Palin likens global warming studies t...

Palin likens global warming studies to 'snake oil'

There are 363 comments on the Sacramento Bee Newspaper story from Feb 9, 2010, titled Palin likens global warming studies to 'snake oil'. In it, Sacramento Bee Newspaper reports that:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a "bunch of snake oil science" Monday during a rare appearance in California, a state that has been at the forefront of environmental regulations.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sacramento Bee Newspaper.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#189 Jan 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's why every scientific academy on the planet has looked at the evidence and says warming is real, we're responsible, and we need to do something about it.
Fecking idiot.
Every scientific academy. So all I need to do to prove you wrong is just find one scientific academy. Many of the ones you are of course referring to are governemnt sponsered such as the NAS. Which means that they tend to produce the claims that support those who fund their operations. A great example of what I am referring to was a report titled America's Climate Choices" from the NAS. It was chaired by a nuclear engineer and had 23 people of which only five had degrees related to climate and five were staffers from climate activist organizations. Ninteen of the twenty-three had made public statements supporting the idea that climate change was human induced. Cicerone is only interested in serving his political masters. One of previous heads of the NAS had back in the seventies proclaimed something similar about a global ice age and the NAS dutifully produced to proof for that.

Maybe you should be asking how accurate has these government sponsered science academies have been in the past. Lets not forget Climate Gate and all those emails that showed that they were cooking the numbers or the IPCC AR4 which now can be found in the fiction section of many libraries.

I can see those selfsame scientific academies with research in thirty years claiming that an ice age is approaching and man is the cause. After all, there are those in politics who are interested in power who are funding them and want something in return. Something that will allow them to increase the amount of power they have and the size of their personal fiefdoms. And there will be people like you claiming that every scientific acaemy agrees with your point of view even when that is not true.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#190 Jan 4, 2013
tina anne wrote:
The fact it happened before is the proof that humans are not the cause and that sea levels have been rising and falling for as long as the earth has had a climate.
By that idiot logic, arson is not possible because forest fires have happened naturally before.

A silly logical fallacy.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#191 Jan 4, 2013
tina anne wrote:
That once england was warm enough to grow grapes, and that vikings could settle in place that were warm enough to raise crops only to have glaciers push them into the sea.
Idiot.

The wine industry in England is booming, so is agriculture in Greenland- thanks to global warming.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#192 Jan 4, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Has it, historical records dating back to the earliest recorded records have shown quite a different picture. One where climate changed. That areas once with plentiful rain falls changed into deserts.
And this in a period of relative climatic stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeot...

All the more reason to keep within that stable zone.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#193 Jan 4, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Every scientific academy. So all I need to do to prove you wrong is just find one scientific academy.
Go on then.
litesong

Everett, WA

#194 Jan 4, 2013
tina anne wrote:
Actually the sea levels have been rising at roughly 3mm for thousands of years.
/////////
Fair Game wrote:
tina is a liar:
Coastal fish pens built by the Romans have unexpectedly provided the most accurate record so far of changes in sea level over the past 2000 years. It appears that nearly all the rise in sea level since Roman times has happened in the past 100 years, and is most likely the result of human activity.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6269-an ...
//////////
From the Newscientist article:
"the sea level along the Italian coast 2000 years ago was 1.35 metres below today's levels........
In a paper to appear in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, he concludes that geological processes affecting land levels over the past two millennia accounted for 1.22 metres of the change, which means that the global sea level rose by 13 centimetres."
//////////
litesong wrote:
'steve's case of the itch' always quotes sea level markers as definitive measures of Sea Level Rise. However, the Newscientist article readily indicates that land deformation, land rises & land drops must be accounted for, to have any close proximity of stated Sea Level Rise. When 'steve's case of the itch' uses only sea level land based markers, he loses all credibility.
litesong

Everett, WA

#195 Jan 4, 2013
'tiny-minded anne' wrote:
One of previous heads of the NAS had back in the seventies proclaimed something similar about a global ice age and the NAS dutifully produced to proof for that.
Maybe you should be asking how accurate has these government sponsered science academies have been in the past.
//////////
litesong wrote:
In the 70's & early 80's, 44 Science Papers were published in Science Journals, supporting Global Warming. Only 7 papers were published, supporting global cooling. Even in those early decades, science supported AGW.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#196 Jan 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
By that idiot logic, arson is not possible because forest fires have happened naturally before.
A silly logical fallacy.
Your version is that every forest fire that happens must be the result of arson since none can happen naturally. Which makes what you are doing the silly fallacy. I would of added logical except it was lacking that quality.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#197 Jan 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot.
The wine industry in England is booming, so is agriculture in Greenland- thanks to global warming.
And was it a century or two centuries ago?

It was also a going business when Romans were in the area as well. They had vineyards and wineries as well. And agraculture had thrived in Greenland's past.

Oh, before you bother with I must be lying, notice I included links to back my claims.

http://www.infobritain.co.uk/History_Of_Wine_...

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/feature...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#198 Jan 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
And this in a period of relative climatic stability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeot...
All the more reason to keep within that stable zone.
Skepicalscience and now wiki. Do you ever use acredited source or is the only ones you know are those who have documented history of fudging the facts on this subject.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#199 Jan 5, 2013
There you have it folks the tina spanked the fairy lame and "pinheadlitesout again.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#200 Jan 5, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And was it a century or two centuries ago?
It was also a going business when Romans were in the area as well. They had vineyards and wineries as well. And agraculture had thrived in Greenland's past.
Oh, before you bother with I must be lying, notice I included links to back my claims.
http://www.infobritain.co.uk/History_Of_Wine_...
http://archive.archaeology.org/online/feature...
Wine making in England and agriculture in Greenland have thrived since the end of the 20th century thanks to global warming.

Yes, the climate was warm in the past, but the point is this warming is continuing and will continue for centuries.

Its has negative and positive effects.

Better wine in England, but record floods.

Bumper potato crops in Greenland but a rapidly melting icecap and accelerating sea level rise.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#201 Jan 7, 2013
There you have it folks the tina spanked the fairy lame and "pinheadlitesout again.
Phil G

Fair Oaks, CA

#202 Jan 11, 2013
PHD wrote:
There you have it folks the tina spanked the fairy lame and "pinheadlitesout again.
don't you have anything of substance to add to this?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#203 Jan 11, 2013
Phil G wrote:
<quoted text>don't you have anything of substance to add to this?
No more than you do. Have a great day.
dave

Cedarburg, WI

#204 Jan 14, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And was it a century or two centuries ago?
It was also a going business when Romans were in the area as well. They had vineyards and wineries as well. And agraculture had thrived in Greenland's past.
Oh, before you bother with I must be lying, notice I included links to back my claims.
http://www.infobritain.co.uk/History_Of_Wine_...
http://archive.archaeology.org/online/feature...
Tina also believes in the tooth fairy. And she's got a quarter to prove it.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#205 Jan 15, 2013
And another spanking from tina soon to arrive.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#206 Jan 15, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Every scientific academy. So all I need to do to prove you wrong is just find one scientific academy. Many of the ones you are of course referring to are governemnt sponsered such as the NAS. Which means that they tend to produce the claims that support those who fund their operations. A great example of what I am referring to was a report titled America's Climate Choices" from the NAS..
Huh? Show me where they were climatologists, and not strong Libertarians.

By the way, here is your citation on the scientific academy. He should state there are none opposed to global warming, because the petroleum organizations went to neutral (none oppose).

"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [on global warming - see below]. A few organizations hold non-committal positions >>
taken from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...

This includes all the national SCIENCE academies in the world [which study many sciences -- not just climatology]

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

All the organizations specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS/NASA)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:
Royal Meteorological Society Community
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

This is typical:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years.

The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occur Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_c...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#207 Jan 15, 2013
Chance4 wrote:
<quoted text>
"that's the problem: Palin doesn't read"
...and you do???
In the 70s, the so called scientists scared us with the end of the world scenarious.
No. Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science...

Rasool and Schneider's ice age "projection"

The main study cited by skeptics is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971). The paper doesn't actually predict an ice age. Instead, it projects a possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it may trigger an ice age. Historically, what happened was aerosol levels fell. While it's unclear whether Rasool's calculations re aerosol cooling were accurate, one inaccuracy was they underestimated climate's sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 3.

In the decades since their 1971 paper, many studies constraining climate sensitivity calculate that if atmospheric CO2 was doubled, global temperatures would rise around 3C. These studies employ different methods (modelling, calculations from empirical observations) looking at different time periods (the 20th century, the Holocene, past ice ages), different aspects of climate (surface temperature, mid-tropospheric temperature, ocean heat intake) and response to different forcings (volcanic, CO2, solar).
National Academy of Sciences - now and then

The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..."

Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

Other indications of current consensus
Other scientific bodies that have released statements endorsing anthropogenic global warming include:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) draws upon the work of

over 850 peer reviewed studies

None of these bodies (at least the ones that existed back then) endorsed ice age predictions in the 70s.
More on scientific consensus...

So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of studies, even then outweighed by global warming predictions. Today, an avalanche of studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse anthropogenic global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predi...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#208 Jan 15, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And was it a century or two centuries ago?
It was also a going business when Romans were in the area as well. They had vineyards and wineries as well. And agraculture had thrived in Greenland's past.
Oh, before you bother with I must be lying, notice I included links to back my claims.
http://www.infobritain.co.uk/History_Of_Wine_...
http://archive.archaeology.org/online/feature...
From NEWSCIENTIST series on Climate Myths for the Perplexed!!!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-c...

<<Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

English wine production is once again thriving and the extent of the country's vineyards probably surpasses that in the so-called Medieval Warm Period. So if you think vineyards are an accurate indicator of temperature, this suggests it is warmer now than it was then.

The point is that historical anecdotes about the past climate, such as the claim that Greenland used to be green, or that Newfoundland (Vinland) was full of grapes, have to be treated with caution.

For starters, the accuracy of some historical claims is questionable: it is not clear that Vinland of Viking sagas refers to modern-day Newfoundland, or even that there really were grapes, for instance.

Even when historical records are accurate, their interpretation is not as straightforward as many assume. Take the frost fairs held in London when the River Thames in England froze over, which are sometimes hailed as proof of how cold it was during the so-called Little Ice Age (see We are just recovering from the Little Ice Age). The slowing of water flow by the old London Bridge is now seen as a crucial factor in the freezing of the river, which explains why the lower reaches of the river did not freeze in 1963, even though it was the third-coldest winter in England since 1659 and parts of the river upstream of London did freeze.

Growth bands and coral

To work out how the average global temperature has changed over the centuries, climate scientists need long-term records from as many different parts of the world as possible. Historical records do not provide this, which is why they have turned to other indicators such as growth bands in trees and corals.

There are a dozen or so temperature reconstructions for the northern hemisphere that go back beyond 1600, including the so-called "hockey stick" (see Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong). These studies suggest there were periods of unusual warmth from around AD 900 to AD 1300, but details vary widely in each reconstruction.

What matters most

In the southern hemisphere, the picture is even more mixed, with evidence of both warm and cool periods around this time. The Medieval Warm Period may have been mostly a regional phenomenon, with the extremes reflecting a redistribution of heat around the planet rather than a big overall rise in the average global temperature.

What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence - such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers - is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years (see Climate myths: It has been warmer in the past, what's the big deal?).

What really matters, though, is not how warm it is now, but how warm it is going to get in the future. Even the temperature reconstructions that show the greatest variations in the past 1000 years suggest up until the 1980s, average temperature changes remained within a narrow band spanning 1C at most. Now we are climbing out of that band, and the latest IPCC report (pdf format) predicts a further rise of 0.5C by 2030 and a whopping 6.4C by 2100 in the worst case scenario.>>

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Millville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kristi Kienitz Apr '18 BustedBiscuits 1
Corrupt Shasta Family Court (Nov '09) Mar '18 Redding father 31
Judge Gibson lied in open Court to cover up wel... (Jul '11) Feb '18 JohnandKrystal 21
GangStalking and psychological Harassment (Jul '14) Feb '18 Guest 15
Glad we left_2018 Jan '18 By Now 1
Redding California Homeless - NO to Brent Weaver (Dec '13) Jan '18 Glad we left 2018 4
puppy left outside all day and night in the heat (Jun '15) Jan '18 Glad we left 2018 2

Millville Jobs

Personal Finance

Millville Mortgages