myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 325, 326, 327  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2549

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
I will pull a few.......specific examples of how much money the carbon industry has spent lobbying against global arming legislation, and perhaps a misleading web site that is funded by oil money.


You have correctly asked me to be specific...........let me do the same. You have stated that last year the energy companies spent billions brainwashing us into believing that global warming is a hoax and that Middle East energy supplies are safe and secure. That's the only statement I'm interested in substantiating.....not a thirty year history. It should be easy since a campaign of that size must have been all over the media.

mac wrote:
On your part, I would like you to recognize that the IPCC has recognized the need for further review of their work.


I'll recognize nothing of the sort. The IPCC got caught and were embarrassed into an investigation by the public outcry. It would never have happened if they hadn't been exposed.

mac wrote:
If you think there is a conflict of interest, be specific of exactly what it is, and what your source is, and I will follow it up.


Pachauri's potential conflicts are so numerous that I won't list them here, but rather provide a link to a recent article which discusses them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html.

However, since most (understandably) won't bother to read the article, let me provide one specific example. A company Pachauri controls received approx. $4million in grants to study the impact of the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035..........a claim included in the IPCC report that has now been withdrawn since it is patently ridiculous. Pachauri used that claim to win the grants before it was withdrawn. Oh, and by the way, the ridiculous claim in the IPCC report was based upon a magazine article in which an obscure scientist speculated that this rapid melting would occur........nothing like rigorous scientific research is there? That obscure scientist (having backed off speedily from his earlier speculation) now heads up the glaciology unit of Pachauri's company.........the unit spending the grant money. "What a tangled web we weave.....etc, etc"

With people like this heading the global warming charge, is it any wonder that some of us are skeptical?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1555
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
Oh, the global warming graph is so trick!

How inventive.

Do you plan to spend some quality time breathing the exhaust from your family car?

I can easily seperate pollution from AGW, they don't have to be undisputedly linked. I don't like pollution as much as you or anyone else, it should be controlled, I'm all in favor of clean water and air.
To me it's like saying "don't light that match, the house will burn down", one doesn't have to guarentee the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2549

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
Can anybody tell me what the correct temp is supposed to be at any particular place, and at any particular time of the year?????


Don't be silly.............everyone knows that. It's the temperature that prevailed 100 years ago.......it must be otherwise we wouldn't be so worried about the fact that temps have soared by 1degree Fahrenheit over the past century (well, the first 85 years of the last century, since apparently nothing has happened for the past 15 years). I'm kind of glad.......it's been a cold winter so it's a relief to know that tomorrow will be a balmy 48 degrees rather than a frosty 47.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1555
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
nw30 wrote:
Can anybody tell me what the correct temp is supposed to be at any particular place, and at any particular time of the year?????


Don't be silly.............everyone knows that. It's the temperature that prevailed 100 years ago...

I don't even agree with that, I don't believe in a static condition w/in an enviornment that is always changing, up and down, up and down, etc, etc, etc.
But that's just me, you're free to believe what ever you wish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2549

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
mrgybe wrote:
nw30 wrote:
Can anybody tell me what the correct temp is supposed to be at any particular place, and at any particular time of the year?????


Don't be silly.............everyone knows that. It's the temperature that prevailed 100 years ago...

I don't even agree with that,


It was my failed attempt at sarcasm.............I agree with you.........who's to say what the optimum temperature is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1555
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
nw30 wrote:
mrgybe wrote:
nw30 wrote:
Can anybody tell me what the correct temp is supposed to be at any particular place, and at any particular time of the year?????


Don't be silly.............everyone knows that. It's the temperature that prevailed 100 years ago...

I don't even agree with that,


It was my failed attempt at sarcasm.............I agree with you.........who's to say what the optimum temperature is.

Oops, had I read your previous posts more better, I would have known that. I'm just used to being called a kook, a denier, or worse by the alarmists. Many of them, not all, but many of them excel at that. Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4987

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe and NW30--Billions last year is probably an exaggeration—the direct expenses were over $400 million—in each of the last two years. That doesn’t count education efforts under public relations budgets, so it may take two years to get to billions, and last years might be under a billion—but it is in the neighborhood. The big numbers on lobbying are that total business lobbying in 2009 was $3.5 billion, Health care and global warming were the big targets. Here’s one source that shows dramatic increases in spending, and the impact on the house bill: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/77737-climate-bill-drives-energy-companies-to-spend-more Here’s another, from Hearst newspapers, that shows substantial money—and of interest, has the oil industry projecting a 77 cent/gallon cost for carbon caps. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/top_news/Tesoro_Valero_other_refiners_fight_climate_change_bills.html
Here’s a source with a total for the energy industry at $400 million: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?lname=E&year=2009 It shows a doubling of expenses in the past two years. Of course none of this captures the public relations costs, and getting true totals requires a reporter—but then we’re not supporting newspapers much anymore.
Now let’s turn to the science of global warming and the hysteria—and financial support—for deniers. First, concerns over warming are not new—my oldest reference is a 1987 National Academy of Science study “Responding to Changes in Sea Level”, where my graduate advisor was on the panel, that concluded that the risk of accelerated sea level rise is sufficiently established to begin better monitoring of sea level. Of course the first loud warnings were sounded by James Titus, see for example “Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and coastal zone management.” Projections were projections then, the question then becomes what do the measurements show and are they sufficient to galvanize some type of response.

I will be specific about my secondary source—Andrew J. Gunther, Ph.D. Executive Director, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. He has a Phd in atmospheric science and has worked in water quality analysis for San Francisco Bay. I will give specific quotes and his sources.
Quote:
“CO2 and temperature are well correlated, especially on the longer time scales. … shorter timescales are not the way to look at climate trends. In addition to warming factors, there are cooling factors as well (esp. volcanic eruptions) that can make a mess of short term trends. (Check out graph here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/langswitch_lang/in#more-523) “

We can argue honestly about whether the temperature increase is 1 or 1.5 degrees, or whether natural warming might account for some of the increase. However, it is useless to argue with libertarians who don’t understand changes in average well enough to realize that a change of 1 to 2 degrees in average temperature is of no concern. Much has been made of the past fifteen years, but it amounts to little except the tail end of a trend curve.
Now we should turn to the allegations that satellite data show cooling, not warming. This is a complicated area because satellites don’t measure temperature directly, are at different elevations above the earth, and have spotty coverage. But it has been a source for dishonest conclusions, supported by consultants for energy companies that have repeatedly used uncorrected data to report cooling. Scientists puzzled about this for a while, and then discovered errors in the algorythms used to calculate temperatures from the raw data. Here again I am quoting Dr. Gunther:
Quote:
“The US Climate Change Science Program concluded the following about satellite v. surface temps: "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." ( http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf)

Next let’s talk about temperature trends :“
Quote:
“Cherry picking temperature trends starting in 1998 is a favorite tactic of deniers, as 1998 was the hottest year in the instrumental record. A picture of the full HadCRUT3 temperature record can be found here ( http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/), here’s the picture:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.gif

The 5-yr average has flattened out it part because of the La Niña at the end of it, but it is likely that 09 or 10 will be an El Niño and will pull the average back up. As you’ll see from the web site, the period 2001-2007 was 0.21°C warmer than 1991-2000. The planet is getting hotter on average, and particularly when you look at the far north and the interior of continents.

Not sure how you can look at the graph and not conclude there was a sharp inflection point in the late 1970’s.”

Is the ocean cooling, as some have contended?
Quote:
“Regarding the NOAA study of warming of the oceans, go to …: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2704.htm. There at the top of the page is an “update” that reads: “Update as of 5/30/2007: Recent analyses have revealed that results from some of the ocean float and shipboard sensor data used in this study were incorrect. As a result, the study's conclusion that the oceans cooled between 2003 and 2005 cannot be substantiated at this time. The study authors are currently working to correct these data errors and recompute ocean temperature changes.”

Sea level is rising at an accelerated rate—something that is hard to detect from the raw data because in some areas the land is settling due to consolidation of mud, and in other areas land is still rising due to rebound from glaciations. Again from Dr. Gunther: “Mean sea level rise of 3 mm/yr in this century is almost twice the rate of last century. The rate is rising faster than predicted by the IPCC in 2001. Even at this rate, by 2050 the 1/100 ocean flood becomes a 1/10 yr ocean flood.”
How does the US military look at this? As one of the greatest threat’s to our security, and a serious concern, at a recent American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting, Donald Perovich, with the Army’s Cold Research and Engineering Laboratory said : ..the Arctic sea ice …I may see it gone in my own lifetime—and I’m past 50.” Similar concerns expressed by NASA scientists. What I can’t understand is how you can get so many reputable scientists to join a left wing conspiracy.
A lot of this was discussed in an earlier thread—Political Rant Part Deaux—where Isobars and Capetonian argued without merit that global warming was a hoax, and with somewhat more merit, that it was not the most important issue facing the world. You can check that if you wish—after following their sources I found 1) that Singer did not say what they alleged—indeed, he acknowledged that there was a theoretical relationship between CO2 and warming, but coldly calculated that some liked warmer weather. “Let's face it. People like warmer climates. There's a good reason why much of the U.S. population is moving into the Sun Belt, and not just people who are retiring.”
Other sites tracked back to support from Exxon, Canadian coal sands developers, and Margaret Thatcher’s economists. This is long enough already without trying to find those sites again. Their other sources were Horner and Avery—the former an attorney, the latter a Reagan administration political appointee who is an apologist for pesticides, and both work for a libertarian outfit opposed to regulation. Hardly peer reviewed science. You can always send me a private message if you really want to study non-IPCC sources. Or with the recent results showing atrazine is implicated in sex changes in amphibians, you could always add apologizing for another pesticide to your to-do list.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5694

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well mrgybe, I could be wrong that oil, coal and other industries spend money to push their interests, but I don't think so. But honestly, I don't have all the facts to prove it, but I never said I did.

I would again mention the idea of an iceberg. You might be able to see some of it, but the majority of it that is hidden under water. I guess I could choose to believe that what's visible is all there is, but that's very naive and shortsided.

We hear all the time how money is all over our political process. With the current debate surrounding healthcare reform, its been in the news that the insurance and large pharmaceutial industries have contributed money to influence the outcome. How much? I couldn't begin to say exactly how much and to whom they gave it to, but I have little doubt that it's significant sums of money.

Getting back to oil, just one of the industries involved in the energy arena, I can say that every time the subject of drilling more oil off the Santa Barbara channel, money flies in hopes of success, and that's only part of it. Potential land swaps and other possible arrangements have often been in the mix in consideration for tipping the scale towards their goals. Given your background and knowledge of the oil business you know far more accurately what goes on when new lucrative opportunities surface. Would you stand by a position that there's no money involved in influencing the potential for success?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13834

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
I'm just used to being called a kook, a denier, or worse by the alarmists.


Now that they're in a rapidly shrinking minority (look at the widespread derision of GW in the Euro press now that the facts have penetrated even there), the sharper alarmists are beginning to realize what suckers they've been. We can only hope the next such alligator -- single-payer universal health care beginning with Obamacare -- is stifled in time to actually FIX U.S. health care.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5694

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
Oh, the global warming graph is so trick!

How inventive.

Do you plan to spend some quality time breathing the exhaust from your family car?

"I can easily seperate pollution from AGW, they don't have to be undisputedly linked. I don't like pollution as much as you or anyone else, it should be controlled, I'm all in favor of clean water and air.
To me it's like saying "don't light that match, the house will burn down", one doesn't have to guarentee the other."

I don't come even close to being an expert about global warming, but I know full well that humans have been responsible for significant pollution in the past that has affected our environment. Seemingly you understand that too, so I think you'll agree that we need to do everything possible to curb or potentially eliminate negative influences that we're responsible for.

Now, I should emphasize that I haven't been a strong proponent here of the dangers of global warming. But I have to admit that I'm not a denier either. Also, I have never come out in favor of cap and trade as a way to address the global warming issue. Nevertheless, I know that what we do oil and coal is not without impact to the environment, so I'm for cleaning up our act and investing in newer cleaner technologies. I feel it would be foolish not to.

But as you mentioned earlier, you're a global warming denier. You know, some months ago in the LAT, there was an article that showed various photographs if a number of glaciers in Northern America. These photographs were a clear illustration of how significant change had occurred over a relatively short time. They were aerial photographs taken in the late 1930s shown in direct contrast with current ones of the same locations, and they were careful to present the exact same view, elevation and perspective. The degree of change in these glaciers was simply astounding. Obviously something serious has been going on. You may elect to look away from such patent concrete evidence, but I can't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 325, 326, 327  Next
Page 5 of 327

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group