"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
When faced with overwhelming evidence that it is likely that man-made
influences are a large part of global warming, nob quotes discredited
'scientists' as his 'proof' that this is not the case.

The problem is that it's not overwhelming evidence, it's overwhelming hype.

When confronted with quotes from NASA that do not support his thesis,
nob just keeps repeating his mantra: "It isn't true; it isn't true."

I provided onks to other NASA sites that don't agree, and that was the
point, even they don't have a consensus.

What bizarre religion or belief system could be the basis of his
incredible whoppers in the face of hard evidence?


What hard evidence? There is speculation and speculation only.
A few hot years do not automatically indicate man made GW.

Then there's the bit about U.N. documents being altered.

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the
Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: "There is no convincing scientific
evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate. "

At least as valid as the "scientists" who urged signing of the Kyoto Accord.

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists,
astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick
Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is "based
upon flawed ideas."

Richard Lindzen of M.I.T has been very vocal on the subject of why the GW
hype is just that and why the so-called evidence is corrupt, flawed, or just
plain wrong.

Excuse me if I choose to believe people like:

by Philip Stott
(Philip Stott is professor emeritus of biogeography in the University of
London, and blogs at EnviroSpin Watch)

In any discussion of climate change, it is essential to distinguish between
the complex science of climate and the myth - in the sense of Roland
Barthes, or the 'hybrid', following Bruno Latour - of 'global warming' (1).
The latter is a politico-pseudoscientific construct, developed since the
late 1980s, in which the human emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon
dioxide and methane, is unquestioningly taken as the prime driver of a new
and dramatic type of climate change that will result in a significant
warming during the next 100 years and lead to catastrophe for both humanity
and the Earth.
This, in turn, has morphed since 1992 and the Rio Conference on the
environment into a legitimising myth for a gamut of interconnected political
agendas - above all for a range of European sensibilities with regards to
America, oil, the car, transport, economic growth, trade, and international
corporations.
The language employed tends to be authoritarian and religious in character,
involving the use of what the physicist PH Borcherds has termed the
'hysterical subjunctive' (2). Indeed, for many, the myth has become an
article of a secular faith that exhibits all the characteristics of a
premodern religion, above all demanding sacrifice to the Earth.

By contrast, the science of climate change starts from the principle that we
are concerned with the most complex, non-linear, chaotic system known, and
that it is distinctly unlikely that climate change can be predicted by
reference to a single factor, however politically convenient that factor.
Above all, in approaching the science, as distinct from the myth, it is
necessary precisely to examine three questions.

First, is the climate changing? The answer has to be: 'Of course it is.'
Evidence throughout geological time indicates climate change at all scales
and all times. Climate change is the norm, not the exception, and at any
moment the Earth is either warming or cooling. If climate were ever to
become stable, it would be a scientifically exciting phenomenon. To declare
that 'the climate is changing' is therefore a truism.
By contrast, the global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of
climate stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate
'sustainability'. Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron.
The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the
Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires,
than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred
to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who
question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate
change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm.

Secondly, do humans influence climate? Again, the answer is: 'Of course they
do.' Hominids and humans have been affecting climate since they first
manipulated fire to alter landscapes at least 750,000 years ago, but
possibly as far back as two million years. Recent research has further
implicated the development of agriculture, around 10,000 years ago, as an
important human factor. Humans influence climate in many ways, through
altering the albedo (the reflectivity) of the surface of the Earth, through
changing the energy balance of the Earth, by emitting particles and
aerosols, as well as by those hoary old favourites, industrial emissions.
Here we encounter the second major difference between the science and the
myth. In fact, human influences on climate are multi-factorial.
Unfortunately, we know precious little about most of them. My own instinct
is that our ability to change the reflectivity of the Earth's surface will,
in the end, prove to have been far more important than industrial emissions.
After all, if Lex Luthor covered the Tibetan High Plateau with black plastic
sheeting, even Superman might have problems dealing with the monsoons.

Thirdly, will we be able to produce predictable climate change, and a stable
climate, by adjusting just one human variable, namely carbon dioxide
emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that
drive climate? The answer is: '100 per cent, no.' This is the seminal point
at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from the
central beliefs of the global warming myth. The idea that we can manage
climate predictably by minimal adjustments to our output of some politically
selected gases is both naive and dangerous.
The truth is the opposite. In a system as complex and chaotic as climate,
such an action may even trigger unexpected consequences. It is vital to
remember that, for a coupled, non-linear system, not doing something (ie,
not emitting gases) is as unpredictable as doing something (ie, emitting
gases). Even if we closed down every factory in the world, crushed every car
and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw four billion
people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often
dramatically. The only trouble is that we would all be too poor to be able
to adapt to the changes, whatever their direction.


Here's a link to a piece by Lindzen:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

In part he notes:

Before even considering "greenhouse theory,'' it may be helpful to begin
with the issue that is almost always taken as a given--that carbon dioxide
will inevitably increase to values double and even quadruple present values.
Evidence from the analysis of ice cores and after 1958 from direct
atmospheric sampling shows that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has
been increasing since 1800. Before 1800 the density was about 275 parts per
million by volume. Today it is about 355 parts per million by volume. The
increase is generally believed to be due to the combination of increased
burning of fossil fuels and before 1905 to deforestation. The total source
is estimated to have been increasing exponentially at least until 1973. From
1973 until 1990 the rate of increase has been much slower, however. About
half the production of carbon dioxide has appeared in the atmosphere.

It is precisely because Lindzen is reputable and knowledgeable that Al Gore
didn't want him testify when they held hearings on GW, becuase Linzen would
have debunked it. Nice open mind, the evidence is contradicted, so let's
not hear the evidence.

Here's a bit of what he said then:

The obvious consequence of this is that if we do not accurately

model the dynamic heat transport, we cannot calculate the mean temperature
of the earth. No one in the

atmospheric sciences would argue with this; it is absolutely basic. Rather,
members of the modeling

community have argued that the models do well with such transports, and that
there is no major problem

here. However, extensive model intercomparisons conducted through DOE's AMIP
program have shown

wide differences among models and between models and observations. These
differences also represent

uncertainties and errors greatly in excess of the contributions from doubled
CO2.

A consequence of the mean temperature depending on dynamic transport is that
there might be climate

change in the absence of mean forcing. Motions depend on horizontal
variations in heating rather than

mean heating, and such variations occur for a variety of reasons ranging
from ENSO events (dependent

on the interaction of the atmosphere and the oceans) to variations in the
earth's orbit.



And more recently:

"For example, there is widespread agreement [among climate scientists] ...
that large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major
features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages
that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very
warm climates of the Miocene [23 to 5 million years ago], Eocene [57 to 35
million years ago], and Cretaceous [146 to 65 million years ago]. Neither do
they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena
like El Ninos, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations -
all of which are well documented in the data, and important contributors to
natural variability."

As he did when he spoke to the Commerce Committee in 2001.



Then there's this bit from a relevant group: the American Association of
State Climatologists, recently summarized the state of climate simulations:

"Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties ... For time scales
of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such
predictions - called "verification" - is simply impossible, since we have to
wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts. ... climate
predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and
changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought,
flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms.
These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society
than annual average global temperature trends."

So you'll excuse me if I'm not willing to say your evidence is conclusive,
since it is anything but. What it is, is conjecture and nothing more.

As long as reputable scinetists say thngs like:
In the chapter "Global Warmth" in his book A Moment On The Earth, Gregg
Easterbrook answers this claim:


"Certainly this is possible. But in making the assertion doomsayers leave
out a key modifier: The natural carbon cycle is in an approximate
equilibrium state. Ice-core records are clear on the point that natural CO2
levels bounced up and down long before the first flint struck steel. Into
the approximate equilibrium of the natural carbon cycle comes such natural
perturbations as periods of global volcanism, ice ages, droughts that reduce
carbon dioxide subtractions by land plants, weather vacillations that cause
rainy seasons and increase carbon dioxide subtractions by land plants, and
many other natural carbon-altering events. In environmental orthodoxy,
before the arrival of men and women the Earth dwelled in a sort of Golden
Era when all natural forces ideally balanced. Surely there were individual
centuries when this was so; perhaps there were millennia. But at least in
the most recent four million years of Earth history, the period of cyclical
ice ages, the biosphere could hardly be described as a placid equilibrium
state."[5]
Bear in mind, too, that over 98% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor
and clouds.[6,7] Less than 2% of greenhouse warming is due to the greenhouse
gas CO2. Human industry's contribution to the amount of atmospheric CO2
present at any given time is not known because we simply do not fully
understand to what extent increased atmospheric CO2 triggers natural
balancing forces to consume any excess CO2.

And that bit in one of your other posts about Global cooling being a myth is
complete bull****, I was around in the 70's and recall reading many articles
and op ed pieces on the subject of global cooling or as some said we were at
the end of such a period.

Here's a sample of the kind of thing that was being discussed back in the
mid-seventies by that part of the scientific community that dealt with the
geological history of climate changes:

"The present interglacial interval -- which has now lasted for about 10,000
years -- represents a climatic regime that is relatively rare during the
past million years, most of which has been occupied by colder, glacial
regimes. Only during about 8 percent of the past 700,000 years has the earth
experienced climates as warm or warmer than the present.

"The penultimate interglacial age began about 125,000 years ago, and lasted
for approximately 10,000 years. Similar interglacial ages -- each lasting
10,000 plus or minus 2000 years and each followed by a glacial maximum --
have occurred on the average every 100,000 years during at least the past
half-million years.

"During this period, fluctuations of the northern hemisphere ice sheets
caused sea level variations of the order of 100 meters." (Understanding
Climate Change, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1975 --
page 181).

On page 189 the question was asked: "When will the present interglacial
[period] end?

"Few paleoclimatoligists would dispute that the prominent warm periods (or
interglacials) that have followed each of the terminations of the major
glaciations have had durations of 10,000 plus or minus 2000 years. In each
case, a period of considerably colder climate has followed immediately after
the interglacial interval.

Since about 10,000 years have passed since the onset of the present period
of prominent warmth, the question naturally arises as to whether we are
indeed on the brink of a period of colder climate."

"The question remains unsolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic
in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of
unknown timing ... if on the other hand, these changes are more sinusoidal
in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of a
thousand years."

A study prepared for the 95th Congress in 1978 agreed with the National
Academy of Sciences position as explained in the above-quoted study. The
document Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy and Potential
warned:

"In geological prospective, the case for cooling is strong ... If this
interglacial age lasts no longer than a dozen earlier ones in the past
million years, as recorded in deep sea sediments, we may reasonably suppose
the world is about due to slide into the next ice age."

That was the prevailing opinion among paleoclimatologists; it was a case of
the past being prologue. If the earth underwent regular cycles of glaciation
and interglacial periods, and the geological record proved that to be the
case, then obviously we are at the end of the present between-ice-ages
period.


So keep peddaling the propaganda, you're the one with closer link to
Goebbels.

My conscience is very clear as is the record on GW, mainly there is no
consensus and there is no proof.