Global Warming - Page 51 - Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1001 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-14-2007, 09:21 PM
Senior Member
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Originally Posted by bigdog View Post » Introducing and

Introducing and

dennis miller talk show

Le Kiwi is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #1002 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-14-2007, 10:26 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,993
Talking Guess who got a Thesaurus for his birthday?

That feller sure told them thar liberals. He went to college too!!

Originally Posted by guywhoreallylikesbigwordsandgoofylatinshitthatnoon ecaresabout View Post
flamboyant overtures notwithstanding correlation causation sunspot cycles Maunder Minimum's Little Ice Modern Maximum's chicanery inverted arguments illusory assertion false Fait Accompli solace equally counterfeit Quack Quandaries ad nauseum prejudicial conundrum implies concurrence premise devious ploy Complex Question deceitfully arguable assumption False Dilemma alarmist cataclysm imperative planetary calamity logical fallacies Troposphere purported consequences motivational fuel inured doomsday reflexive remedies baseless catastrophic projections Misleading Vividness ostensibly stranded despicable interspersed dreadful depictions cognitive destined frailties myriad scientists accusations straw man argument circumstantial ad hominem asserting proof proffered surmise drones penchant heretics considerably Tirade devoid alarmists compensate seemingly bottomless armory fallacious arguments sleights-of-thought negative Genetic Fallacy logic flaw similar mind trickery assert falsely positive irrationality Gorebots Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc similar tactic Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc implication Affirming consequent asininity conditional (consequent) concludes (antecedent) Appeal Consequences Belief Anthropogenic Global Warming Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy Appeal to Authority Appeal Bravo Sierra novelty Relativist Fallacy prevailing ensuing response astounding Ad Hominem Tu Quoque journalism's provision internet concoct logical fallacy charlatan debate-aphobe calcified nemesis whatsoever objective analytical forum fraudulent consequences naturally shifting climate patterns capitalism itself immutable imperative arrest proliferating cognitive plague unremitting rebuttal steadfast refusal assimilate collective mindset puerile sluggishly slipping stupor reinvigorate political untenable base load electric requirements indefinitely Holocaust clarify logical fallacies Nizkor Holocaust Educational Resource Project Techniques of Holocaust Denial

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
247 is offline  
post #1003 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-14-2007, 10:36 PM
Senior Member
DanST4's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
Irrelevant - completely irrelevant. It's just not pertinent or applicable to you or me.

CEO pay is determined by the Board of Directors, and is usually tied to earnings through (often complicated) formulas. It's the Board of Directors who evaluates, hires, and writes the employment contract. It takes a LOT to attract a qualified CEO. What they offer that candidate in pay and perks is the Board of Directors' business and the business of the Corporation. It's no one else's business.

I could care less if a CEO of some corporation gets paid 50,000 times more than his/her employees. It's none of my (or your) business. It's only the business of the stockholders of that corporation, and if they don't like it - they need to vote-in a new Board.

It's easy to look back and say, "Hey that corporation LOST money while paying that CEO so much!". Yea well that's the way it goes. The CEO has the authority over an entire corporation. It's an awesome responsibility - it's not a 40 hour a week job. It's a very powerful position, with a high chance for spectacular failure. Some CEO's can turn around a poorly performing company, some cannot. That's life. It takes money, LOTS OF MONEY to attract and hold a good CEO.

Right now, CEO pay is a hot topic. The CEO of a corporation has tremendous responsibility for the operation. Like it or not - it's a job that pays very, very well. If a corportation wants to attract a top-notch CEO - they must pay for it.

It may not seem "fair" to you or I but it is indeed fair because it's the way capitalism works. I could care less if the retiring CEO of General Electric gets $175 million and a car and driver and house and what ever...

Another old saying, "A fair days work for a fair days pay". Right now, a fair days pay for a CEO is very high in realtion to most any other career.

If you're trading your skill set for a certain pay, and you're happy with this arrangement, great! If not, quit and go somewhere else. Trade your skill set for more pay. That's freedom!

And I have to ask, "so what?" How is my pay any of your business? We have a phrase for someone who sticks their nose into other people's business, "a busy body".

This is what capitalism is all about: take a risk, reap a reward. Freedom and democracy encourages this pioneering, risk-taking spirit, and I love it!

2001 ST4
2013 K1600GT

Last edited by DanST4; 11-14-2007 at 10:58 PM.
DanST4 is offline  
post #1004 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-15-2007, 10:06 PM
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,374
Thumbs up By Marc Sheppard

Gore's Deceptive Rolling Stone Interview

In case any doubt remains as to who deserves the title of undisputed Globaloney Champion of the World, Al Gore's Rolling Stone interview should put the question to rest.

Interviewed in the magazine's third 40th Anniversary Issue of the year, self-proclaimed planet savior Al Gore warns that:

"It is a mistake to think of the Climate Crisis as one in a list of issues that will define our future. It is the issue. Everything else must be viewed through that lens."

That's right -- The issue. Not the all too real, ongoing struggle against radical Islamic madmen. Not nuclear proliferation. Not even the truly apocalyptic potential fusion of the two, a prospect which recent events in Pakistan have chillingly served to advance.

No - the issue, insists Gore, is his completely conjectural Climate Crisis.

As though to support such an absurd declaration, he then offered these keen observations:

"The north polar ice cap is melting, the fires are burning, the sea level is rising, living species are going extinct. These and many other manifestations, including half the U.S. being in drought last year, are visible to the naked eye. We have got to recognize that even though it's never happened before, it is happening right now." [my emphasis]

Now, virtually every claim in his first two sentences is technically truthful. Until, that is, augmented by the catastrophe-implying qualification of the third. And it is just that dishonest inference -- that these occurrences are without precedent -- that exposes the true measure of this man in oh so many ways.

So, with apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, let me count the ways.

Yes, the northern polar ice cap is melting. For the most part, it's been alternately retreating and advancing in reaction to seasonal changes for as long as there have existed seasons.

And, while it's true that its dimensions may now be at a record low, Gore somehow failed to mention that the southern polar ice cap recently reached ice levels higher than we've encountered in 30 years. If global warming is alleged, you have to look at the Southern Hemisphere too when talking about polar ice caps.

Nothing new here -- 1 down.

Next up -- fires are burning? Might the Goreacle be alluding to the recent arson, environmental-case-backlash- and Santa Ana wind-induced southern California blazes?

Nice try, but wildfires have raged there for hundreds of years. Even the true believers at the LA Times reported that "global warming was not a factor" in the infernos, citing a Science journal study which found that the region suffered "no increase in the frequency of fire as temperatures rose."

Strike 2.

But sea levels are rising, cautions Gore. And that's quite accurate, although not by measures even remotely approaching the map-redrawing 20 feet by the year 2100 he repeatedly portends.

Indeed, even his overly hysterical co-awardees at the IPCC have projected a far less catastrophic global mean sea level rise of between 0.09 and 0.88 meters from 1990 to 2100. And once again, it has happened before -- oceans have been ascending at varying rates since the end of the last ice age -- over 10,000 years ago.

That's 0 for 3.

And, what of these alleged extinctions? Are "living species" truly "going extinct," as Al maintains? Of course they are, just as they have throughout history.

The cold truth is that The World Conservation Union lists 698 animal species extinctions since 1500 A.D. And, at Peter Maas's Extinction site, he lists 62 extinctions in the 19th century and 86 in the 20th which he attributes primarily to invasive alien species, habitat loss and overexploitation.

Implying that this unfortunate yet essential component of natural selection is somehow unprecedented is nothing short of imbecilic. Surely Gore believes in evolution, of which natural selection is the driving force.

Four deeply deceptive assertions in a single sentence certainly do nothing to smooth Gore's reputation for exaggerating. Bu implying in the very next breath that last year's drought was an unparalleled prognosticator of doom verges on incitement to panic.

According to the National Climatic Data Center's U.S. National Percent Area Moderately to Extremely Dry and Moderately to Extremely Wet chart, nascent dryness is far from unprecedented.

True - 2000, 2002, and 2006 each had at least one month with over 50% of the country experiencing drought conditions. But the same can be said of 1977, 1981, and 1988. And beginning in 1954 there were 4 such consecutive drought years.

Furthermore, the 1930's were a truly devastating period, enveloped in what the NCDC declares the "most widespread national drought in the last 300 years." For 5 of those years, over 50% of the country was hit, and for 5 months during 1934 that figure climbed to almost 80%.

The misery these conditions brought to the Great Plains region -- parched for virtually the entire decade -- made refugees of large numbers of Americans, as chronicled in the classic American tale of dispossessed dust bowl migrants, The Grapes of Wrath.

Ironically, getting reacquainted with Steinbeck's patently pro-socialist masterpiece might afford the alarmist-in-chief a valuable perspective on demagoguery.

Casy the Preacher man vowed never to sermonize again until he learned the truth himself: "Preachers gotta know [what they're preaching about]," he confided to Tom Joad, confessing that he did not.

Not a single one of Gore's five examples of what's "happening right now" has, as he persists, "never happened before."

Not one.

So in how many ways does Gore deceive?

Given five deceptions in three sentences in one paragraph in just one interview, who can possibly keep count?
bigdog is offline  
post #1005 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-16-2007, 05:44 AM
Naturally Exasperated
Gog's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
Court Rejects Fuel Standards on Trucks
Published: November 16, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 15 — A federal appeals court here rejected the Bush administration’s year-old fuel-economy standards for light trucks and sport utility vehicles on Thursday, saying that they were not tough enough because regulators had failed to thoroughly assess the economic impact of tailpipe emissions that contribute to climate change.

Gog is offline  
post #1006 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-16-2007, 05:54 AM
Senior Member
Area 51's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Napa, CA
Posts: 4,678
You can stand in the way of progress for only so long.

"...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel)
"When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Area 51 is offline  
post #1007 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-16-2007, 06:12 AM
Naturally Exasperated
Gog's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
Originally Posted by Area 51 View Post
You can stand in the way of progress for only so long.
Once we decide to "get her done" re: environmental regulation and adaptation laws, practices, awareness and PROFIT, it makes the people who block and stall the changes look pretty damn greedy and lame. It's so simple...We just do it and go from there.
The economy, the business, the trade and the bottom line ALL will catch up. Besides, the alternative is an "environmental quagmire"
Gog is offline  
post #1008 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-16-2007, 11:59 AM
Senior Member
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
More "Global warming is only in your imaginations, and Al Gore is a terrorist who wants to destroy American industry" from the "American Non-thinker" How rare. How precioussss...

American Thinker: Gore's Deceptive Rolling Stone Interview

Shall we pick them apart like the rotting fascistsss they are, my preciousss....???

Yes, yes, lets, Gollum...

So, the Antarctica is growing ? Therefore Gore is wrongsess...?

RealClimate » Is Antarctic climate changing?

All About Sea Ice: Characteristics: Arctic vs. Antarctic

Ah, the fires, Preciousss, they burns our little denierss fingersss...

Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say

The nasty waterss is risingss, my Precioussss !

RealClimate » How much future sea level rise? More evidence from models and ice sheet observations.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sea level rise 'under-estimated'

OzCoasts: Coastal Indicators - Sea Level Rise

Ahh, the speciesss is extincting themselvess, my Preciousss, nothing to doeses with climate change, no, no...

Global Warming Increases Species Extinctions Worldwide, University of Texas at Austin Researcher Finds | News : The University of Texas at Austin : Office of Public Affairs

The nasty, horrid light in the sky thats makes us parched and dryses, Gollum ! How I hateses it...ssssss
But it's normal, a drought every now and again ? Right ? Nothing to see, move along and write a book, citizens. Perfectly natural.

News in Science - Climate change boosting flood and drought: experts - 03/03/2003

Floods and drought: Lloyd's assesses climate change | Environment | Reuters

Climate Change Killed off Maya Civilization, Study Says

Climate change in Australia: technical report 2007 (Publication - Technical)

So, where does that leave that nasssty "American Non-Thinkersss", thens ?
Methinkss out in the dustbowl, Preciousss, out in the dust......
Le Kiwi is offline  
post #1009 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-16-2007, 03:52 PM
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,374

• Global warming.

Americans have heard repeatedly from the media that there is a "consensus" on global warming that makes all further debate unnecessary.

In order to halt the unwanted warming of our globe, we will all have to accept radical changes to our lifestyles along with massive cuts in wealth.

We may have to spend $250 billion or more a year - and even that sacrifice might not be enough.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

For our purposes, we'll stick to the assertion of a "consensus" among scientists.

The facts, as usual, are far more complex than the simplistic media take most people get.

There is quite a bit of agreement that, in general, the world seems to have warmed a degree or two since the mid-19th century.

There's no agreement, however, that it's human-made — or that it's necessarily even a bad thing.

Indeed, a review last summer of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the past three years found a decided shift in scientific opinion — toward sceptism of extreme warming claims.

The review found that just 7% of the papers explicitly endorsed the notion that humans were having an impact on global warming.

Even if you add in the number of those that seem to "implicitly" endorse that idea, the number rises to 45% — not a consensus.

Fully 48% were neutral.

Earlier this year, 60 prominent scientists wrote to Canada's prime minister, questioning the science underlying current claims about warming.

They wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto almost certainly would not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
bigdog is offline  
post #1010 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-16-2007, 04:52 PM
Senior Member
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Americans have also heard repeatedly from the Desperately Dying Dinosaurs like these "Idiots Being Dinosaurs" who spin as hard as their little feet, already paddling in the rising tide, can spin them.
They're spinning so hard they look like Evenrudes, churning out behind them all sorts of shit, lapped up by troll-bots and chundered around the web as "fact".
Back it up, Bigdog, and the non-signed serious-sounding but hollow and empty propaganda froth from IBD.....

We'll wait until the glaciers melt.

So you have a couple of weeks, at least.

BTW, the dinosaurs had very small brains, and possibly only ten second memories.
You may want to wonder about the reason that this "report" was dragged back out of it's funk hole in the ice where it had melted into after the IPCC report was issued by those stalwart Deniers at IBD. Personally, I smell desperation, sweating oil-company armpit desperation, and raging right-wing peabrains being stretched to their shallow limits.
Yes, those magnificent scientists and their oil-powered Denying machine wrote this in 2006, all for our favorite oil-company shill in congress, Senator James M Imehopeless. Then as they stood, chewin' baccy and lookin' mean on the ice-pack, Reality came along and melted the ice under their Texas cowboy snakeoil-seller boots and they all went "splash".....


RealClimate » Senator Inhofe on Climate Change

James M. Inhofe - Congresspedia

Go Jim !! You rock !! Global warming is a Liberal myth !! "Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle.[20] The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.[21]"

Last edited by Le Kiwi; 11-16-2007 at 05:09 PM.
Le Kiwi is offline  
post #1011 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-16-2007, 07:17 PM
Senior Member
Area 51's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Napa, CA
Posts: 4,678
Originally Posted by Gog View Post
Once we decide to "get her done" re: environmental regulation and adaptation laws, practices, awareness and PROFIT, it makes the people who block and stall the changes look pretty damn greedy and lame. It's so simple...We just do it and go from there.
The economy, the business, the trade and the bottom line ALL will catch up. Besides, the alternative is an "environmental quagmire"
The last century is littered with the remains of naysayers and doomsdayers. Progress runs them over in the long run. If it hadn't we'd have a whole slew of Love Canal's to deal with. They are like an anchor that won't come up.

"...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel)
"When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Area 51 is offline  
post #1012 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-17-2007, 10:00 PM
Naturally Exasperated
Gog's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
Tis hard to have or keep faith with such high numbers of dingalings in the world these days.

Evidence of climate change 'unequivocal': UN report
Gog is offline  
post #1013 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-18-2007, 02:52 AM
Naturally Exasperated
Gog's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
Gog is offline  
post #1014 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-18-2007, 04:15 AM
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,374
Lightbulb By Richard Black

Sun and global warming: A cosmic connection?

In February 2007, depending on what newspaper you read, you might have seen an article detailing a "controversial new theory" of global warming.

The idea was that variations in cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere would change the amount of cloud cover, in turn changing our planet's reflectivity, and so the temperature at its surface.

This, it was said, could be the reason why temperatures have been seen to be varying so much over the Earth's history, and why they are rising now.

The theory was detailed in a book, The Chilling Stars, written by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark and British science writer Nigel Calder, which appeared on the shelves a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had published its landmark report concluding it was more than 90% likely that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases were warming the planet.

n truth, the theory was not new; Dr Svensmark's team had proposed it a decade earlier, while the idea of a cosmic ray influence on weather dates back to 1959 and US researcher Edward Ney.

The bigger question is whether it amounts to a theory of global warming at all.

Small change

Over the course of the Earth's history, the main factor driving changes in its climate has been that the amount of energy from the Sun varies, either because of wobbles in the Earth's orbit or because the Sun's power output changes.

Most noticeably, it changes with the 11-year solar cycle, first identified in the mid-1800s by astronomers who noticed periodic variations in the number of sunspots.

If it varied enough, it could change the Earth's surface temperature markedly. So is it?

"Across the solar cycle, the Sun's energy output varies only by about 0.1%," says Sami Solanki from the Max-Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany.

"When you look across much longer timescales, you also see changes only of about 0.1%. So just considering directly variations in energy coming from the Sun, this is not enough to explain the climatic changes we have seen and are seeing now."

This is why scientists have been investigating mechanisms which could amplify the changes in solar output, scaling up the 0.1% variation into an effect that could explain the temperature rise of almost half a degree Celsius that we have seen at the Earth's surface in just the last few decades.

One is Joanna Haigh from Imperial College, London, UK. She realised that although the Sun's overall energy output changes by 0.1%, it changes much more in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum.

"The changes in the UV are much larger, between 1% and 10%," she says.

"And that primarily has an impact in the stratosphere (the upper atmosphere) - UV is absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere and also produces ozone, and this warms the air."

Using computer models of climate, Dr Haigh's team showed that warming in the stratosphere could change the way energy is distributed across the troposphere, the lower atmosphere, changing wind and weather patterns. But not by much.

"We found it might raise temperatures by a maximum of half to one Celsius in certain regions," she says. "But in terms of an impact on the global average temperature, it's small, maybe about 0.2C."

Which is not enough to explain the warming that has occurred since the late 1970s.

read it all:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sun and global warming: A cosmic connection?
bigdog is offline  
post #1015 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-18-2007, 12:46 PM
Naturally Exasperated
Gog's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
How to be a Global Warming Denier

by retrograde

Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 06:07:01 PM PST

So you're a blogger who wants to discredit global warming? But finding it such hard work swimming against the current of consensus? Help is at hand. I've just read a global warming denier's newspaper article that serves as a blueprint for spreading uncertainty and doubt. So if you're finding it hard to write plausible-sounding dissenting commentary and assist the causes of Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Mining, and Hummers for all, read on.
(P.S. This is intended for deniers only. Please don't spread it to people with green dispositions who hang out on leftie liberal sites like Daily Kos.)The blueprint article is called A dangerous climate, by Professor Bob Carter, from the UK Sunday Telegraph. Let's go through it, and learn just how real denial is done. You will be impressed!
*** Step One: Be an expert in something climate-related
Professor Carter is an academic in a field not totally unrelated to global warming. According to his own private non-University website:
He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.
That sounds way cooler than me! My academic study involved sleeping through mathematics and computing courses, nothing that qualifies me to write about global warming issues.
But if, like me, such expertise is beyond your reach, don't panic. This is just one step of many, and if you can follow most of the rest you'll have the environmentalists pedalling for cover.
*** Step Two: Be a key member of a prominent denialist group
Not content to keep his opinions to Australia, Bob Carter is a founding member of the Climate Science Coalition in New Zealand. There's safety in numbers, and joining scientific-sounding denialist groups (or forming your own!) gives you more exposure and links. Don't worry if like the NZCSC, your denial group website is an unreadable mess of PDF files and links to anything that trashes Al Gore. The key thing is that its mission statement sounds respectable and unbiased - here's the Climate Science Coalition statement as an example to follow:
To represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change.
*** Step Three: Write for a well-read conservative newspaper
The Sunday edition of the UK Daily Telegraph, conservative enough to get jokingly called the Torygraph, is certainly prominent and right-wing enough for someone of Carter's standing. The rest of us will have to settle for local LTEs and our favorite blogs, but we all have to start somewhere.
*** Step Four: Start with a bold claim
The latest IPCC report, published on Friday, is the most alarming yet: not for its claims of human-caused global warming, writes the leading environmental scientist Bob Carter, but for its lack of scientific rigour.
This textbook start from Carter turns off any pro-consensus greenies who may be reading (as if they'd read the Torygraph!) and establishes the author as a leading expert, while grabbing the attention of his key audience.
*** Step Five: Stamp your claim to expertiness
It doesn't matter if you spend more time writing for popular media than peer-reviewed journals. Just give a friendly anecdote about how gruelling real scientisting can be, and your expertiness is assured.
At 4C, it is cold in the storage refrigerator. One needs to rug up well to work here. I am at the US headquarters of the Ocean Drilling Programme at Texas A&M University, studying seabed cores from the southwest Pacific Ocean.
Carter goes on to assert that ice core studies show all this talk of warming is just natural cyclic variation. It goes without saying that the many core studies which dispute this simplistic view must not be mentioned.
*** Step Six: Confuse cause and effect
This is a really easy one, because most readers are so clueless about cause and effect. Carter nails it with the time-honored strategy of taking one component from a complex system and applying it out of context:
Similar cores through polar ice reveal, contrary to received wisdom, that past temperature changes were followed - not preceded, but followed - by changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide. Yet the public now believes strongly that increasing human carbon dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange cause of climate change that naturally postdates its supposed effect?
Of course the reader need not be informed that temperature changes preceding CO2 changes is irrelevant, and the science of massive increases in CO2 causing temperature change is overwhelmingly accepted.
*** Step Seven: Trash the pro-consensus left-wing media
This should be obvious, but here again it is worth admiring the way Carter does it.
[N]ewspapers, radio and television stations bludgeon us with a merciless stream of human-caused global-warming alarmism, egged on by a self-interested gaggle of journalists, environmental lobbyists, scientific and business groups, church leaders and politicians, all of whom preach that we must "stop climate change" by reducing human CO2 emissions.
(You may be confused by the "church leaders" reference, but it is apparently quite appropriate for a UK audience. For a US audience, that would probably be removed.)
*** Step Eight: Put the IPCC in its place
The IPCC is the new enemy #1, displacing Al Gore from the top spot earlier this month when its latest report was released. We got great traction from Al's electricity bill, but that's old news now. Carter recognizes the importance of refuting the IPCC, stating that their advice is "political and not scientific" and disparaging their "increasingly dramatic warnings."
*** Step Nine: Include a fancy graph
To dispute surface temperature change, Carter presents a beautiful graph showing how a particular layer of the atmosphere has not warmed up in the past thirty years. And since graphs show data, not subjective words, the public is happy to believe them. This graph is a multi-faceted work of beauty, as we shall discover in the next few steps.

*** Step Ten: Move on to a complex field where you have no experience
Don't feel compelled to stick with the subject(s) in which you have education. Readers won't care that Carter's graph has nothing to do with ocean drilling. The switch to atmospheric temperature shows precisely what we want: a lot of confusing up/down action, but no upward trend.
Yes, the choice of atmospheric temperature is inspired. You see, different layers of the atmosphere have different expected changes from global warming factors; some will warm, and some will cool. Some will even have competing warming and cooling factors which balance enough to show no significant trend. Just perfect! This "atmosphere problem" is a periennal favorite of climate change deniers, although spoilsports like the EPA U.S. Climate Change Science Program are publishing annoying facts which threaten this oasis of doubt. Here are their findings, with the most harmful points emphasised:
* There is no discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere. This discrepancy had previously been used to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change.
* Errors identified in the satellite data and other temperature observations have been corrected. These and other analyses have increased confidence in the understanding of observed climate changes and their causes.
* Research to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.
If you want to use atmospheric temperature for your own writing, it is important to select the layer according to your particular argument. You want a temperature rise, or a drop, or no trend? No problem! Here's a handy chart from the report, so you can choose the climate change factor and atmospheric layer that suits your purposes.

*** Step Eleven: Borrow results from fellow climate change deniers
This is where Professor Carter gets really smart. His atmosphere temperature data comes from a fellow scientist who has acquired quite a reputation for clouding the climate change arena, Dr John Christy. Wikipedia introduces him:
Dr. John Christy is a climate scientist whose chief interests are global climate change, satellite sensing of global climate, and paleoclimate. He is best known, jointly with Dr. Roy Spencer, for his version of the satellite temperature record. He is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
That's innocent enough, but Carter wisely does not mention John Christy by name. If he did, curious readers might snoop around and found his factsheet:
FACTSHEET: John Christy
While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.
Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Emphasis added. We wouldn't want our readers finding that!
John Christy even has a quote in that recent glorious denialist documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle:
"I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist - and there are many - that simply think that is not true."
*** Step Twelve: Use raw data, not peer-reviewed results
I know, you're marvelling at Bob Carter's skills. But wait, here is the real ingenuity. He doesn't just borrow from a fellow denier in a totally unrelated field where cherry-picking results is easy. He goes further and uses raw data rather than a graph showing results that have survived peer review. (You have to look closely at the fine print at the bottom of Carter's graph to see its source - a text file full of satellite-gathered temperature values.)
Now, Carter could have included this graph on the right, which is actually from the Wikipedia entry for John Christy, and shows Christy's results for the lower atmosphere as a red trend line marked UAH. But that would not suit the argument here, because it clearly shows the same rising temperature trend seen in land and ocean surface warming studies.
It's not clear how the graph Professor Carter included was produced, because the raw data file has many columns of information, different measurements from a number of satellites. Who knows what all that data means? I sure have no idea. Does the README file in that folder help? Well, sort of. Here's its latest note:
Update 15 Dec 2006 ******************************
Due to a dumb mistake, the values for MT were in error when loaded up
for the period ending Nov 2006. Rather than eliminating NOAA-16 data
(the bad satellite) I had eliminated NOAA-15 (the good satellite)
after Sept 2005. So, the values for MT have all been rerun and replaced.
I don't quote that note to accuse John Christy of Mickey Mouse pseudo-science. Quite the opposite - I acknowledge that there are clearly a lot of difficulties and scientific challenges in this area, and Dr. Christy has made great contributions. What the notes show is the utter nonsense of taking raw data from someone else's complex field of expertise to create a graph with any scientific validity. To do that for a Sunday newspaper opinion piece and pretend it's real science, is pure poetry.
*** Step Thirteen: End with a smug comment
Well, I could be here all night, such is the class of Carter's masterpiece. It stands as a true exemplar of denialist literature. This lesson is long enough, however, so let us skip to one of the final paragraphs:
The environmental catchphrase of the moment is "sustainability". It is therefore a good question to ask how much longer politicians, responding to pressure from the IPCC and other lobby groups, can sustain the fiction that dangerous human-caused climate change is upon us.
I snorted my English Breakfast tea out my nose at that one!
Kudos, Professor Carter. Your journalistic ingenuity is an inspiration to us all.
Gog is offline  
post #1016 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-18-2007, 02:43 PM Thread Starter
nero's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,725
yeah, very inspirational.
i'm inspired to drive my truck faster, burn more fuel just to heat up your world a little faster GOG.

'06 999
nero is offline  
post #1017 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-18-2007, 03:21 PM
Naturally Exasperated
Gog's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019
Originally Posted by nero View Post
yeah, very inspirational.
i'm inspired to drive my truck faster, burn more fuel just to heat up your world a little faster GOG.
Poor Nero doesn't know what putting two and two together is for. You world is one and the same as my world. When it comes to life on earth Nero, one plus one equals one world. You may as well pile on seven billion more(including any terrawrist)in your calculations and, low and behold, it's STILL one world! How can that be?
I know you were taught that one plus one equals two and that putting two and two together should give you four, however...

When your anti liberal sentiments, with all the denial and inactions, trump your instincts to guard and protect your environment, it's time for you to retire to a home for philosophical dinosaurs.
Gog is offline  
post #1018 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-18-2007, 06:01 PM
Senior Member
Le Kiwi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
I battle with my conscience over whether to laugh and throw peanut shells (I'll eat the peanuts first, waste not, want not...) at the Deniers as they bob along in the riptide past my well-built ark, or extend an oar to beat them under the water.

It's a difficult decision, because I would TRULY like to help them, but seeing as how they are largely the reason why we're in this pickle, maybe I'll just toss peanut shells.

Perhaps they could use them to lash together with snot and right-wing phlegm a raft, as they bob off out to sea.
Le Kiwi is offline  
post #1019 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-18-2007, 07:07 PM
Naturally Exasperated
Gog's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,019

It's one thing to have doubts about one's place, in the natter and chatter of the deck chair arrangement club on board the Titanic. It's quite another to be the one responsible for assessing the information regarding million tonne Icebergs on the high seas and metal ships cruising speeds of 26 knots or more.

Seems pretty stupid now however, at the time, "unsinkable" was entrenched in everyones forethought and afterthought. Vision was impaired by this fatal error in judgment and reared it's ugly head when it was too late. Profit, glory and infamy were up for grabs. Would you believe the people in charge were proven to be disorganized, foolhardy, stunned and incompetent? Sound familiar?

Why must we do it again??????????? Because the J. Bruce Ismays of the world are at it again!
Gog is offline  
post #1020 of 3778 (permalink) Old 11-19-2007, 12:07 AM
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,374
Arrow By Bruce Bartlett

Climate History

Many people are worried about global warming today. They fear that the polar ice caps will melt, raising sea levels and creating environmental chaos. Such concerns are not new.

The historical record tells us of many warming episodes—and subsequent cooling periods—that have bedeviled humans for thousands of years.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who lived from 427 BC to 347 BC, wrote about major climate changes that were known in his day. In the dialogue, “Timaeus,” he argued that global warming occurs at regular intervals, often leading to great floods.

Said Plato, “When…the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors…are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains. But those who…live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea.”

In the dialogue, “Critias,” Plato wrote about weather-related geological changes. He referred to “formidable deluges” that washed away all the top soil, turning the land into a “skeleton of a body wasted by disease.”

What were now plains had once been covered with rich soil, Plato said, and barren mountains were once covered with trees. The yearly “water from Zeus” had been lost, he went on, creating deserts where the land was once productive.

Plato’s student, Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC, also recorded evidence of global warming in his work, “Meteorologica.” He noted that in the time of the Trojan War, the land of Argos was marshy and unarable, while that of Mycenae was temperate and fertile.

“But now the opposite is the case,” Aristotle wrote. “The land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren, owing to the water has now become fruitful.” He observed the same phenomenon elsewhere covering large regions and nations.

Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle who lived from 374 BC to 287 BC, discussed climate change in his work, “De ventis,” which means “The Wind.” He observed that in Crete, “nowadays the winters are more severe and more snow falls.”

In earlier times, Theophrastus said, the mountains there bore grain and fruit, and the island was more populous. But when the climate changed, the land became infertile. In his book, “De causis plantarum,” Theophrastus noted that the Greek city of Larissa once had plentiful olive trees, but that falling temperatures killed them all.

In the first century AD, an ancient Roman named Columella wrote an agricultural treatise called, “De re rustica.” In it, he discussed global warming that had turned areas once too cold for agriculture into thriving farm communities. Columella cites an authority named Saserna who recorded many such cases.

According to Saserna, “regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus [wine] in greatest abundance.”

In the Middle Ages, people began recording the temperature and climate-related phenomena, such as the dates when plants began to blossom annually. They were aware of a warming trend that began around 900 and a cooling trend that began around 1300.

We know that during the warm period, the Vikings established settlements in Greenland where perpetual ice had previously covered the land. Ancient Norse records tell us that these settlements were abandoned after 1250 when falling temperatures made farming less viable and spreading ice in the sea made transportation more difficult.

The cooling trend led to heavy rains in 14th century Europe that were too much for the crops, leading to reduced agricultural output and numerous famines. In the 15th century, a warming trend returned, which lasted until the middle of the 16th century when temperatures again started to fall.

By the 17th century, it was clearly apparent that a cooling trend was altering sea routes, changing the kinds of crops farmers could grow, fishing patterns and so on. Glaciers began to advance rapidly in many places and rivers that had long been ice-free year round started to freeze in the winter.

This “little ice age” continued well into the 19th century. Since then, we have been in a warming cycle that appears to have accelerated around 1950.

The point of this review is that we know a great deal about climate changes from the historical record and need not rely solely on scientific studies of core samples, tree rings and so on.

These changes occurred long before industrialization and could not possibly have been man-made in any way whatsoever. They don’t prove that man is not now affecting the climate through carbon dioxide emissions, but they do tell us that temporary warming trends are common in human history. It may only be a matter of time before another cooling trend comes along.
bigdog is offline  
Sponsored Links

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome