The Truth About Global Warming

[ausclimate]

Hello.

 

My name is Edward Martin, and I am a retired professor of biology. I'm very concerned about the community and the harm that may come to it by the propagation of bad science and ignorance. I am interested in global warming - or rather, attempting to correct the myth of global warming. To this end, I have created a website (http://www.ausclimate.com/) about the truth behind global warming. Please check it out and email me your opinions.

 

Thanks in advance,

Edward

[blazarwolf]

Im freaking sick of this crap. I hear goerge norey have a closed mind. I almost droped to my knees (i was driving) and begged for art bell to return (he would call the loonies out yet remain scentifically objective) Im not going to click on that link until you answer the following questions. This was a shameless plug you deserve as such.

 

1) Contradict Ice core data apon Co2 relation to average global tempiture.

 

2) How familar are you with Palentology, goechemisty (oil is a fossil).

 

Damn curiosity! I clicked that link.

 

"There is no evidence that the Earth as a whole is getting warmer at a rate which will have a severe impact on the environment as proposed by the IPCC."

 

Rebutt:No idea what IPCC is, define your rate, define "severe impact" Explain that we shoudlent think as to socrates may have thought of us...

 

 

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has any impact on the climate, and abundant evidence that it does not."

 

Rebutt: See above questions. Define "Evidence" if you have to.

 

"Real science says that carbon dioxide is essential for the good health of both the biosphere and the atmosphere.

 

Rebutt: True in many ways (see above post) as to dinosaurs, the carboniforius, palentologic canopys higher than californias redwoods... ) If we all grew hydro (+water piplines, and top notch socio-logistics, global cooperation).... global warming would not be a problem, but a benifit... Is this gonna happen?

 

"controlling greenhouse gas emissions will have no impact on the climate."

 

Very True, even perhaps to a baby born today, what of thier children? can we accuratly measure Co2 concitrations? what of the ice-cores from pre-industrial civilization? may it take 20 or 200 years is of no concern to the philosophers/futurists/humanists.

 

"The idea that scientists, unable to predict the weather a week ahead with any accuracy, are able to confidently predict climate outcomes in 20 and 30 years time, is plainly ridiculous."

 

Rebutt: this is pure rhetoric... Weather is to a uncontrolled fusion reaction, and difficult to pridict gravitional trajectorys... Long term climate change is to gas concintrations, geochemical batterys of such... and to variables regulated by the lowest life forms, heavenly bodys, geologic phenominon (internal fission "Possibly"/Radiant thermodynamic sources) EDIT: To which from clasiical thinking shoud be decreasing, unless under unknow circumstance.

 

"As a retired scientist"

 

rebutt: Ditch the ego, take this from a drunk jew. You sound like a politition... Great words mean nothing unless there to specific thoughts (**** the common audience they wont vote anyways)

 

"a deep concern that the Government is about to embark on a politically and economically disastrous course with a totally unreliable compass and for no sound reason."

 

Rebutt: fair enough. Whats your conspirency theory of all these scientists scewing data/facts?

 

 

I applogize to any offense... I drink to much (dont be encouraged)... oh and the jew thing (flooding you with questions, and aggressive discourse). I think i might get around to a post "how to combat the Crystalizing mind" later, you should keep a heads up, im having problems with this.

Edited September 21, 2008 by blazarwolf
multiple post merged

[JohnB]

How familar are you with Palentology, goechemisty (oil is a fossil).

That's not the only theory out there, you know.

Edward, I've had a quick read of your essay and there are some points that are incorrect. The difference between weather and climate being one of them. I'll give a more complete comment tomorrow, but it's 12.30 and I really do need my beauty sleep.

 

I suspect that many of your points have been discussed here in previous threads on climate change.

[Ophiolite]

blazarwolf,

you place me in a difficult position. I am as convinced as you of the reality of climate change and of the need to take global action.

 

However, my conviction arises from a careful study of the evidence. Can you then explain to me how you could have been engaged with the evidence yet not know that the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the very body that collated and considered the evidence and reached the conclusion that climate change is real and important?

 

If I were arguing the counter postion here, I'd shred and dice you over that one.

 

Edward,

I have not yet read your link in full, but two things disturbed me about it - one stylistic, the other scientific.

 

1. You mentioned research that supported your position in the matter as having been published in proper refereed scientific journals with the implication (explication, if we look at the preceding sentence) that support for the global warming position has not been so published.

That is a cheap debating trick which indirectly insults my intelligence. It does not encourage me to believe you will be honest and objective in the rest of your essay.

I would urge you to remove such emotive language from your essay. Including it will turn off and turn away the very people you seek to convert.

 

2. You state absolutely that carbon dioxide has no effect on the Earth's climate. I could understand a chartered accountant making that errror, but a biologist!

For the record, do you feel the carbon dioxide on Venus has no effect on its climate?

Edited September 21, 2008 by Ophiolite
Add comments to Professor Martin

[swansont]

2. You state absolutely that carbon dioxide has no effect on the Earth's climate. I could understand a chartered accountant making that errror, but a biologist!

For the record, do you feel the carbon dioxide on Venus has no effect on its climate?

 

Indeed. One must wonder how CO2 avoids absorbing radiation near 4 and 15 microns.

http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/image001.gif

[blazarwolf]

"However, my conviction arises from a careful study of the evidence. Can you then explain to me how you could have been engaged with the evidence yet not know that the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the very body that collated and considered the evidence and reached the conclusion that climate change is real and important?

 

If I were arguing the counter postion here, I'd shred and dice you over that one."

 

Simply becuase everyone thought id be great at my mock trial... This was not so, the judge threw all my great arguments out on hersay basis (becuase I didnt present it properly)

 

This stems from an early obbsesion with unified feild theory, thankfully i realized quick I didnt have the conviction (or the smarts) to sit in my attic staring at chalkboard for my entire life.

 

It contiuned in later life for love of the "big picture" that is things seemingly unrealated accross many feilds are analogus to each other.

 

I dont need to hear form commitie what I already know. The fact is Evidence from a wide array of fields was pointing towards are position for along time (there are many varing degrees of this position). I threw all that crap out from my head, If he was well read he would know what i was talking about. That is the fact that to argue against... You would be arguing against 20-100 major points across many fields.

 

The smoking gun was the ice cores. Ive seen this from a dozen sources, and i knew anyone arguing against our position would have to argue against the ICE CORES. As i said theres alot of evidence behind this aswell... Rocks dont lie, fossils dont lie, and niether to ICE CORES (there can be misinterpertation though)

 

I skimmed the Essay too. The biggist factor (i think) he talk of was Solute concintration in regards to tempiture... This has some effect, but can be considerd a trivial factor, aswell he ignored Cuase/Effect to such. I get pissed when people debate using "hard science", when they ignore the hard science on the other side... That is anything that a "Hard scientist" would consider to change Academic opinion on this subject... Would be a 200 page Compact/consolidated, aswell as conspiracy/evidence of misinturpertation/ Or alot of money spent to resample data.

[CaptainPanic]

Didn't we discuss practically everything here before? We have the "global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS" thread which, with 480 replies and over 12,000 views, should have treated every side of the discussion.

 

In addition, from all the replies here so far, I fear that the opening post might not be based on solid science, but is in stead trying to use a subjective interpretation of pre-selected data. I haven't checked out the link myself.

 

I say we put all this thread in another one, so that we can keep it all together... Opening another thread on this topic is (imho) pointless.

[JohnB]

Edward, firstly I agree with Ophiolites comments regarding the tone of the essay. While it may be an essay rather than a paper for publication, the "paper" format will be much better recieved.

 

Secondly, Swansont is correct. As CO2 absorbs IR around the 4 and 15 microns it must have some effect. (A word of warning. A Biologist should not argue physics with a phyicist.)

 

Thirdly, you reference many figures in the essay, where are they?

 

Fourthly, your references rely a little bit too heavily on "Energy and Environment". While this is a "peer reviewed" publication it is relatively new on the scene and does not carry much weight. (Craig Loehle has said that the peer review he went through for Loehle 2007 (here) was as rigorous as any review he has ever had, the paper was still flawed. Not fatally perhaps, but given the deconstruction given to it at ClimateAudit before it went to peer review, it should have been better.)

 

Fifthly, the HTML links to references don't work, requiring copy/paste operations to open. (But this is a minor point.)

 

Lastly, many of the references you point to in the essay do not have a bearing on the point you are trying to make.

 

To more specific points.

 

The argument that "they can't predict next week......" is a furphy. There is a world of difference between weather and climate. It can help to think of radioactive decay. If we have a substance with a half-life of 100 years we can accurately predict that after 100 years, half of the substance will have decayed. At the same time, we cannot predict the decay on a day to day, week to week basis, but this does not invalidate the long term prediction.

 

Your "Point 2" is contradictory. In the first paragraph you state:

However, there is no way of measuring the temperature of the Earth as a whole, only measurements made at particular sites,

but the next paragraph says:

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3ºC during the past 3,000 years (Fig 1)

It is logically flawed to argue against a Global Average Temp being possible and to then use it in your next argument.

 

By comparing only Arctic temps to 20th century CO2 emissions, you leave yourself open to accusations of "cherry picking", please leave that to the other side, as they like to make cherry pies.

 

On many of your other points I agree, but they should be worded better.

 

Sorry to be so harsh, especially since if you do a quick search, you'll see I'm one of those on the "denier" side.

 

If you look at the climate change type threads here, you'll see many papers referenced in support of both sides of the argument. It would also be worthwhile to have a good, long read at Climate Audit and Real Climate. Both of these have links to other reference sources for the climate debate.

[blazarwolf]

That's not the only theory out there, you know.

.

I am familiar with this, I should clarify.. That and much I said was an indirect reference to paleo-eccology. Its a pretty interesting theory, with alot of good science, but like this guy its somewhat ignorant. that is to the fossils youll find with the fossil fuels... even with oil, theres trace chemical fossils.

 

 

I say we put all this thread in another one, so that we can keep it all together... Opening another thread on this topic is (imho) pointless.

 

People shouldent use Internet forums so much as a textbook. I think there main purpose is to engage in active discourse, and spot new/interesting elements you would have otherwise been unaware of... For example I learned a new word "Furphy"... translation: water coolery. Threads like that are great in archive, but are often so clogged with ideas/statments its difficult to attract new egos.

[bombus]

Words fail me.

 

You want my opinion? You are just plain wrong.

[JohnB]

For example I learned a new word "Furphy"

Glad to be of service.

[alan2here]

lets put this thread in speculation and religion or whatever the section is called

[JohnB]

Actually, since it appears to be a drive by, I suggest we simply lock it.

 

Should Edward return and wish to answer our criticisms, then he can simply ask the mods to unlock it.

[swansont]

Actually, since it appears to be a drive by, I suggest we simply lock it.

 

Should Edward return and wish to answer our criticisms, then he can simply ask the mods to unlock it.

 

Agreed.