There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming

...I will state with 100% absolute, total, and unrelenting certainty that "global warming" is not a hoax. I.e., the globe/planet is warming...

Such a statement (and its converse) are proveably true if one chooses an appropriate starting point. That, of course, renders such statements rather meaningless as statements of absolute, total, and unrelenting certainty; they are indeed relative to some other chosen point of data. This observation applies as well to the protection of endangered species, wetlands, buggy whips, and oil lamps as it does to global warming.

Who, exactly, was the one who chose the starting point for this "warming" and why is that choice anything other than a reflection of some other bias or agenda?

"This is an EXTRAORDINARILY outdated statement. It was wrong in 1998 and it is wronger now. Four separate analyses of satellite data measuring lower tropospheric atmospheric temperatures shows a lower bound trend of 0.078 degrees C per decade (about 0.8 C per century) to an upper-bound of 0.22 degrees C per decade (about 2.2 degrees C per century). The global surface temperature increase since 1980 is approximately 0.4 degrees C, approximately 1.6 degrees C per century, or just a bit less than three times faster than the warming observed in the 20th century, approximately 0.6 degrees C."

OK. Fair enough. I did not site this article to have to debate it's contents. But sir, if what you say is true.

Would you, could you, go to the site referenced in this post and tell us if all those glaciers mentioned in North America and elsewhere are not really growing in size,bulk.
In short is this site a bunch of bullshit or perhaps worse?
If glaciers are growing in size, if the central Antartic is colder, and as a result, has proven to show thicker ice packs, if toward the north pole it is found that there is the same amount or a thicker ice shelf in New Greenland etc., then I am prone in my ignorance to assume that the air temperatures through out the various layers are not rising as you indicate, because why would glaciers on different continents be growing as apposed to shrinking?

Do be aware, that I realize the requirements we often face in these type of forums to produce what could required hundreds of thousands of pages of well documented and agreed upon data by the majority of the world's scientfic community ,is often simply impossible to produce to try to win a point of view. So I state the above with the knowledge we often feel very strongly about a given topic, and are at odds as to how to best communicate it to the reading audience. So I do not hold you to the task. I have been this route many times over the years. Don't want any of us to get an ulcer trying to prove a point.

Finaly, in my limited knowledge on said subject. I am convinced as has been stated elsewhere in these treads that the sun has more to do with crustal and atmospheric warming then anything mankind could be found guilty of. If the sun is pumping out huge amounts of IR etc. due to increase sun spot activities the earth is going to become warmer. Period.

I wonder how much emphasis is placed on "budding scientist" in all spheres of study as to how important it is to keep a balanced honest viewpoint as how they conduct themselves.

Marine_Uncle; First of all I am only 27, so I am only recently removed from academia. I must have been lucky because I learned early on that good science is when data is presented in a clear and logical format that lets the reader come to their own conclusion. Sometimes the data will present an irrefutable conclusion and other times the conclusion is unclear. Either circumstance does not make the research any less avaluable. For me my primary readers are land managers. Idealy, land managers will read my work and devise a recovery plan based on their interpretation of my work. It is essential in science to refrain from leading the reader to 'your' conclusion. The work, if it is good enough, should stand alone so that the intended reader takes away the same message that the author did. If they do not the work is subpar or its simply inconclusive.

Global warming research seems particularily biased on both sides. Funding comes from all directions, yes even those that wish to debunk the global warming scare. I don't necessarily agree that scientists are given a free ticket to make pronouncements, well at least none I have worked with. But I also haven't worked on such controversial issues with the except of deer management. In that case the Peta types were very quick to criticize research that demostrated that the over-population of deer was damaging the eco-system. They believed we had a political agenda that supported hunting. This came as the land manager wanted to open the park up to hunting. So it really goes both ways. I am in total support of hunting the deer, however I would never make a public statement claiming so. IN this example the blame came to me, the scientist, when really it was the land manager and the media that told the story from our report. So really, to me, I blame the spin on the media and the people who make decision based on reading the reports. Often times these people are not very familar with science and make unwarranted conclusions. Not doubt there are dishonest scientists but I'd like to think its the vast minority, but Im also not naive to think it doesn't exist.

I will state with 100% absolute, total, and unrelenting certainty that "global warming" is not a hoax. I.e., the globe/planet is warming, hard data and less-hard enviromental/ecological observations show it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Pardon me for butting in. I don't want to put words into Boris's mouth but if he meant that human-caused global warming is a hoax, I agree. We're in an interglacial and global temperatures are warming, just as they've done in countless previous glacial-interglacial cycles.

There are some natural calamities we hubristic humans can't prevent: hurricanes, tidal waves, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, asteroid impacts, etc. Global cooling and warming belong on that list. If we can't even account for human vs. natural warming and can't predict its magnitude we don't have much to work with. In the worst case we should plan to do what our species has always done to survive: adapt.

"Marine_Uncle; First of all I am only 27, so I am only recently removed from academia."

Well I wish you a long succesful career. May you have the courage when required to make judgements based only on the best perceived facts, and fight bureacratic and other influences that sometime rather support an agenda that misleads then bring out a truth. I can say years back I put myself in a bad position when I refused to allow managment to ship faulty sub assembly boards that went into the F16 Radar Fire Control Computer system, after discovering a batch of ROMs where truly bad on said PC board. I had to place our Aviators and Pilots above the pressures for me to "look the other way", which might have resulted in one of them having to go into air to air combat with a faulty operating system. Sometimes the pressures are great to not do the right thing. As it turned out I did not lose my job nor suffer in the least. But it could have been so easy to just turn my back and let someone ship those faulty units, assuming that they would be corrected in the field. The pressure was great to look the other way. I am glad I did the right thing. As you will find in due course, there have been many documented cases of scientist that did not hold true to their ideals. They turned their backs, often for personal gain. Hope you have many years of learning how wonderful this creation truly is. It truly boggles the mind how intricate it truly is. And yes I agree on your assesment as how the news media often mangles what they are supposed to report in a factual manner. Worse is when they do it willingly.

"'m also glad to see that some realize that the issue is a serious threat to the West and an affront to the U.S. in particular. It is not something we should ignore."

It certainly is a quite serious threat, when it can damage our economy and the industrial base that is left in this country.
To damn many politics, bad politicians, and special interest groups come into play hear. I think GWB has shown a bit of courage to say........hey wait a minute, lets not move to fast. More solid studies are required before we further put our industries in jeapordy.
It is no different in my eyes, then hearing the constant rumble of the MSM when they tend to broadcast only one side of the issue on elections taking place in Iraq ON TIME.
Different power groups behind the scenes trying to influence world opinion without receiving concrete facts.
To those that scream hey here are the concrete facts about global warming...........do something now.......then why are there so many equally qualified scientist working on this supposed problem that say otherwise.

The global warming issue is similar to some degree, well possibly we just aren't sure but I am keeping an open mind.

thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree an open mind is needed. Scientific principles are being applied to understanding climate. The top Climatologist in the world has stated the Global Warming agenda is bunk. The Earth many indeed be warming, but it is mostly due to effects of the Sun. It is good to have concern, but it must recognized that it has been totally hijacked by enviro-nuts. The will NOT allow any truly rational approach to the problem. Heck, if it was determined the Earth was getting ready to go into a mini ice age, they would find a way blame the U.S. and capitalism. The only rational response is to openly repudiate those who believe Global Warming is caused by man. The reason for this is to kill this evil movement so as to allow capitalism to continue to grow throughout the world. For, if there is one thing that will truly solve our problems -- it is free people, freely competing to solve problems and make a "profit" doing such :) Capitalism provides the "wealth" that reduces our current pollution. Socialism is a cancer on Freedom. The collectivists of the world have NO solutions, only complaints. The world is fine and what happens will happen, and if man can't adapt, too bad :)

It's also a rather stupid article. Comparing global warming predictions to five-day weather forcasts is just dishonest and the author is either just dishonest or ignorant. "Global Warming" is about averages not specific days. It's not hard to to predict that July of 2010 will be warmer than January of 2007 (Northern Hemisphere), even though there could be individual days for which this is untrue. This is just bad or dishonest science (I rather think the latter.) It does no good for the anti-Kyoto people to engage in dishonest arguments; it only makes them look stupid.

The main objection to Kyoto is that it does nothing to reduce atmospheric release of "greenhouse" gasses. Kyoto is only a money transfer from the US to other contries. The author, by writing such articles, makes it much harder to argue against the Treaty as those who are are against Kyoto become tarred with the authors dishonest or stupidity.

"And the implied impugnment of scientic knowledge and veracity that accompanies it almost sickens me."

How apt:

scientism

("saI@ntIz(@)m) [f. scient- (see scientist) + -ism.]

1. The habit and mode of expression of a man of science.

1877 Fraser's Mag. XVI. 274 Its dogmatism on the one hand,+and its ‘scientism’ on the other, even when most atheistic, are tempered with mutual civility. 1895 Daily News 14 Nov. 6/5 By scientism he meant to express that change which had come over the thought of the world in consequence of the wonderful additions to the common stock of knowledge. 1903 Contemp. Rev. May 727 What modern Scientism knows as the Supersensuous Consciousness.

2. A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences.

1921 G. B. Shaw Back to Methuselah p. lxxviii, The iconography and hagiology of Scientism are as copious as they are mostly squalid. 1937 J. Laver French Painting in Nineteenth Cent. i. 73 It really appeared to many educated people that at last all the secrets of the universe would be discovered and all the problems of human life solved. This superstition+we may call ‘Scientism’. 1938 G. Reavey tr. Berdyaev's Solitude & Society i. 12 Science has not only progressively reduced the competence of philosophy, but it has also attempted to suppress it altogether and to replace it by its own claim to universality. This process is generally known as ‘scientism’. 1942 F. A. von Hayek in Economica IX. 269 We shall wherever we are concerned, not with the general spirit of disinterested inquiry but with that slavish imitation of the method and language of science, speak of ‘scientism’ or the ‘scientistic’ prejudice. 1953 A. H. Hobbs Social Problems & Scientism ii. 17 Scientism, as a belief that science can furnish answers to all human problems, makes science a substitute for philosophy, religion, manners, and morals.+ It is a pattern of beliefs+a creed that shapes thinking and affects behavior. 1956 E. H. Hutten Lang. Mod. Physics vi. 273 This belief in the omnipotence of science is+making a mockery of science: for this scientism represents the same, superstitious, attitude which, in previous times, ascribed such power to a supernatural agency. 1957 W. H. Whyte Organization Man iii. 23 Scientism,+the promise that with the same techniques that have worked in the physical sciences we can eventually create an exact science of man. 1969 Encounter Jan. 23/2 There is an aberration of science+which has come to be known as ‘scientism’.+ It stands for the belief that science knows or will soon know all the answers. 1972 K. R. Popper Objective Knowl. iv. 185 The term ‘scientism’ meant originally ‘the slavish imitation of the method and language of (natural) science’, especially by social scientists. Ibid. 186 But I would go even further and accuse at least some professional historians of ‘scientism’. 1977 A. Sheridan tr. J. Lacan's Écrits iii. 76 The early development of psychoanalysis+expresses+nothing less than the re-creation of human meaning in an arid period of scientism. 1980 Times Lit. Suppl. 26 Sept. 1072/2 Naturalism, in David Thomas's usage, is equivalent to what many know as scientism: the doctrine that there is no reason to think that the study of human agents, and the study of the social systems to which human agents give rise, cannot be pursued according to a methodology drawn from natural science.

"The main objection to Kyoto is that it does nothing to reduce atmospheric release of "greenhouse" gasses. Kyoto is only a money transfer from the US to other contries. The author, by writing such articles, makes it much harder to argue against the Treaty as those who are are against Kyoto become tarred with the authors dishonest or stupidity."

I understand what you are trying to get across. The need for superbly good reporting on facts pro and con concerning this issue is needed. I am sure your words will be noticed by readers as an intellegient warning as how low quality reporting can be more detrimental then usefull in bringing out facts on the issue. However, if it turns out to be a fact. Is it stupid to bring out that many climatologist etc., do not agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. That appears to be the main thrust of this article.
But what should we expect from reporters? The guy probably does not know how to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit

After sending my last reply to you I re-read the article that I had posted some hours ago. At this point after more carefully reading it. I retract what I just wrote you to the extent that I do not believe this reporter is that stupid.
In fact on carefull reading much of what he had wrote, I have read elsewhere from authors with the same convictions. As far as I am concerned I think most of what he wrote will bear up as time goes by.
I can say one thing. The bullshit about Freon having to be removed from the market is just bullshit! To damn many of this fuckin# supposedly smart scientist are either on the take or just have their heads up their asse#.
If the Semiconductor business operated like a lot of these folks, you would not have a frigen telephone or computer to play with!
I don't trust many of these guys anymore. I worked with both good and bad world class scientist at Bell Labs. I worked with extremly talented engineers and engineers that one would wonder where they got their degrees from.
I from the beginning of this post admited I have not become knowledable on many of the scientific points in this debate, but make no excuse for my ignorance. But I think there is to damn much bad science possing as good authoratative science on this issue. As far as your earlier comments on "no data being provided". What is the guy supposed to do?
Write a 1000 page book on climatology 101? Then another book on earth models, one on the physics of the upper atmosphere, etc., to prove a point well noted by many others in the past few years?
The thrust of his article was to simply bring out that there is a growing awareness that this global warming is not what it is made up to be. Major ocean warming in some sectors, yes, a gradual warming in the air in upper earth crust due to increased infrared radiation due to increased energy output from the sun's surface yes. No problems. But all the guy is doing is parroting what others are starting to say concerning this issue. I see nothing wrong with his article over all. I am signing off for tonight. Do have a pleasant evening/morning sir.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.