First Prev
of 3
Next Last
JRS

Kenosha, WI

#1 Jun 3, 2007
The sun moves climate change
The Deniers -- Part VI
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
January 5, 2007

Man produces greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases cause global warming, most scientists agree, but how, exactly, do greenhouse gases cause global warming? While theories abound, as do elaborate computer models incorporating a multitude of gases and other climatic factors, none has been conclusive. And if greenhouse gases aren't responsible, what else could be? A clear, verifiable mechanism showing how a greenhouse gas or other physical entity can drive climate change has eluded science. Until now.

For more than a decade, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center has been pursuing an explanation for why Earth cools and warms. His findings -- published in October in the Proceedings of the Royal Society -- the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the Royal Society of London -- are now in, and they don't point to us. The sun and the stars could explain most if not all of the warming this century, and he has laboratory results to demonstrate it. Dr. Svensmark's study had its origins in 1996, when he and a colleague presented findings at a scientific conference indicating that changes in the sun's magnetic field -- quite apart from greenhouse gases -- could be related to the recent rise in global temperatures. The chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, the chief agency investigating global warming, then castigated them in the press, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible." Others accused them of denouncing the greenhouse theory, something they had not done.

more at: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html...

Since: Apr 07

Rio Rancho, NM

#2 Jun 3, 2007
Read this RealClimate article on this matter please JRS as I am reading your articles, and then if you scroll down to comments, a co-author of this project commented on the article and answered questions asked by other people.
Thanks.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
JRS

Kenosha, WI

#3 Jun 3, 2007
I think that the article demonstrates the reason why I participate in this forum. The science is far from settled, there is no consensus.

There is probably a lot of truth in this article and a lot of error. Which needs no differentiation here.

Certain comments cause me to suspect the writer as being agenda prone/sympathetic.

"But the ridiculous spin put on this paper is liable to continue to put off mainstream scientists from pursuing it."
"It's as though Svensmark and co. want to enhance the field of solar-terrestrial research's bad reputation for agenda-driven science."
“Unsurprisingly, this paper was trumpeted throughout contrarian circles last week and was received uncritically (with one honorable exception in the 'climatesceptics' discussion group), even by people who normally spend their time decrying science-by-press-release.(A word to the wise,

consistency goes a long way to establishing credibility...). "

mine: Consistently wrong does not make credible. Unless it is to say they are credibly wrong.

The paper as I said is certain to contain truth somewhere, the consensus is no further proved because of it and the science is no further settled because of it.

I think the following is pretty much true. However I turn it around and use this against the writer and GW peddlers.:

“by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonabl eness that we've seen. If this group wants to be taken seriously and interact constructively with the rest of the community ..., they have to act in a serious manner, be honest about the problems and caveats, and resist the temptation to speculate beyond what is justified.”

It is a very strange GW lot. They must have all out allegiance to everything they say.

The "deniers" on the other hand are willing to acknowledge some truth is in what the GW peddlers are saying.

Since: Apr 07

Rio Rancho, NM

#4 Jun 3, 2007
I am willing to acknowledge truth when it exists as in the post about global warming enhanced hurricane seasons you posted earlier. The fact is is that this study does not come close to dispelling the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The co-author that comments this also realizes that their are many holes in the study that need more investigation, the point is is that, whether this study was handled right or not, it does almost nothing to disproove global warming.
JRS

Kenosha, WI

#5 Jun 4, 2007
"The fact is that this study does not come close to dispelling the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The co-author that comments this also realizes that their are many holes in the study that need more investigation"

Exactly my intended point(s) The science is far from settled.(on either side) The subject of AGW or man caused warming is not understood and certainly therefore no crisis can be declared.

Unfortunately money and lots of it is the target of those that peddle GW as it is being peddled. Money is a powerful motivator to some.

Since: Apr 07

Rio Rancho, NM

#6 Jun 4, 2007
The money they are granted is for research. They cannot use it personally unless the embezle it. Is that what you are implying?
Mr Giblets

UK

#7 Jun 5, 2007
Sam_GW_IS_HAPPENING wrote:
The money they are granted is for research. They cannot use it personally unless the embezle it. Is that what you are implying?
this research is like giving money to some men in a room with the heaters on, and they are supposed to find out why it is hot. If they said "the heaters are on" the research would be finished, and the money stops. So, they ignore the heater, and blame it on themselves.

SIR LANCELOT

“I just hate stupid people”

Since: Apr 07

DEEP SOUTHERN ILLINOIS

#8 Jun 5, 2007
the sun is a big ball on fire.

Since: Apr 07

Rio Rancho, NM

#9 Jun 5, 2007
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>
this research is like giving money to some men in a room with the heaters on, and they are supposed to find out why it is hot. If they said "the heaters are on" the research would be finished, and the money stops. So, they ignore the heater, and blame it on themselves.
So according to you, they use the money for pointless research? Then why do they care if they have money? It's just funding to do their job, why would they be spending it on pointless research? Besides that, again you are implying that the vast majority of scientists are corrupted. And not only do you say they are corrupted for the money, but they must all be passionate about what they know doesn't exist. I didn't know we were living in such dark times when so many people had turned evil.
joie de vivre

Norristown, PA

#10 Jun 5, 2007
JRS wrote:
I think that the article demonstrates the reason why I participate in this forum. The science is far from settled, there is no consensus.
Do you believe that based on what the media tells you?

Since: May 07

South Shields, UK

#11 Jun 5, 2007
joie de vivre wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe that based on what the media tells you?
The vast majority of media claims exactly the opposite. It pretends there IS a consensus and that the science is concluded.
Mr Giblets

India

#12 Jun 5, 2007
Sam_GW_IS_HAPPENING wrote:
<quoted text>
So according to you, they use the money for pointless research? Then why do they care if they have money? It's just funding to do their job, why would they be spending it on pointless research? Besides that, again you are implying that the vast majority of scientists are corrupted. And not only do you say they are corrupted for the money, but they must all be passionate about what they know doesn't exist. I didn't know we were living in such dark times when so many people had turned evil.
why are you taking a religious tone on a factual subject ? This is another aspect of warm-mania that make me suspicious.

Since: Apr 07

Rio Rancho, NM

#13 Jun 5, 2007
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>why are you taking a religious tone on a factual subject ? This is another aspect of warm-mania that make me suspicious.
How is that a religious tone? I was being sarcastic for one, mocking that you call global warming a scam and such, but then believe in mass corruption of the scientific community.
JRS

Kenosha, WI

#14 Jun 5, 2007
"unless the embezle it. Is that what you are implying? "

embezle, no. I have made $5000.00 per year off of GW and did nothing to seek it out and seize it. Much less embezzle it. It is a consequence.(I should just shut up and be happy)

This is not an economics lesson but...

At the bottom it works like this. Politicians (which campaigning global warming peddlers also are) pass laws, forces the issue, people must take action and then money changes hands.
This is not bad really, it is good for the economy. Except for the poor which now have less due to more taxes and will pay higher prices.

Also at the bottom the workers producing evil SUV's etc. will no doubt be economically hurt because of the increased cost to survive the attacks.

At the top it works like this as it relates to government research money.(Especially among the younger climbers) Do I pursue another documentary about penguins and receive little or do I pursue a “global crisis” with greater rewards? Some pursue this only to learn the crisis is bogus and quit. Others say the gravy is too good I think I will continue and justify it somehow. After all their kids need braces too Maybe the biggest reason that the academics persist is pride. I have made big claims. I can not now say that I was wrong. My credibility will be voluntarily ruined.
This same dynamic apply to institutions. Should the University pursue...Funding.... Some old timers who "made it" have no need to jump on the cash cow band wagon. But they too will then suffer lack of funding.

Also at the top among evil oil, evil SUV makers etc and everything else labeled evil. They will be forced to spend money to avoid being run out of town.(notice the "stuff" that has no money to usurp is not labeled or under attack as evil)

The flow of money is good for politicians. It causes a more vigorous economy. Why should they care about the science. About the only time they get concerned is when it will have negative political fall out. Like sending our wealth to other towns, states and for sure other countries in the form of some "penalty" imposed by the peddlers. Then it is time to say enough is enough. Just to save political stature locally. Or they get concerned if it can be used to advantage.(Thatcher and the coal miners in the Great GW Swindle video)

In politics it works like this. Money is power. You can buy friends (friends until the money is gone) the GW crowd is mostly the left. The left gets money flowing via GW and golly gee I wonder how the left got so powerful?
If there was no money to be had using GW I guarantee you GW would die the same death global cooling died in the 70's

Why do politicians not truly feed the hungry, treat the sick, and all that tear jerking stuff they like to occasionally claim is something they are doing? Simple. Look at the cash flow. They would be losing ground.
Here at home we are burning corn to heat our homes and trying to make automobile fuel out of it. Instead of feeding the hungry. Why? We can not figure out a way to do it and gain power and control in the process.

Mother Teresa has been dead about 10 years. I don't recall Al Gore putting in a résumé(and all the others who want to save the world--- from ONE degree higher temps)

embezzle, no. This is not an economics lesson but...FOLLOW THE MONEY. No money, no global crisis. We supposedly have a global crisis or two. Hunger and health etc. No money = no concern.

Since: Apr 07

Rio Rancho, NM

#15 Jun 6, 2007
You are still implying that the vast majority of the scientific community is corrupt. I cannot argue that politicians are not corrupt because many of them are. Politicians did not invent global warming, scientists observed it, and whether the people in power actually understand global warming or not, it does not change the fact that scientists observed it and researched it.

By the way, the left has so much power right now because the right threw its power away by electing a retarded president, which is kind of a shame because the republicans have so many better choices to put into office this year that don't stand a chance now because the Bush Administration single handedly turned the country left.
joie de vivre

Norristown, PA

#16 Jun 6, 2007
Appanouki wrote:
<quoted text>
The vast majority of media claims exactly the opposite. It pretends there IS a consensus and that the science is concluded.
Actually, if you were do an analysis of media, it gives a skewed representation, trying to give equal weight to both sides of it...which confuses most Americans. There is a consensus within science if you do the research, the media is what suggests that there isn't. When it gives "equal weight or time" to both sides of the issue, it suggests that there isn't a consensus, when in reality, there is.
joie de vivre

Norristown, PA

#17 Jun 6, 2007
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>why are you taking a religious tone on a factual subject ? This is another aspect of warm-mania that make me suspicious.
Or perhaps it's your imagination...or your way of avoiding the questions posed to you.
Mr Giblets

UK

#18 Jun 6, 2007
joie de vivre wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if you were do an analysis of media, it gives a skewed representation, trying to give equal weight to both sides of it...which confuses most Americans. There is a consensus within science if you do the research, the media is what suggests that there isn't. When it gives "equal weight or time" to both sides of the issue, it suggests that there isn't a consensus, when in reality, there is.
and you have done all this? If there is a consensus, why do some scientists disagree? It is not a consensus if there are dissenters.

Since: May 07

South Shields, UK

#19 Jun 6, 2007
joie de vivre wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if you were do an analysis of media, it gives a skewed representation, trying to give equal weight to both sides of it...which confuses most Americans. There is a consensus within science if you do the research, the media is what suggests that there isn't. When it gives "equal weight or time" to both sides of the issue, it suggests that there isn't a consensus, when in reality, there is.
blind.
Facts

Canada

#20 Jun 6, 2007
Sam_GW_IS_HAPPENING wrote:
You are still implying that the vast majority of the scientific community is corrupt. I cannot argue that politicians are not corrupt because many of them are. Politicians did not invent global warming, scientists observed it, and whether the people in power actually understand global warming or not, it does not change the fact that scientists observed it and researched it.
By the way, the left has so much power right now because the right threw its power away by electing a retarded president, which is kind of a shame because the republicans have so many better choices to put into office this year that don't stand a chance now because the Bush Administration single handedly turned the country left.
Well good , you admit that the government is corrupt , they are also the ones whith the agenda . And they are the ones , who hold the purse strings , so when they want somthing defined or explained their way , they have their bought scientists do just that . The greens are thinking of implementing a fuel tax here in Canada of a futher 14 cents per litre . this money is supposed to help fight global warming . The government makes a lot of money of just this one aspect of this global warming scam . Carbon offsets and who knows what else , are being used as a further way to cash in on their paid for science . CROOKS .

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 2 hr WasteWater 214
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 5 hr Into The Night 2,563
Poll What is the most STUPID post made by an AGW'er.... (Sep '09) 16 hr That Scam 1,264
News Oops! Sea Levels Dropping Everywhere, According... Mon Mothra 2
global warming keeps on keeping on Mon Heretic 30
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Oct 15 Heretic 11,649
News Hurricanes and global warming - still no connec... (Jan '11) Oct 14 Patriot 3
More from around the web