Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

miniTAX wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

It's easy to do, just flood the landscape with unsupported bias sources and soon the supported and peer reviewed essays begin to have the same credibility as the phoney ones.

That's works both sides man.

The peer-reviewed reports side with the camp that believes human factors are the cause. As for it happening on both sides, perhaps, but the GW debate is mostly flooded with false info from rightwingers and corparate intrest groups. I'm sure the left would flood the landscape more, but the intrests the left represent don't have the same dollar muscle that say the energy lobby has.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

miniTAX wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

It's easy to do, just flood the landscape with unsupported bias sources and soon the supported and peer reviewed essays begin to have the same credibility as the phoney ones.

That's works both sides man.

The peer-reviewed reports side with the camp that believes human factors are the cause. As for it happening on both sides, perhaps, but the GW debate is mostly flooded with false info from rightwingers and corparate intrest groups. I'm sure the left would flood the landscape more, but the intrests the left represent don't have the same dollar muscle that say the energy lobby has.

T
K
O

What, you mean all these skeptics are rightwingers and/or corporates shills ?
Warning : you'll need a lot of investigation to support your claim
I think it's easier for you to try this list of ex-skeptics. Pls get back when finished

For example, France has 14 climatologists who are lead authors for the IPCC 2007 report. 12 of them belongs to a behemoth public research structure named ... CEA (acronym for "Commisssariat of Energie which-make-zero-CO2-pollution").
France has another public research structure called IFP (Institut français du Pétrole) which has as many scientists as the CEA. But curiously, no one is "mandated" to conduct highly visible research on global warming. It must be a pure coincidence, right ?

All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold.

Start with these facts. Can you refutte any of them?

blatham wrote:

Quote:

FACTSHEET: Robert C. Balling Jr.
DETAILS
Director, Office of Climatology and Associate professor of Geography, Arizona State University
NCPPR scientific expert on global warming. (1996)

Dr. Balling wrote the "Heated Debate," published by the Pacific Research Institute and "True State of the Planet," published by CEI. He co-wrote "The Satanic Gases" with Patrick J. Michaels, published by the Cato Institute. Balling signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1995.

According to Harper's, Balling has recieved more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests over the past six years. Specific incidences include significant levels of funding since 1989 from the Kuwaiti government, foreign coal and mining corporations and Cyprus Minerals Company (totalling $72,554). (Kuwait has opposed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The Kuwaiti government paid for a release of Balling's "A Heated Debate" in the Middle East, a project originally funded by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science granted Balling $48,993 and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research granted him an undisclosed amount. British Coal Corporation gave him a total of $103,544 and the German Coal Mining Association gave him $81,780 in two separate grants. (Ozone Action, NCPPR directory)

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5

Quote:

Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [1]

His views have led to his enthusiastic adoption by various members of the free-market Atlas Economic Research Foundation network. He writes regularly for the Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

His writings find him regularly in the company of other prominent climate change sceptics, including Sallie L. Baliunas, and S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling

Quote:

Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."[3]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels

Quote:

Michaels is the Chief Editor for the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (http://www.mtn.org/~nescncl/complaints/determinations/det_118.html) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases" which were published by Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1) ALEC advisor. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11310 and http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3558

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4

Even if the source is pure LEFT, the facts speak for themself correct? If you are being paid by people whose intrest it is to disprove GW or climate change, where do your intrests fall? Dubious at best, I say. Better to trust those scientists with public funding.

T
K
O

Really?

See e.g. in French: LA CONTRAINTE CO2 EN FRANCE ET EN EUROPE

Or e.g. in English: Capturing and storing CO2 to combat the greenhouse effect

At least some members of the French delegation to the GIEC are members of the IFP's conseil scientifique as well.

...still at it on this thread, I see...same old, same old - yawn..BUT did y'all know there's a NEW theory of everything?!

Quote:

All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770

How about you provide a GW-skeptic report that is peer reviewed? I'd be very willing to discuss and compare it with say one of the numerous other peer reviewed reports on human factors.

T
K
O

Whatever is happening elsewhere, Kilimanjaro's ice seems not to be succumbing to climate change :

The CEA is the French Atomic Energy Commission (Commissariat à l'énergie atomique). It is a public body established in October 1945 by General de Gaulle. A leader in research, development and innovation, the CEA mission statement has two main objectives : To become the leading technological research organization in Europe and to ensure that the nuclear deterrent remains effective in the future.

Le Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et l'Environnement (LSCE) est une unité mixte de recherche CEA-CNRS-Université de Versailles St Quentin, créée en janvier 1998 par la fusion du Centre des Faibles Radioactivités (CFR) et du Laboratoire de Modélisation du Climat et de l'Environnement (LMCE).

The other side of the coin is that those receiving public funding to research global warming get that funding because there is perception of a 'serious problem'. Let the perception become that there isn't much of a problem at all, and the funding dries up.

...

ican711nm wrote:

If no additional CO2 were to be inserted into the atmosphere, then almost all of it currently in the atmosphere would eventually mix with water vapor and precipitate into surface water.

... Henry's law is one of diminishing returns. As you reduce the amount of CO2 then Henry's law says that water will hold less and less CO2. ... precipitation becomes surface water and the water MUST be evaporated to return to the atmosphere. ...

Diest TKO wrote:

How about you provide a GW-skeptic report that is peer reviewed? I'd be very willing to discuss and compare it with say one of the numerous other peer reviewed reports on human factors.

T
K
O

For starter, an article in American Scientic refuting the "peer-reviewed" poster child of Al Gore: the melting of the Kilimanjaro.

Quote:

Whatever is happening elsewhere, Kilimanjaro's ice seems not to be succumbing to climate change :

source
Someone must be lying in there ! Sort it out, quiiiccck

Foxfyre wrote:

The other side of the coin is that those receiving public funding to research global warming get that funding because there is perception of a 'serious problem'. Let the perception become that there isn't much of a problem at all, and the funding dries up.

This is false.

Plenty of public funding goes to issues that are not concidered serious problems. Your theory is unsupported. Many grants go out based on purely the further understanding of science, not that any problem is present.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The other side of the coin is that those receiving public funding to research global warming get that funding because there is perception of a 'serious problem'. Let the perception become that there isn't much of a problem at all, and the funding dries up.

This is false.

Plenty of public funding goes to issues that are not concidered serious problems. Your theory is unsupported. Many grants go out based on purely the further understanding of science, not that any problem is present.

T
K
O

Sure it does, but the public funding that supports global warming research goes to scientists BECAUSE there is a perceived problem re global warming. Can you imagine a scenario by which hundreds of thousands would be allocated on such a grand scale if there was no such perception?

But using your theory, and to be fair, how about you admitting that coal and oil companies also issue grants for other reasons than to study global warming?

First off, stop being a dick.
Second, I read your article, and it doesn't refutte GW, only that this particular glacier makes a poor example via the mass decrease is mostly due to sublimation.
...
I believe Mr Mote, and Mr Kaser wrote a sound article, but in no way have disproved GW. However, they may have found further effects of GW in the process. I will have to keep my eyes peeled.

On the other hand, companies such as oil companies rarely if ever engage in theoretical research. Why? There's just not much profit in it. They can't point to the research at the end of the year, or five years, or twenty, and say 'this was productive. This led to this product which led to this profit.' There's no way to justify it to the shareholders. Much of theoretical research is undertaken in order to disprove other theories - what profit does that bring a company?
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

On the other hand, companies such as oil companies rarely if ever engage in theoretical research. Why? There's just not much profit in it. They can't point to the research at the end of the year, or five years, or twenty, and say 'this was productive. This led to this product which led to this profit.' There's no way to justify it to the shareholders. Much of theoretical research is undertaken in order to disprove other theories - what profit does that bring a company?
Cycloptichorn

Take your pick CH but don't suck while you blow. You're saying companies don't engage in theorical research for lack of profit and at the same time, you're accusing them of funding "skeptical" climate change research (more hot-air theorical research than this, you die). Something doesn't add up.

BTW, in case you don't know, companies know how to make profits, a lot, even when not funding deniers. Look at al Gore's example.