decades – and advances in science – scientists are still looking for something to refute a Creator and all they have is an unproven theory whose own author doubted it. To what extremes must modern science go to deny a sole Creator – even when (given the incredible intricacies of the universe) it is so obvious? Somehow, I know we haven’t seen the end of it.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 2:54 AM

Don’t you definitely get the impression that, at least in the U.S., global warmening has jumped the shark? It seems the wall of silence is starting to fall as more scientists are starting to speak out.
At least that’s my impression.

billy on March 21, 2007 at 2:56 AM

Any takers?

Halley on March 21, 2007 at 2:32 AM

Please tell me you are a hetrosexual female, and are single!

:O)

PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 3:02 AM

Ah, come on guys;

Give nonfactor a break.

I have it on the very best authority that he and all the other true believers in ‘human-caused global warming’ are going do the right thing and sacrifice themselves for the sake of Mother Earth / Gaia before the end of the March. After all, to do any less would be hypocritical.

When they all sacrifice themselves, it will prove to us evil ‘global warming deniers’ that we are horribly wrong. After ALL the true believers in human caused ‘global warming’ perform the ultimate proof of their beliefs, I promise that I will reduce MY ‘carbon footprint’ by 90%.

All the rest of you deniers, Please, Please, show them that their sacrifices will NOT be in vain!!!! Take the pledge now!

LegendHasIt on March 21, 2007 at 3:07 AM

LegendHasIt on March 21, 2007 at 3:07 AM

Give Nonfactor a break? Never! His lies and hypocrisy preceed him. He insists that every word anyone posts must be factually accurate and backed up in some form; yet does not hold himself accountable to the same rules. He’s a liar and a hypocrite. All must know.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 3:19 AM

No matter how bogus, it’s all they have to offset Creationism even if they can’t prove it. Sad, really. After all these decades – and advances in science – scientists are still looking for something to refute a Creator and all they have is an unproven theory whose own author doubted it. To what extremes must modern science go to deny a sole Creator – even when (given the incredible intricacies of the universe) it is so obvious? Somehow, I know we haven’t seen the end of it.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 2:54 AM

What really irritates me is when actualy science is done, and it shatters evolutionary assumptions about something. Instead of just reporting what is learned, the “science” community almost always needs to throw the E-word back in and say something stupid like “proves it must have evolved differently” or “faster” or whatever… When NOTHING about the discovery says anything about it evolving at all. It’s simply assumed that it evolved before it was studied and when no amount of evidence will cause an evolutionist to question his theory of origins, he’ll just assume (but report as if it were science) that things just evolved “differently” than they had previously assumed. The religious behavior of evolutionists is even worse than that of global warmists.

Here’s actually a semi-related example I come across at the same time I’m typing this… Livescience’s article on a tiny supposedly gliding lizard… Nothing is said about evolution, until the obligatory ending line:
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/070319_gliding_lizard.html

“It is really amazing to see evolution making nearly identical structures in animals of different origins spanning such a long history,” Xu told LiveScience.

Someone who isn’t paying attention doesn’t even realize how that gets snuck in there, without any evidence. There was nothing that showed anything about the creature evolving. Throwing that line in there is religion in action. The article is all about the uniqueness of the creature, how it compares to squirrels, frogs, birds, and other lizards, and then they end the article with that line of total BS?! And this is not a fluke. This is the rule, not the exception for how “science” articles and reports are written daily.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 3:19 AM

“It is really amazing to see evolution making nearly identical structures in animals of different origins spanning such a long history,” Xu told LiveScience.

It’s amazing how evolution is commonly noted in place of metamorphism. Who’s to say this creature didn’t undergo a metamorphosis over time to adapt to its environment? Really, if evolution EVER existed, why is there no documented evidence of it today? Why, in all the documented history we have, don’t we hear or read of any creature “evolving” into something else? Don’t quote me “bone structures”, evolution requiring thousands of years, and birds descended from dinosaurs. I want real evidence, and more than a thousand years of recorded history provides none. Why isn’t evolution still happening today if this is what happens to species over time? Even looking at ancient animals, they are either extinct, or they are today as they existed in the past.

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 3:35 AM

thedecider on March 21, 2007 at 3:35 AM

Yeah, the escape route is always “well it takes millions of years”, and then they’ll point to microevolution which isn’t in dispute. We want to have explained who ridiculously complex microscopic outboard motors, trucks, trains, that are essential to our existence. How things essential to life would require so many things coming together at the exact right time, in the exact right way, otherwise we’d cease to exist… and that if something doesn’t provide a benefit, it’s selected out.

The old “what good is half a wing” question comes to mind. If a bird mutated half a wing, evolution wouldn’t “select” for the next generation to half that same half of a wing, and especially wouldn’t have it grow a little, and a little more, and a little more, until one day it was magically a full wing. Not to mention, then an evolutionist has to overcome the obstacle of explaining how the ability to use that wing both physically (nerves, vains, etc.) as well as the brain having the ability to work the wing. If evolution (which to be clear for anyone who doesn’t know, I find ridiculous anyway) is supposed to be a natural unguided process of mutations and adaptations… How in the hell, even if a creature had the ability to slowly evolve a wing (which goes against evolutionary theory, unless they could find a function for each intermediate step) while the ability to use this wing evolved in the brain and physiology, etc. The whole thing is just plain stupid.

And that example doesn’t even scratch the surface.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 3:45 AM

17,000 scientists can’t be wrong!

redshirt on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

I trump your 17,000 scientists with my 50 million Elvis fans. Everybody knows that 50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong.

Seriously, though, I could give a red monkey’s ass for consensus for the sake of consensus. It’s better to be right than to be popular. The consensus used to believe in a geocentric universe too, and deviating from that consensus could be a matter of life and death. But no amount of consensus could change the fact that the Nonfactors of the day were absolutely, unequivocally wrong. As others have pointed out, 30 years ago the consensus among the exact same people that are currently pushing Global Warming was Global Cooling, and that type of alarmist hysteria has been cycling back and forth since the 1890′s. Which one is it, folks? Because we need to know how to pack.

I can’t imagine anyone with the slightest understanding of the scientific process giving any credibility to a report that arrives at its conclusions first, and then has to romance the data to make it fit certain preconceived and politically correct dogma. That’s not science, that’s bullsh*t used to advance an agenda. If the cultists belonging to the Church of Global Warming were really as confident in the science of their beliefs as they claim to be, they’d let that science speak for itself. They’d also make every bit of that data available to everyone, because if the evidence really was that clear, and we really were talking about the fate of the Earth, they’d have every incentive for transparency. Does anyone seriously think that’s going to happen? Anyone? Instead they’re screaming that “THERE IS NO DEBATE!” and “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!”, when we know damn well that neither of those statements is true. Might as well be saying “PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!” Sorry, but some of us just have to take a look and see what somebody’s trying to hide back there. Scientific curiosity, don’t you know.

ReubenJCogburn on March 21, 2007 at 5:01 AM

It’s interesting you bring up the transparency issue ReubenJCogburn… Check this out:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=71e7e4c1-802a-23ad-4c16-02e25ed1bfd3

From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s (EPW) hearing rules.

Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday’s (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET.
(See “FULL COMMITTEE: Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming” )

The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.

But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.

But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill — the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore.

As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.

The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) — the day of the hearing.

It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.

The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 5:10 AM

What documentation do you have on the exact number of scientists who either agree or disagree with global warming science?

I grabbed a series of quotes from Charlie Rose, who was getting a bit testy with Michael Crichton:

Every good scientist that I talk to says to me, ‘90 percent of the scientists agree on this…. Most of the scientists say ‘We all agree on this, you know, that it is catastrophic.’

“Do you disagree with the idea that the majority of scientists who are experts in this area have a different conclusion than you?”

Within 20 minutes, by not backing down, Crichton chiseled him down from “every” to “a majority.” The irony being that Rose is apparently a devotee of “THE DATA.” Have you read THE DATA? Has Gore read THE DATA?

THE DATA being the IPCC report, which is “science” by bureaucratic committee. Here’s some money, go prove we cause global warming.

P.S. Do track down The Great Global Warming Swindle, if only for a very interesting bit on the correlation of sunspots and CO2 levels.

saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 5:20 AM

Quote of the day from the IPCC website: “The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.”

More fun quotes from noted climatologist Roger Ebert:

“‘There is no controversy about these facts,’ [Gore] says in the film. ‘Out of 925 recent articles in peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no disagreement. Zero.’

“Gore says that…there is ’100 percent agreement’ among scientists.

“Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be ‘impartial’ and ‘balanced’ on global warming means one must take a position like Gore’s. There is no other view that can be defended.”

Damn, if you’re so certain of the truth, what’s wrong with a little debate?

saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 5:26 AM

Volcanic Sulfur Aerosols Affect Climate and the Earth’s Ozone Layer
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/SO2Aerosols.html

lizzee on March 21, 2007 at 5:44 AM

The sun…

What’s the carbon footprint on that ?

JetBoy on March 21, 2007 at 5:45 AM

Damn, if you’re so certain of the truth, what’s wrong with a little debate?

saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 5:26 AM

Yeah, that’s the kind of thing that sets of my Bullsh*t Detector too. And when people tell me things that are obviously untrue, like “there is ‘100 percent agreement’ among scientists”, I wonder what else they’re telling me that isn’t true. Especially when I can see people getting rich off of what they’re selling, not to mention pushing a political agenda as a “solution” to “Global Warming” that just happens–by sheer chance–to conform to their political ideology. Awfully convenient for an inconvenient truth.

ReubenJCogburn on March 21, 2007 at 6:09 AM

I think everyone needs to lay off the Sun. In it’s defense, it buys solar offsets, and lives a solar neutral lifestyle.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 6:28 AM

I can’t believe Bryan used the word “diddly” in his post, awesome! Did you know the scientific consensus is that diddly = squat?

Centurion68 on March 21, 2007 at 6:49 AM

Wow. I had no idea that NASA was funded by Big Oil. Here all this time I thought it was funded by our tax dollars.

smellthecoffee on March 21, 2007 at 7:10 AM

You make it sound as if scientists are constantly manipulating evidence to fit their hypotheses. I was asking for factual examples, not hypothetical ones. What scientific theory came into being because someone thought up a concept and changed the evidence to fit how they believe? Do you have evidence to prove that when these theories came into place the evidence used to back them up was manipulated? How was it manipulated?

um … global warming?

“Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported,” Wegman stated, adding that “The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.” When Wegman corrected Mann’s statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that “may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.” Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

The National Post is running a really interesting series about global warming deniers. Great stuff.

Quisp on March 21, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Lay off the Sun? How dare you! Don’t you realize that the Sun is the Fount of Evil, the largest nucear reactor in the Solar System, and it hasn’t even been approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency?

If you have been paying attention to all the “environmentalists” you would know that the only thing worse than global warming is nuclear power. All that radiation spewing out over the planet, causing untold cases of radiation burns, cancer, and Britney Spears meltdowns.

We should petition the UN to have the sun shut down immediately, before Bush and his Big Oil allies figure out a way to make money off this great evil.

Lancer on March 21, 2007 at 8:31 AM

I don’t know about most of you, but I’m rather uncomfortable with the arguments in favor of creationism getting mixed up here in a global warming thread. Evolution is a fact, well proved over and over. There are various theories for how evolution takes place and regular findings adjusting and informing those theories, the predominant one being natural selection. Everyone has heard of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, right? That’s natural selection. The earth had critters of various types. Now we have creatures of different types, primarily the result of changes to the environment. If you want to argue that God is/was the cause, fine, but those arguments don’t belong in a scientific discussion of any kind, in my opinion and they detract from the substance of the excellent science that refutes anthropogenic global warming. Advocates of creationism do have something in common with global warming believers. Both are based primarily on faith.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 8:35 AM

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 3:45 AM

I know you didn’t mean to, but you using a half wing analogy made me laugh. Being you post name is RightWinged. I am assuming your left wing is only half as useful and a bit deformed as your right wing?

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 8:41 AM

After getting my new monthly budget payment for the oil I use to heat my house, all I can say is bring on the Global Warming. My heating bill is putting me in the poor house…

soulsirkus on March 21, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2