------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Skeptic]

PC said :

This is the author of meltdown, be careful what you read skeptic you may end up beleiving it when people are obscuring science for money.

Careful, PC. You have just inserted your big toe into a pile of fetid manure, the result of muck raking in the global warming debate. I have seen a number of these 'biographies' written by proponents of one side of the debate or the other. Some are like the one you quoted, attacking global warming sceptics; and some are by sceptics, attacking global warming alarmists. What they all have in common is a putrid stench which should be avoided by all decent people.

[Patred_Cow]

Careful, PC. You have just inserted your big toe into a pile of fetid manure, the result of muck raking in the global warming debate. I have seen a number of these 'biographies' written by proponents of one side of the debate or the other. Some are like the one you quoted, attacking global warming sceptics; and some are by sceptics, attacking global warming alarmists. What they all have in common is a putrid stench which should be avoided by all decent people.

Sorry skeptic but you have just inserted your entire foot into this fetid mess and then stuck it in your mouth. That was not my post which you quoted as mine :P

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

I feel we've gone well beyond the systems ability to regulate. There clearly has been a very flexible regulating system in place for quite a long time before we went beyond its limits however, otherwise we cannot account for our relatively stable climate, even ice ages are not such massive fluctuations as one might expect without robust regulatory mechanisms.

Hi P.C.,

You make great points and have a very extensive understanding of this topic, I appreciate your participation here. With that said, I would like to expand on your comment above. If I understand the contect of your statement you are implying that since our planet is beyond its ability to regulate we are the likely cause. The truth is that our relative stability is the rarity. We have flourished in what can be characterized as a fools paradise on a rock prone for turmoil and upheaval.

We do not know with precision how climate shifts unfolded in our past. It is likely that they were abrupt and while we have a difficulty as a society sinking our teeth into this concept it is unfortunately leaning toward abrupt and often catastrophic events.

The key to our current regime lies in the geological 3.4 MY event which resulted in a shift in ocean currents and the subsequent onset of northern hemisphere glaciation (brought on by moisture/heat energy redistribution via the gulf-stream). There are a series of cycles that are players in this global game of climate. You have the sun, cosmic rays, the positioning of land, the flow of currents and redistribution of heat energy, the advance and retreat of glaciers, albedo and thousands of other components that make up the machinery that drives the whole process. Does man play into this? Probably. Is it clear-cut? No.

Think about it. The sun, stars, atmosphere, continents and oceans are ignored and MAN is singled out as the culprit. It's a sham. My views have evolved here and I bought into the GW thing because even though I was skeptical it is probably a good idea to wean ourselves off the juice and usher in some new technologies so 'hey' . Why not? For me the 'why not' is because of the level of manipulation involved and the lengths activists, scientists and politicians (indistinguishable in many circles) are willing to go.

The Trojan Horse comes to mind.

I am betting we don't want to see what's inside.

~Paradox

[Patred_Cow]

Hi P.C.,

You contradict yourself in the first sentence.

I think you will find that this is not a contradiction though maybe I could have chose clearer wording to help. I didn't mean that there was little research being done on these issues what I was saying is that the quite large amount of research being done in this area is not providing evidence support the views presented in this interview. This research regularly finds that other factors have a part to play, what practically none of it suggests or even alludes to is that these other factors were the trigger for our current warming trend. They are either feedback mechanisms or cyclic events which cause minor and temporary deviations in the observed trend which was triggered by anthropogenic GHG's.

Your perception is shared by many yet the weight of the evidence calling this prevailing view into question is monumental. The key to understanding what is happening is admitting that we do not have a solid basis from which to make the big decisions that are required here. The IPCC was lobbying itself at the last minute to claim 'likely (60% probably) instead of 'very likely' (90% probability). It is a joke. I am personally ashamed of the circus that has so much influence over society. This is a prime example of science contaminated by politics and vice-versa.

Ah so what you're fed up with is science is it? Science can not give 100% accurate data it is beyond the scope of all but an as yet undiscovered single unifying theory. If you do not believe in science there is little point in me attempting anything approaching intelligent debate with you as you will doubtless place your own interesting twist on logic above any intelligent conjecture which I or indeed any other subscriber to scientific methods could present you with. The majority of evidence supports anthropogenic gases as the cause of the current warming trend, where you have come to the conclusion that this is not the case I cannot imagine...unless by any chance your name happens to be George W. Bush?

There is indeed overwhelming evidence that there are other factors involved but as I continually state, as if attempting to demolish the moon using merely my forehead, the evidence points to these being largely secondary effects and that the primary and most influential factor in our current warming trend is anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Maybe you gained your false impression from the media, I suggest you go to source, I can search web of science this very second and I will find very few papers stating that anthropogenic gases are not responsible for our current warming trend. Of these few scientific papers I will find even fewer that are regularly cited. To prove this to myself that I may sleep easy tonight I shall now do exactly this.

[Patred_Cow]

We do not know with precision how climate shifts unfolded in our past. It is likely that they were abrupt and while we have a difficulty as a society sinking our teeth into this concept it is unfortunately leaning toward abrupt and often catastrophic events.

The key to our current regime lies in the geological 3.4 MY event which resulted in a shift in ocean currents and the subsequent onset of northern hemisphere glaciation (brought on by moisture/heat energy redistribution via the gulf-stream). There are a series of cycles that are players in this global game of climate. You have the sun, cosmic rays, the positioning of land, the flow of currents and redistribution of heat energy, the advance and retreat of glaciers, albedo and thousands of other components that make up the machinery that drives the whole process. Does man play into this? Probably. Is it clear-cut? No.

Think about it. The sun, stars, atmosphere, continents and oceans are ignored and MAN is singled out as the culprit. It's a sham. My views have evolved here and I bought into the GW thing because even though I was skeptical it is probably a good idea to wean ourselves off the juice and usher in some new technologies so 'hey' . Why not? For me the 'why not' is because of the level of manipulation involved and the lengths activists, scientists and politicians (indistinguishable in many circles) are willing to go.

I shall attempt to regain my cool. First paragraph, I agree, I will also point out that human GHG emissions are an abrupt and catastrophic event, influencing many factors known to have large impacts on climate on a scale comparable to many catastrophic events we are aware of in the geological past.

2nd paragraph. Which 2 continental landmasses have joined and stopped free circulation through the Earths oceans to trigger our recent warming trend? Ocean circulation anomalies can be attributed to global (it's not mere regional) warming, which on evidence is a result of anthropogenic GHG's. I will never deny the importance of the solar and associated cycles, there is too much good science behind them, they are factored into the majority of our climate models however. This is a trend independant of their effects. Most of the other factors you mention are secondary effects, they are caused by global warming and they feed back into it but they could not have caused global warming to begin with, they are occuring as a result of it. Does man play into this? Certainly. Is it clear cut? As much as anything is ever going to be.

Man is singled out because these other processes have not been ignored, it is because they have been analysed as culprits and discarded. We are left and our own analyses place the blame quite firmly at our doors. The scientific community is self regulating, it is formed from people with wide ranging views. However if it was allowed to degrade into farce the profession would lose its value, it is in the interests of the science community to ensure the highest possible standards in research and publishing and it does this through peer review and other such processes. Individual scientists may be willing to go to great lengths but no true science is independant of the scientific community and the scientific community as a whole has a great reason and desire to maintain integrity and for this reason it does.

[Simple]

Hi P,

Now come on, PC and I accept all your natural forcings and fully agree that they caused many climate changes in times gone by but none have been as dramatic as this one.

Therefore for your theory to hold you have to explain the rate of whats happening now, why we warming when we should be cooling and why it hasn't occured before despite all the natural forcings always having been present as they must have been, even if we haven't discovered them they were there.

I see a good correlation between past events and natural forcings as you do, its jsut this current event goes beyond anything seen, it is unprecedented as the rise in GHG gases and that is why it seems to make sense.

So can you make sense of the current observations, i.e. the rate of rise of temperature globally from natural forcing when then haven't combined to cause such an event before cos this is where i get stuck, and were CO2 gives a simple cause and effect.

[Skeptic]

From PC

That was not my post which you quoted as mine

Whoops! My apologies, PC. I should have looked twice.

I hope that Simple will take the message on board. This debate of ours is a gentle and friendly one (mostly) and we refrain from saying nasty things about each other. I am sure that everyone on this thread would agree with me that insults towards someone who disagrees with us is going far too far.

Sadly, in the big wide world outside this forum, the debate between people who have varying views of global warming often gets very nasty indeed. The various proponents sometimes go to great lengths to dig up dirt on their opponents, and publish said dirt. Though they do not realise it, that says more about the muck slinger than about their target.

Prof. Patrick Michaels is a man who has taken a somewhat sceptical view of the more extreme global warming ideas. He has published this scepticism, and says that this makes research funds hard to obtain. As a result, he has been forced to accept funding for his research from big business. In this, he is in the same position as half of all medical researchers, who accept funding from pharmaceutical companies. That source of funds does not, in any way, mean the scientist is any less competent and honest as a scientist. And I am seriously disappointed in Simple.

[Patred_Cow]

Lol, no worries. I apologise if my comments offended there, I quite enjoyed the imagery was all sorry!

I see the merits of accepting funding where you can find it. Industry often wants something in return though, they are capitalist ventures and their actions are intended to reap a reward. If a scientist accepts this money uses it and it keeps coming it means these companies must be benefitting from the research, otherwise they quickly withdraw funding and funding is hard to come by in this sector again. For a scientist to always conduct research with results agreeable to their sponsors is a little unlikely I feel. Though I'm sure it could be done I don't really feel for a moment that it could be done by the number of scientists that are currently claiming to be doing it. Personally I will not disregard this research entirely for this reason but I will certainly and I feel justifiably maintain a healthy skepticism towards its findings.

[Simple]

That source of funds does not, in any way, mean the scientist is any less competent and honest as a scientist. And I am seriously disappointed in Simple.

Skeptic please commercially funded research is always reported biased to show what the company wants to show, or is never reported at all if its bad. The man has been paid by a company who have openly admitted they paid money to skew science.

I don't really have to give examples of research biased by commercial interest do I.

well here one to chew on Xeroxat kills teenages yet the scientist paid to report on the trials still denies it in a dangerous minority of one.

Smoking trials,,,,,,,,????? I ahve recently had a researcher told what to write by a commercial firm or they would remove funding, and what they said shall we say bent the truth a little.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

Ah so what you're fed up with is science is it? Science can not give 100% accurate data it is beyond the scope of all but an as yet undiscovered single unifying theory. If you do not believe in science there is little point in me attempting anything approaching intelligent debate with you as you will doubtless place your own interesting twist on logic above any intelligent conjecture which I or indeed any other subscriber to scientific methods could present you with. The majority of evidence supports anthropogenic gases as the cause of the current warming trend, where you have come to the conclusion that this is not the case I cannot imagine...unless by any chance your name happens to be George W. Bush?

Hello P.C.,

Ah. Intelligent debate...well demonstrated by your default rhetoric and rude comments. No, Patred Cow, I am not fed up with science. Quite the contrary, I believe that through science and research the truth will eventually reveal itself. I admit some passionate frustration with certain aspects of scientific and political intermingling...a few bad apples is all.

Unlike you, I am not convinced by the GW evidence and the mantra doesn't do it for me either. I have stated quite clearly the areas of question that shed reasonable doubt on the entire theory. I agree that the results of current research into solar forcings, cosmic rays (and cloud creation) and ocean currents (to name just a few) must continue to flood the scientific community with new ideas and data in order to drive my point home. This much needed work is well underway.

There is indeed overwhelming evidence that there are other factors involved but as I continually state, as if attempting to demolish the moon using merely my forehead, the evidence points to these being largely secondary effects and that the primary and most influential factor in our current warming trend is anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

You are wrong...hence the sore forehead. How do you explain the recent core records from Greenland and Antarctica? One continent warms while the other cools? The models you rely on are faulty. How do you explain the MWP? What do you think of Dr. Lonnie Thompson research and his study of events 5200 years ago? Events similar to todays without SUV's and Smokestacks to point the finger at.

Maybe you gained your false impression from the media, I suggest you go to source, I can search web of science this very second and I will find very few papers stating that anthropogenic gases are not responsible for our current warming trend. Of these few scientific papers I will find even fewer that are regularly cited. To prove this to myself that I may sleep easy tonight I shall now do exactly this.

The media propagates your rather boring canned rhetoric Patred Cow...complete with aligning opposing viewpoints to George Bush (original BTW - Bravo!). Nobody expects a 100% unifying theory but the current GW theory has too many holes and is losing ground every day. It is not the answer...and it may take a couple years for this to be accepted as fact but you mark my words...it will.

I admit anthropogenic warming is a factor but its influence is dwarfed by forcings from the sun, stars and Earths natural systems.

Sweet dreams.

~Paradox


ps. There is a very recent paper (2007) on Cosmic Ray influence (actually a book was just released as well) but I could not locate it. I have attached a paper and information with links to papers which you obviously have access to. There are many more I can provide given some time...and there are many now being released. How old are the papers you reference BTW? Post a couple, I'd like to see.

Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect
of galactic cosmic rays on clouds

Danish National Space Center

The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming

Solar Forcing w/ reference to paper