Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

The Patriot Corner by Ed Miller Is ‘global warming’ a valid theory or a scam?

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Ed Miller

Ed Miller

“The unions, the city management and the council all have an understanding of this item, but nobody else does. Frankly, this proposal should have seen the light of day via a public hearing, instead of appearing to be slipped under the radar.”

Ed Miller, Citizens In Action

“They say they’re going to be trans- parent then they’re not. Short of running for office myself, I don’t know how to get them to change other than have people stand up and be counted.”

Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 5:47 am, Sat Mar 1, 2014.

Other than concerns about the economy, fears of "global warming," now known as "climate change," drive many national, state, and local policies. Carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the gases we exhale and a source of food for plants, is now legally a pollutant.

Does this theory have any scientific credibility or are we making major decisions based on emotions and political agendas?

Where did "global warming" come from? In 1896, an obscure Swedish scientist claimed that the combustion of fossil fuels would result in enhanced global warming by the infrared absorption of solar energy by water vapor and CO2, called the "natural greenhouse effect."

This theory was not taken seriously until 1979, when Margaret Thatcher, Great Britain's first female prime minister, was looking for a way to force Britain away from domestic coal and fossil fuels, and transition the country to nuclear power. Her U.N. ambassador suggested use of man-driven global warming theory and that, since most people are largely scientifically illiterate, they could be easily manipulated using science. So she adopted global warming and, using her knowledge of chemistry, promoted the villainization of fossil fuels nationally and internationally. The environmentalists in Europe picked up on it and the rest is history.

The foundation of the "global warming" argument is the "natural greenhouse effect." That is, solar energy enters and passes through the earth's atmosphere and reflects back into the troposphere and space. Some of that energy is absorbed by gases in the lower troposphere, warming it. By relative contribution to the greenhouse effect, "greenhouse gases" are water vapor 95 percent, CO2 3.6 percent and all others 1.4 percent. The total of all man-generated greenhouse gases, excluding water vapor, is 0.2 percent, a miniscule contribution to the greenhouse effect.

At 3.6 percent, CO2 must be powerful stuff to endanger the planet. But, at 95 percent, maybe we should designate water vapor as a pollutant instead. In any case, global warming proponents ignore water vapor and claim that the temperature of the troposphere increases directly and immediately with an increase in CO2. Does it?

At a website called www.friendsofscience.org, a chart is used to plot NASA balloon and satellite troposphere data. It shows CO2 steadily increasing and troposphere temperatures peaking in 2002 and decreasing to this day. Why? The sun is going into a period of relative inactivity. However, CO2 is still increasing!

Antarctic ice core dating explains the correlation between CO2 and temperature. Ice core samples record atmospheric history for the past 420,000-years and the data indicates that carbon dioxide lags temperature by about 800 years. In other words, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by temperature, not the other way around.

Where does the CO2 come from? Mostly from the oceans. What happens to a soft drink when it heats-up? The "fizz" (the CO2) comes out of the liquid and into the atmosphere. The same thing happens to dissolved CO2 in the oceans but over a much longer period. Other natural sources of CO2 are volcanoes and plants.

Are we warmer than previous periods in the earth's history? We are probably slightly cooler than the warmest periods. Greenland was "green" when the Vikings settled there in A.D. 985. By A.D. 1350, declining temperatures caused them to leave and Greenland is a misnomer today. Similarly, the climate of present day Great Britain does not allow wine production, but names of streets and the history recorded on tapestries anecdotally suggests that wine production existed centuries ago. The Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 700 to 1300) is believed to have been warmer than today's climate.

In conclusion, man-driven global warming is still being promoted to support a political agenda of impractical environmental policies by manipulating the public's emotions. In addition, plausible supporting scientific evidence for man-driven climate change is being overtaken by data debunking the theory.

Find out more by attending the Lodi Tea Party general meeting Monday, July 23 at 6:30 p.m. in the United Congregational Church.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

64 comments:

  • Ed Miller posted at 8:04 am on Fri, Jul 20, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Baumbach,

    Thank you and you are welcome.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:16 am on Fri, Jul 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Miller, thank you for presenting a thoughtful substantive discussion on this issue. You have made intelligent remarks and maintained a respectful tone. It was refreshing and informative.

    I look forward to more for you.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 12:38 pm on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Barrow,

    Computer models are fine if, and only if, the algorithms used are validated back to real-world observations and data. One of the primary criticisms I have read concerning computer models is that there are too many variables to program so they don’t include them and also that the highest concentration greenhouse gas, water vapor, is ignored altogether. There are also many incorrect assumptions programmed in such as CO2’s presumed ability to cause a thermo run-away in the atmosphere. This is impossible because the absorption spectrum of CO2 is overlapped by water vapor limiting its effect. By leaving water vapor out of the models, the answers are skewed…

    As far as 2011 being the hottest year, it is actually tied as the 10th hottest year on record. I am not denying that, all I am saying is that the definition of the greenhouse effect is tropospheric warming (and cooling) and its temperature peaked per NASA’s data.

    The reason it is important whether humans drive climate change or not is that major policies are being made using this assumption as a justification. If all of us based everything we do on “better safe than sorry,” we would literally do nothing. Statistically, driving a car is dangerous, yet we do it. If the global warming premise did not have so much data disproving it, then maybe you would have a case.

    Oh yes, Lodi’s Climate Action Plan. The City believes that it must do this eventually to be compliant with AB32 and other related State mandates and they were able to do it with grant money now – re-verified that in yesterday's City Council meeting.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 11:38 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1561

    Mr. Miller,
    I am not arguing the second hand smoke issue I agree with you on that one. As I said before what is happening today is unprecedented if you will not accept computer models then there is no evidence that will convince you. I am assuming that last year being the hottest year ever will be shrugged of as an anomaly. I have read you speech and looked into the info you provided so perhaps you could answerer a question I asked earlier and have wondered about for some time. If the climatologists are correct, the results will be severe. Knowing that and also knowing that emissions are wasted energy why is it so important that climate change is not caused by humans? What would be the harm in just taking a better safe than sorry attitude after all the consequences will affect many future generations. One more question why would the consulting company, hired by Lodi, want input on how to decrease the cities greenhouse emissions from someone who believes that climate change is not human driven?

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 10:58 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Barrow,

    You left me with the impression that you that not read the speech and that is why I responded as I did.

    On another day, at another time we can talk about second-hand smoke. I researched the risk of open-air second-hand smoking and the University of Georgia researchers reported that they were "alarmed" that their indoor control group did not demonstrate the risk purported by the EPA. Whoops.

    Michael Crichton was not saying that a consensus opinion cannot later be proven factual; rather that a consensus opinion is only that, an opinion or a guess and should receive no other creditibility.

    The only case I have been making is that global warming was and still is the justification of a political agenda, not a global threat, and that the premise of consensus science (that CO2 drives temperature) has been proven false. Show me the data that you have proving CO2 drives temperature. As far as I know, there is not any. Without this element, any other offspring research means nothing. It is like saying 2+2 = 6 - if that is the basis of someone's math, the rest is false also.

    You are correct, the exact mechanisms that drive global temperature changes are still being researched but I did say that the Forbush decrease may prove to be a plausible explanation, assuming the data bears it out.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:11 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1561

    Mr. Miller,

    Really good day? Am I being rebuked? I read the speech love the part about second hand smoke. I can see from the speech why we are at odds on the term consensus. It seems that your view of the use of consensus is misplaced. If the consensus were based on opinion alone I would agree with your point but in the decade since that speech many people have been collecting data on the subject and today that data points to human caused climate change just as there is a consensus that E=mcsquared. In most of the examples stated in the speech there was a consensus against new ideas until they were substantiated and then there was a consensus that those theories were sound. That is where we are today with science of climate change.
    Also in your response to Joanne you seem to think that the conclusions you have come to are fact. This could not be farther from reality it is quite arrogant of you to believe that even though your conclusion are counter to most of the worlds experts you are correct and the rest of the worlds climatologist are wrong.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 9:22 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Ms. Bobin,

    Wow, I am trying to figure out whether you are maliciously pulling my leg or incapable of following the conversation. In the column, the question was “Does this theory have any scientific credibility or are we making major decisions based on emotions and political agendas?”

    First fact presented was that Margaret Thatcher, a British Conservative, adapted the obscure “greenhouse effect” theory (not a proven law of nature) in an attempt to justify her political agenda in 1979. Moreover, that her government calculated that most people would not be able to follow the science or lack of. Her idea was adapted by the environmentalists of the world and promoted to where we are today. None of the foregoing was challenged by you or anyone else.

    Then the foundational argument of the global warming case, i.e., that CO2, man-generated or not, drives global temperature, was disproven by data from NASA’s balloon and satellite data. In addition, the data from Antarctic ice samples have shown that temperature drives CO2 with a lag time of ~800-years. Still no facts from you or anyone else refuting that data.

    Next, questions were asked about surface temperature claims and “consensus science.” I provided a number of sources of data showing that the surface temperature database is polluted by inappropriate instrumentation installation and lack of consideration of land use on the data. There was pushback on this but one could refute it with facts, only an argument as to whether the provided authors have the correct pedigrees.

    Then there was the question of a global warming proof by a “consensus” of scientists just saying it is so. The counterpoint was that “consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one. In addition, that the scientific method requires that only one researcher come up with reproducible, real-world data to disprove a position taken by a consensus. Again, there was pushback but one could refute it with facts, only a refusal to read what I provided.

    Therefore, I would say the case is made because the best you can do is insults and the very emotion you want to disclaim.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:06 pm on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated...That has to be the most ill-formed conclusion anyone has ever reached

    No, I think Ms Bobin stating that Lodi is dominated by small town bigots wins the prize.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:43 pm on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    What is this nonsense, posited by Mr. Miller, that global warming and the science associated with it is an "emotional" reaction?

    That has to be the most ill-formed conclusion anyone has ever reached. That comment goes along with the latest "popular psychology" that many conclusions are the result of emotional immaturity. It's a bogus talking point meant to demean thinking based on reality.

    Funny, back in the 60's and 70's, when we were finally realizing that our lakes, rivers and oceans were being polluted by industry and the EPA was actualized by none other than Richard Nixon, people started waking up to the fact that we were systematically killing ourselves. DDT was outlawed against the protests of those who were not affected by it. Who cared if a bunch of farm workers were dying from its affects. Employers had plenty of illegals to take their place - at cheap prices.

    Cleaning up the environment costs money that industries refuse to pay. Cleaning up the environment and/or preventing pollution costs money that industries refuse to pay and that idealogues like TEA Partiers believe should be forgone in favor of lower costs for industry.

    When they, the TEA Partiers, are choking on their last breath because their lungs are so clogged with the pollution THEY VOTED FOR, they will be crying, EMOTIONALLY, for the healthcare they voted against.

    And no doubt will be claiming, EMOTIONALLY, that they are martyrs for the cause of anti-regulation.

    It will be too late. They, and many others, will die horrible deaths.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 8:38 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Barrow,

    Based on your comments, you have not read the speech and I assume you are not going to. Your choice. Good day.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:16 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ramesh lashed out against what he saw as "politicisation of climate science". He insisted India should not depend on western scientists' studies on climate change, and initiated a series of Indian studies on greenhouse gas emissions and black carbon.

    Ramesh graduated from IIT-Bombay in 1975 with a B. Tech. in Chemical Engineering. In 2001, IIT-B presented him with their Distinguished Alumnus Award.[9]

    Between 1975-77 he studied at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College and received a Master of Science in Public Policy and Public Management. In 1977-78, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he studied technology policy, economics, engineering, and management, as part of the newly-established inter-disciplinary technology policy programme.[4]

    He is a founding member of the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad and is a member of the International Council of the New York-based Asia Society. Ramesh has been a Visiting Fellow and Affiliated Researcher of the Institute of Chinese Studies, New Delhi, since 2002.[4]

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:10 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Evidently, there is not consensus that the IPPC is legitimate...

    IPCC Fraud Too Much For India
    By rjjrdq, on February 6th, 2010


    The last straw of this scam for India came when the IPCC published a report on climate change stating the the Himalayan glaciers, something near and dear to India, would melt by 2035. This assertion was based on nothing; in fact the scientist that supposedly made this claim has emphatically denied he said anything like that. He never said it. That didn’t stop the IPCC from not only publishing the report, but doing it with full knowledge that the claims being made were either based on lies, or assertions not backed up by real data...


    India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh basically said that the IPCC was full of c r a p, and that India would no longer play along. They have officially dumped the IPCC, meaning they are no longer part of the UN panel, and will establish their own panel to investigate climate change

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:43 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1561

    Mr. Miller,

    The IPCC is not alone The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all have issued statements in recent years concluding that there is evidence of human caused climate change. Besides in what other areas are we not willing to accept a conseses if 90 percent of fire fighters want to attack a blaze in a certain way are we going to say no there are 10 percent who disagree. Would we follow the advice of 10 pecent of Generals and ignore the knowledge of the other 90 percent it simply makes no sense. Besides we are talking about a reduction in emmissions, emissions are a wasteful by product of combustion. We should be striving for efficience for its own sake but because this is a political issue not a scientific issue some are willing to gamble the quality of life of future generations on the word of a few outliers in the scientific community. That is were the conversation shifts from fact to emotion.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 4:52 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Barrow,

    I have not shifted away from fact to emotion by using Crichton's remarks for the reasons stated earlier. In addition, the IPCC is notorious for its politics and dishonesty - any statement from them is suspect. Scientists had to threaten lawsuits to get their names removed from the "consensus list." For years the IPCC promoted the infamous Michael Mann "Hockey Stick Curve" which was proven to be a fraud when the computer algorithm was peer-reviewed. Michael Mann is a "scientist" with all the correct pedigrees you are looking for but very crooked - remember "Climategate" and the email comments about falsifying the "data "like Michael did?" No, this is as Crichton said, still an political agenda so hold on to your wallet.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 4:32 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Barrow,
    You are correct, Michael Crichton is primarily an author, but not in science as such. However, he is no fool and has a technical/science background. From his bio:

    Crichton graduated with honors from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT. Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. He predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C. (His conclusions have been widely misstated.)

    Crichton's interest in computer modeling went back forty years. His multiple-discriminant analysis of Egyptian crania, carried out on an IBM 7090 computer at Harvard, was published in the Papers of the Peabody Museum in 1966. His technical publications included a study of host factors in pituitary chromophobe adenoma, in Metabolism, and an essay on medical obfuscation in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    His comments are relevant and well spoken because he is evaluating the state of science method or lack of to which he has substantial training and experience. Plus, if you read his speech, he is also speaking of the dismal history of "consensus science."

    I have seen other comments by people in science but Crichton's remarks are best I have ever seen expressed. If you want others I leave it to you to do the searching as I believe you have full answer to your questions. On the other hand, if this a game of counting pedigrees for and against, then you are either not understanding the consensus problem or do not want to.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:23 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1561

    Mr. Miller, John Michael Crichton who I think has a phenomenal mind has most of his education in Writing and Medicine and is most famous for his work in science fictional I'm not sure how his speech on consensus in science is relevant. Science comes to consensus on many issues, as the article I pointed out supports, nothing is absolute. If Micheal Crichton has work published, in a scientific journal, that supports his stand on consensus in science could you point it out to me as i could not find one. As conservatives are prone to do you shift the argument which is that the vast majority of climatologist agree that climate change is a human caused condition and that conservative are relying on there emotions not facts in this debate. Any idea why that is.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 9:29 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Address is too long. The last part is "/crichton2003.pdf"

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 9:27 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Sorry, part of the URL did not make it. Here is the full URL:

    http://kaahlsfiles.com/thesis/thesis%20papers/3%20Low/crichton2003.pdf

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 9:25 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr Barrow,

    If the Michael Crichton quote I posted earlier is interesting to you, here is the complete speech with extensive historical examples of the pitfalls of consensus in science:

    http://kaahlsfiles.com/thesis/thesis%20papers/3%20Low/crichton2003.pdf

    Thank you for asking. I had not had an opportunity to read the complete speech before now.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 8:52 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Barrow,

    First, if you check it out you will the IPCC to be very political organization with many complaints from scientists. In addition, I stated in an earlier post that consensus is a political term and has no place in science. Perhaps the most famous quote on this subject that I know of is by Michael Crichton in 2003 when he said during a speech at the California Institute of Technology:

    "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

    "Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

    "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . ."

    I hope this answers your question. He also talks in depth about the growth of computer models and their problems. Reference is http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 3:25 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1561

    Mr Miller you stated that "The liberal case is based on feelings and falls short when factual back up is required." I find that an interesting statement when the vast majority of Scientific bodies agree with the liberal case. A recent paper in Science magazine, a well respected peer reviewed jurnal, titled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change shows that "In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” . The paper goes on to say "IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements." It would seem that the Tea Parties opinion is the one based on emotions and who's members are choosing to remain ignorant on this particular topic.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:02 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Adams stated...Joanne: It is useless to argue with these people. They are always quick to drag out some sort of disgruntled "expert

    Actually, Many points were made by Mr Miller that were not refuted in any way. I was waiting for Ms Bobin to make her first point. Unfortunately, she did not have any factual basis for anything... Lastly, you are right about the same argument over and over ... but it is coming from people to have money to gain by saying it exists.

     
  • Tom Santillan posted at 6:35 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.

    Tom Santillan Posts: 34

    it's a scam.....there have been periods of time where the weather has risen and fallen.....time after time....

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 5:52 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1439

    Joanne: It is useless to argue with these people. They are always quick to drag out some sort of disgruntled "expert" who then relishes the limelight briefly before they come up with someone else.

    When the USA's climate is like Mexico's and Canada is growing all the crops we used to be able to before the weather changed, they will be blaming the "leftists" and the "eco-vigilantes" and "left wing tree huggers" etc. By that time they will also have used up all the oil under America and now gasoline will be able to reach it's free market price: $ unaffordable.

    It's very sad actually. Really it's the same arguments over and over: "nobody knows what the weather will be like in 3 days" (actually, they do); "in the 70's they were telling us we were beginning an ice age"; and my favorite, you know when there is a freeze in a region of the country where it normally doesn't freeze...."I thought we were supposed to be having global warming!" It must bring them comfort that they are completely ignorant of the subject, aside from their regular diet of Hannity, Savage, and of course, the Blimp.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 12:54 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Ms. Bobin,

    I rest my case. Your latest post accuses me of everything under the sun without specifics; i.e., a particular fact, statement or source of mine is wrong because of this fact with source from you, my case with its facts and sources is a fabrication because of ____ with facts and sources from you, etc.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 12:47 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr Trotter,

    Eco-theology or ecotheology is a form of constructive theology (fabricated) that focuses on the interrelationships of religion and nature, particularly in the light of environmental concerns. Ecotheology generally starts from the premise that a relationship exists between human religious/spiritual worldviews and the degradation of nature. It explores the interaction between ecological values, such as sustainability, and the human domination of nature. The movement has produced numerous religious-environmental projects around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotheology

    Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

    “Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific term. If it were, we would still be in the Stone Age; i.e., Galileo would have been wrong and the earth still the center of the solar system along with many other examples in history.

    There is some disagreement within the Berkeley group but they seem to agree that temperature have peaked or flatten which is consistent with solar cycling seen in NASA’s tropospheric data.
    http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/ “Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?”

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:15 am on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Miller wrote: "Sadly, you have not argued substantively probably because you cannot. The liberal case is based on feelings and falls short when factual back up is required. I have made the case substantively and you have not refuted a single fact. I agree, no point continuing with this."

    Interesting - I have noticed that you originally attempted to counter my comments. Now you have resorted to the same tactics as Ms. Parigoris, i.e., dismissing my comments because I "have not arugued substantively...because I cannot."

    Perhaps it is because YOU do not have a substantive response to my comments?

    Of course. Mr. Trotter, below, has made inquiries and the only response you can give is stock anti-global warming nonsense, much of which is available on your website. And the fact that you totally dismiss the funding aspects of research, you seem to indicate that you are not a very worldly person who can make assessments taking into account all of the facts.

    This is not a "liberal case based on feelings."

    BTW - again you belie your statements that the TEA Party, i.e. Lodi Citizens in Action, is non-partisan.

    You, sir, engage in extensive fabrication. Your cause is obviously conservative blather that only serves to patronize the ignorant who "sort of" agree with you in order to garner their ignorant support.

    Good luck. Rather than having a segment of the political world that can make intelligent decisions, you choose to have sycophants who blindly follow your ill-educated lead.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:45 pm on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Another credible skeptic...

    Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.


    Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears. [See: U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims & See Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’ & Gore laments global warming efforts: 'I've failed badly' - Washington Post – November 11, 2008 ]

    “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained. [Note: Here are the results a Google Scholar search on Theon. - Theon's complete written correspondence to EPW reprinted at the end of this report. ]

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:36 pm on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    CONTINUED…

    After she retired from NASA, she stated something NASA was not too happy about: She stated…

    Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. For more than a decade now “global warming” and its impacts has become the primary interface between our science and society. A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet…However, the main basis of the claim…is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system…The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable?… as a scientist I remain skeptical. 2

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:33 pm on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr. Trotter is ignoring key elements of the argument. For example, many scientists are fearful of losing their jobs unless they go along with the deception of global warming. He also used the term, global warming denier which is terminology used to make someone who disagrees with his position look unreasonable…

    An example of fearful scientist is… Dr Joanne Simpson., the first woman to get a Ph.D. in meteorology. In addition to being the first female meteorologist with a Ph.D., she’s been granted membership to the National Academy of Engineering, awarded the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Award (the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society), presented with a Guggenheim Fellowship, and served as President of the American Meteorological Society. Surprisingly few people outside of meteorology know precisely what she did for the science. Simpson’s scientific endeavors, aside from being exciting, have had a tremendous impact on meteorology over the years… With both her mind and her desire to work as sharp as ever, Simpson made important contributions to the study of the atmosphere.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 6:41 pm on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Millions of people die each year from starvation, water borne diseases, malaria, disentary and other easily addressed problems. Hundreds will die over the next ten years because of global warming...why don't we spend some time drilling wells in Africa and other places instead of all this nonsense.

     
  • Scott Trotter posted at 6:12 pm on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Scott Trotter Posts: 16

    First, Ed Miller wrote: "belief or eco-theology". Please elaborate. I know what "eco" refers to, and I know what "theology" refers to, but I don't understand how you're trying to use them together. Also, I could find no appropriate references to theology in the thread.

    Ed Miller wrote: "Everyone, including climate researchers, is allowed to believe as they see fit but not call it science or hard fact."

    As a general rule, when there is disagreement, the consensus is considered more likely correct. If tens of thousands of people who've studied something have one opinion, and a couple of others have a second opinion, you go with the tens of thousand. This is why, for instance, I'll go to a PHD Md for a medical opinion (backed up by millions of hours of careful research) rather than a faith healer (backed up by, well, nothing).

    People have many opinions which they are free to hold, but not to be taken seriously. As an example of how it's supposed to work, consider Richard Muller, a degreed physicist and vocal climate-change denier, who put his effort where his mouth was and actually ran the numbers from the raw data. His "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study" was supported by a number of persons with vested interests in climate denial, including Charles G. Koch. After thorough analysis, he determined that the data was accurate, and the models (and thus their conclusions) were correct. This was, needless to say, a surprise for everyone involved, including Mr. Muller. He said "We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

    The data the Berkeley group used is freely available online. It amounts to several terabytes of raw climatological data. If you're to be taken seriously, please analyze that data, come to a conclusion, and report back.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:57 pm on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated...Of course, the comments that YOU made above about ME do NOT count toward YOUR viciousness, venomousness and nefariousness, DO THEY?

    Ms Bobin, can you please post comments I made that you are referring to. I simply respond to your posts and describe what it makes me think of. Any post you might post of mine can be easily explained in a positive way.

    When observing your postings that are not about people you loathe, you tend to be thoughtful and articulate in expressing yourself. In fact, I admire your writing style compared to most people who post. ( including my own)

    However, when your animosity takes over, there is no other poster that exceeds your attacks.


     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:43 pm on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr. Miller stated…I generally agree that other forms of energy should be developed but only by the marketplace

    I agree with you in principle but in my view, energy independence is essential and of highest priority. I think every avenue should be explored and implemented that results in United States having the ability to control its own destiny instead of depending on countries hostile to our success.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 12:00 pm on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Baumbach,

    I generally agree that other forms of energy should be developed but only by the marketplace – I am not against technology. Where I have problems is when immature technologies are forced by political agendas. Isn’t it is ironic that we have a British Conservative to thank for this mess.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 11:52 am on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Ms. Bobin,

    Sadly, you have not argued substantively probably because you cannot. The liberal case is based on feelings and falls short when factual back up is required. I have made the case substantively and you have not refuted a single fact. I agree, no point continuing with this.

    "Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult" (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance)

    Remember, the rule is, when liberals are losing the argument they go with personal insults. Guess you are declaring that you have lost...

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:14 am on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    So sad to see that so-called community activists are so ill-formed.

    No point in arguing with ignorance.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:43 am on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Miller.. thank you for providing information that substantiates your position on global warming. I think a good conclusion to draw is that the science is not close to being settled as global warming advocates suggest. With Al Gore gaining over a billion dollars in wealth promoting fear of this situation as well as multiple green industries wanting a piece of the economic pie, we all should be skeptical of their conclusion. In my view, there is more evidence that greedy people are scamming the system than there is man made global warming... and money is the root of fear mongering the global warming advocates participate in.

    I personally hope alternative fuels are developed and promoted as it is essential for our long term future. Nothing should be left off the table especially natural gas.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:32 am on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I do believe this woman( Dr. Joanne Simpson ) was very up on the science ... do you dispute her findings Mr Trotter?

    Dr. Joanne Simpson retired from NASA she (trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/3rd_trmm_conf/simpson.doc) admitted to a long-held skepticism regarding the role of mankind in global warming.

    In addition Mr Trotter, you so quickly dismiss Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, both meteorologists simply because of their titles. Is there something in the publications that you can state is false? Do you know for a fact that these men have not not discovered truth from other studies other than what their titles suggest?

    Seems to me that scientists from all stripes can draw faulty conclusions. After all, global cooling was a fact to some good scientists in the last 60 years... I wonder how many of these scientists support global warming by man made causes. With billions of dollars to be gained by research labs that conclude global warming exists, you also must take greed into account as a motive in scientists conclusions.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 7:59 am on Sat, Jul 14, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Trotter,

    On our quote, "However, National Academy of Science (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full) says that about 97% of climate researchers believe in anthropomorphic climate change," for me, this is not about belief or eco-theology. Everyone, including climate researchers, is allowed to believe as they see fit but not call it science or hard fact.

     
  • Scott Trotter posted at 10:20 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Scott Trotter Posts: 16

    Mr. Miller:

    Your first link was to a book/paper by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, both meteorologists. Neither are climatologists, and thus aren't qualified w/r/t/ climate change.

    Your second link was to "Satellite Temperature Data", by John Christy & Roy Spencer, a climate scientist and climatologist, respectively. Both are skeptical of human-caused climate change, but have the appropriate training.

    Your third link was to "Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?" By John Christy (again) and William B. Norris, Senior Research Scientist Earth Science Laboratory. Again, appropriate training.

    You have kindly provided three climatologists to study. However, National Academy of Science (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full) says that about 97% of climate researchers believe in anthropomorphic climate change. This is a startling differential. How do you explain this?

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 9:11 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    What follows is some history about past warming and cooling scares. This has been going on for a long time:

    http://saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

    http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/20560.pdf

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16507

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 8:44 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr Barrow,

    If you check the references I posted earlier you will find plenty of information answering your questions about surface temperature and about the techniques developed by the University of Alabama and NASA to measure temperatures in the troposphere. I am sorry, definitions are the definitions…

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:38 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated...As far as being "vicious, venomous," and "having nefarious intent," that is your opinion...( In reference to my opinion of Ms. Bobin)

    Thank you for substantiating my claim Ms Bobin. It was kind of you.

    Yes, it is my opinion based on numerous examples. I will get busy in my library to itemize each vicious and venomous remark you made and post them soon. Unfortunately, I only have saved the last two years. This will take at least a week of time as there are so many. I am thankful that LNS is kind enough to give unlimited space in this forum.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 8:37 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Ms. Bobin,

    The funding issue is a dodge. I have provided validatible facts, both in the column and in this discussion. You have provided none in response, only your opinions and feelings.

    As for the 501(c)(4) status of the Lodi Tea Party, again our column presents, to the best of our ability, facts that we validate before using. Please identify any statements made that are not factual.
    I do not provide “both sides” on a subject like this then advocating the Global Warming side has so many factual and scientific issues. Think about – the entire premise of the Global Warming argument is that CO2 drives temperature. The data says otherwise. Do you have data proving that temperature is driven by CO2?

    As far as education goes, did you know that Margaret Thatcher started the current political agenda associated with Global Warming? I hope you are not going to say that is not true… Bet you were unaware of a theory connecting the solar wind and cosmic rays to climate change. Sounds educational to me…

    Do these facts lead to a conclusion? Yes, and I stated it.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 8:11 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    As promised, references concerning surface temperature database problems are:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49063806/Surface-Temperature-Quality-Of-Measurements

    http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/415.pdf

    This one is interesting because it is about our area:
    http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2006_christynrg_ca.pdf

    There are many more but this should provide a good sampling.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:12 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Oh Walter, I simply see Ms Bobin as a vicious venomous person. People with nefarious intent like herself need to be confronted with truth. After calling Kim a bigot, she claimed she never said it."

    Mr. Baumbach, I have never denied calling Ms. Parigoris a bigot. She is. In fact I have seen indications in her writings that she may be a card-carrying member of the JBS. And I have intimated as much.

    What I DON"T see in your references below is where I DENIED I called her a bigot.

    As far as being "vicious, venomous," and "having nefarious intent," that is the opinion that YOUR limited intellect has been able to divine from my comments.

    Of course, the comments that YOU made above about ME do NOT count toward YOUR viciousness, venomousness and nefariousness, DO THEY?

    If you believe that calling "a spade a spade" is vicious and venomous, then so be it. Just as you claimed under your silly "chicken" letter, that you will fight against the left, I will not let the extreme right-wingnuts steamroll the public and ram conspiracy theories and other fantasies down our throats under the guise of "education."

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:51 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Walter stated... It is obvious that Darrell has a very personal dislike of Joanne.

    Oh Walter, I simply see Ms Bobin as a vicious venomous person. People with nefarious intent like herself need to be confronted with truth. After calling Kim a bigot, she claimed she never said it. Thankfully, I saved her post knowing that Ms Bobin 's idea of truth is always shifting. Bobin has demonstrated her dislike of Kim many times. Below are just three of many.

    01. Joanne Bobin posted at 11:26 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011... I have always known that Ms. Parigoris was one of the "bigots around every corner" here in Lodi, but her post today proves it beyond a doubt.

    02. Joanne Bobin posted at 9:30 pm on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.... Don't think you are special, Ms. Parigoris.... You two disgust me... ( in reference to Kim and myself and our honesty)

    03. Joanne Bobin posted at 1:45 pm on Thu, Mar 22, 2012... As far as "all-knowing Ms. Parigoris," I don't understand …. demonstrates Ms bobin showing contempt for her intellect.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 1:12 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1146

    It is obvious that Darrell has a very personal dislike of Joanne.

    He doggedly patrols the comments section looking for any "fresh" post to CARP on!

    The nasty and lowbrow things he's said and the descriptions and names he's used. Sickening.

    Darrell's behavoir has become increasingly irrational and complusive!! I think he needs help!

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 12:41 pm on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1561

    Mr Miller You can clearly see that the next sentence of the wiki page you sited states "Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases"
    you are splitting hairs "By definition, the measurement of the phenomenon is the temperature of the tropospheric gases." I don't know what the measurement used to define the phenomenon is It could very well be measurements taken in the Troposphere what the majority of scientist do know is that an increase in CO2 in the upper atmosphere causes earth's temperatures to increase as the article you sited clearly states.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:47 am on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms bobin stated...I am still confused about the tax-exempt 501(c)(4) "Social Welfare" status of Lodi Citizens in Action ( true, you are confused)

    501(c) doesn't explicitly state organizations have to be "nonpartisan," whatever you think that means. It states that they can't attempt to influence legislations (lobbying) or participate in political campaigns (advertising for/against candidates).

    If Ms Bobin was serious, she would be protesting Media Matters non profit as they target candidates with millions funded by the ruthless wacky left.

    It is obvious that Ms Bobin has a very personal dislike of Kim and has looked petty calling her a bigot. Ms Bobin has become emotional and irrational in her obsession.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:36 am on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I am still confused about the tax-exempt 501(c)(4) "Social Welfare" status of Lodi Citizens in Action.

    Since they began publication of these columns in the LNS and stated that they are "non-partisan," they have specifically promulgated a right-leaning agenda, and Ms. Parigoris, especially, has vocally been extremely right-wing in her opinions in her many comments in this forum.

    I was glad to see that the IRS has, since at least March of this year, been questioning many TEA Party groups about their status as social welfare organizations when their activities have been quite blatently politically partisan. As a 501(c)(4) organization, they are not required to reveal their donors and such large groups as Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, which also is a 501(c)(4), has not even tried to conceal its right-wing agenda. 501(c)(4) status also states that any money donations that are spent on supporting a specific candidate or cause is taxable and organizations like Rove's have been violating this requirement. Of course, many TEA Party groups have cried "politically motivated harassment" by the IRS.

    If Mr. Miller wanted to truly be, as he stated in his first column, an "education group," this column would have presented BOTH sides of the global warming issue so that Lodi's citizens could make informed decisions.

    Prominent on the Lodi Citizens in Action website, under the heading, "Property Rights/Personal Freedoms," > "Climategate - Junk Science," they have posted a plethora of articles which support their anti-global warming position.

    Be honest, Mr. Miller. The title of your column should have been, "Global Warming is a Scam."

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:36 am on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Miller wrote: "Nice try on the funding source thing. Go to the site and look at the actual published science papers. They are either authentic or they are not."

    Mr. Miller, you are either naive or deliberately mendacious.

    "Nice try on the funding source thing?" Please, if you do not believe that the petroleum industry expects researchers to come up with answers that favor their position, i.e., global warming is a scam, then you have a problem.

    Your entire column is based on "research" that informs YOUR position - that the whole thing is a scam, while you DISMISS other valid "research" that shows the opposite.

    You cannot have it both ways. Obviously, you have a preformed opinion and have found as many crackpot websites and research funded by industries that have a clear stake in debunking global warming and well-paid scientists that support that opinion.

    Who do you think pays the scientists who think global warming is real? The answer is either no one, because they are concerned about a REAL problem, or the green energy industry. Take your pick.


     
  • Scott Trotter posted at 8:20 am on Fri, Jul 13, 2012.

    Scott Trotter Posts: 16

    Ed Miller wrote:
    "I can provide references if you like."
    Please do so.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 9:46 pm on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Barrow,
    “The greenhouse effect is a process by which [reflected] thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect The assumption is that the surface of the earth will be heated also. By definition, the measurement of the phenomenon is the temperature of the tropospheric gases.

    The ice data may make sense to you but that same data says that CO2 levels were high is the past: “approximately 53 million years ago, Antarctica was a warm, sub-tropical environment. During this same period, known as the "greenhouse" or "hothouse" world, atmospheric CO2 levels exceeded those of today by ten times.” http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/cognitive-dissonance-of-agw.html I apologize that this is a blog article but there are plenty of terms and names that will link you to the actual science sources.

    As for why surface temperatures seem to be still peaking, the sun goes through activity cycles and ups and downs are normal. Presently it is a declining energy cycle. The puzzle has been how the sun drive temperatures here? Believe it or not, no one could make the math work until a few years ago. A Danish physicist, Henrik Svensmark, proposed a theory that the interaction between cosmic rays from the galaxy effect cloud formation and therefore surface temperature. Evidence is mounting that this theory may in deed be plausible. Way too lengthy for explanation here but easy to check out on the web.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 9:07 pm on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Ms. Bobin,
    Per the document referenced below, plants remove 120 GT of CO2 from the atmosphere and decomposition and plant “respiration” from plants and soil return 120 GT of CO2.
    http://genomicscience.energy.gov/pubs/CarbonCycleFlyer_01-28-09.pdf

    The issue is not whether volcanos produce more or less CO2 than man. The issue is whether CO2 drives temperature or temperature drives CO2. Apparently, you do not dispute the evidence that temperature drives CO2 with a lag time of ~800-years.

    Nice try on the funding source thing. Go to the site and look at the actual published science papers. They are either authentic or they are not.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 4:22 pm on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Claim: "Carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the gases we exhale and a source of food for plants,"

    Claim: "Other natural sources of CO2 are volcanoes and plants."

    Which is it? Plants use CO2 or plants are a SOURCE of CO2? I'm sure a 5th grader knows the answer.

    Volcanos produce as much as 320 million tons of CO2 annually.
    Burning of fossil fuels produces 30 BILLION tons of CO2 annually. Volcanos contribute 1000th of a percent of what fossil fuel contributes.

    As for the "Friends of Science" reference, it is always good to know just WHO is paying for opinions:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

    In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3] The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper's role in FoS funding. [4] [5]

    In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change"

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 3:58 pm on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1561

    Mr Miller I would love to see a reference that states that surface temperatures are not a part of Greenhouse Effect Theory. Of course in the data from ice sheets CO2 lags temperature makes perfect sense. planet heats up more plant life warmer oceans more CO2 but there has never been a time in history that fossil fuels were burned at the levels we have for the past 50 years or so. This make what is happening today unprecedented all the ice sheets can tell us are levels of CO2 (and other gases) and planetary conditions. I don't doubt that there are problems getting a good reading on global surface temperature. Today we are seeing unprecedented losses in sea ice and glaciers along with extreme weather patterns. Unlike the past most of the record temperatures are records breaking high temperatures and very few low record temperatures being broken. All of these indicators point a warming planet. I do have a question for you. More and more people are willing to admit the earth's temperatures are rising but many of those people refuse to believe that it is human caused. Can you explain why it bothers people so much that it might be caused by humans? Is it guilt are people afraid they might have to change? I would value your opinion on the matter.

     
  • Ed Miller posted at 2:49 pm on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Ed946 Posts: 70

    Mr. Barrow,
    You are correct. As I stated in the column, NASA data agrees with your report that CO2 continues to rise in the troposphere. However, they also report that the temperature of the troposphere is decreasing. The definition of the Global Warming/"Greenhouse Effect" is the warming of the troposphere due to Greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2. If you remember, the assertion of the Global Warming alarmist is that the temperature rises and falls directly as a function of CO2. NASA's does not validate that assumption nor do the Antarctic ice samples. The ice samples indicate CO2 lags/follows temperature by ~800-years.

    As to the cries of alarm about surface temperatures, first, they are NOT a part of the Greenhouse Effect Theory and, second, there are numerous peer-reviewed science studies documenting how "polluted" the surface temperature database is because of poor choices of location and lack of consideration of local conditions. I can provide references if you like.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 12:44 pm on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Global warming goofballs are such arrogant tempests that they actually believe man is big enough to cause global problems such as global warming. It is all CARP. One solar flare was the width of eleven earths...of course that couldn't possibly have ANY effect on the earth! Of course we DO have the CFC data to prove that we are causing problems...ha ha ha...another bogus bag of garbage. Remember when the idiots said that the melting ice caps were going to put NY and SF under water? Oh yeah that didn't happen either! Geeezzz

    For you believers...when the golbal warming theory is put to rest...Are you ready yet for potentially disastrous impacts of space weather? Ooooooohhhhhhh

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:12 am on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    There are hundreds of scientists that support Mr Miller's claim. It would be interesting to have a debate with serious minded people rather than the usual people who simply dismiss skeptics as crazy people. Al Gore became a billionairre over this scam... money and grants is a motivating factor in all this, obviously.


    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:03 am on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Another NASA Defection to the Skeptics’ Camp
    January 29th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    Something about retirement apparently frees people up to say what they really believe. I retired early from NASA over seven years ago to have more freedom to speak my mind on global warming.

    You might recall that after Dr. Joanne Simpson retired from NASA she (trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/3rd_trmm_conf/simpson.doc) admitted to a long-held skepticism regarding the role of mankind in global warming.

    And who can forget NASA’s Administrator, Michael Griffin, admitting that he was skeptical of the urgency of the global warming problem? After the outrage that ensued, I suspect he wishes he had never brought it up.

    And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is manmade…and adding “climate models are useless” for good measure. Even I wouldn’t go quite that far, since I use simple ones in my published research.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:01 am on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    (by Kevin Mooney, March 5, 2008, CNSNews.com) - Natural forces, not human activity, are primarily responsible for any global warming taking place, prominent atmospheric and space physicist Fred Singer declared Monday at the Heartland Institute’s 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City.

    What’s more, the preponderance of scientific evidence about natural forces causing global warming is so great that the issue is settled, Singer said.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:46 am on Thu, Jul 12, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1561

    The Christian Science monitor reports.. Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0531/Climate-change-Arctic-passes-400-parts-per-million-milestone

    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, is reporting the first half of this year was in fact the hottest on record, with 170 all-time heat records matched or broken.

    NOAA has issued a report attempting to assess the role climate change, including human factors, played, if any, in six global extreme weather events in 2011. About one of those, the report asked if the human influence on climate made the 2011 Texas drought more probable. It concluded that it did.

    Thomas Karl, Director of the National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated in a recent interview

    "The temperatures the first six months of this year in the U.S. are the warmest on record. And, in fact, the last 12 months of the period May through June have been the warmest on record. Why? We believe there is an important human component explaining these record-breaking temperatures, and that's the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec12/weather_07-10.html

    The opponents of Climate Change are sounding increasingly ridiculous

     

Recent Comments

Posted Yesterday by roy bitz.

article: Lodi City Council votes to increase ele…

Another three two vote against rate payers. This one is even more upsetting as two of the three voters are lame ducks. Why would they try…

More...

Posted Yesterday by Todd Cronin.

article: Letter: Nurse’s strike is a sham, disgr…

I know EXACTLY who Fielding Mellish is! Love his New Orleans Jazz Band! As for the rest of your post, a thank you to me is in order for us…

More...

Posted Yesterday by Todd Cronin.

article: Letter: Nurse’s strike is a sham, disgr…

WOW eddy Not to hep on the concept of sarcasm and parody are you. And, what is spamful about my post?

More...

Posted Yesterday by Kenneth Huntley.

article: Lodi City Council votes to increase ele…

Isn't it a Conflict of Interest for Larry Hanson as a city council member to vote for anything to do with our city's electricity? I have re…

More...

Posted Yesterday by Jien Kaur.

article: Joe Guzzardi: Is it time for Nancy Pelo…

The downfall of a representative government. Maybe the United States should change to a direct democracy. In the case of San Francisco th…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

CREATE AN EVENT

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists