A Credible Global warming Scientist!

[rekees4300]

Well, check this out

Ice Age Now was constructed by a man called Robert W Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age". It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle"; and that "underwater volcanic activity - not human activity - is heating the seas".

Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? None of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect".

His quoted: "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich." The source was given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology".

21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations.

 

[Loren49]

kevindsingleton - Quote - In case you can't tell, I support the rule of law.

Any of our laws can be challenged in court as to there constitutionality. Ultimately our Supreme Court has ruled - this is the Law of the Land. By your statement I should be able to conclude that you support our government agencies as there existence has been upheld so far.

It is not logical that you support the rule of law of our land yet deny the legal existence of any of our government's agencies.

Question - state one law explicitly created by our constitution and exactly what it means. Ex:freedom of speech. Its just not black and white as some would claim.

Loren

 

[kevindsingleton]

Any of our laws can be challenged in court as to there constitutionality. Ultimately our Supreme Court has ruled - this is the Law of the Land. By your statement I should be able to conclude that you support our government agencies as there existence has been upheld so far.

Please cite the Supreme Court case in which the Constitutionality of the existence of a federal agency has been challenged, and upheld.

It is not logical that you support the rule of law of our land yet deny the legal existence of any of our government's agencies.

Of course, it is logical. Just because you don't agree, or understand, doesn't change the facts. Read the Constitution, and especially, the 9th and 10th Amendments. I think you'll find it an eye-opener.

Question - state one law explicitly created by our constitution and exactly what it means. Ex:freedom of speech. Its just not black and white as some would claim.

Loren

That's not a question, "freedom of speech" isn't a law, and the Constitution doesn't create laws. Have you read the Constitution? Perhaps that's in order, since you're intent on arguing against it.

Here's a simple refutation of your assertion, however, that federal laws aren't "black and white": Tenants Together : Obama Signs New Federal Law Protecting Renters after Foreclosure

This new laws overrides existing California law so that leases survive foreclosure for 90 days, or through the term of the lease, with the exception that a purchaser who intends to occupy the property can extinguish the lease after 90 days, but prior to its full term.

Simple enough, even for leftists.

 

[kevindsingleton]

Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations.

What'd he do? Lie in an email?

 

[Loren49]

kevindsingleton - Quote - In case you can't tell, I support the rule of law.

Not sure that it is accurate to label anyone who does not see things your ways as a leftist or is that the definition of the word?

It seems that you and those who believe as you do have failed to challenge the existence of the, as you imply to be clearly unconstitutional agencies. Maybe you could coach the Federal and Supreme Court Justices on the Constitution.

I used the "freedom of speech" example to show the weakness of your "I support rule of law" statement as there are no laws written in the Constitution. Your logic fails.

Those who do not comply with our laws do not support the rule of law. In our democracy there are ways to challenge these laws. It is not through anarchy and babble.

Loren

 

[brin]

Loren..Last time I checked we were still a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC NOT a " In our democracy there are ways to challenge these laws".as you suggest

 

[czechsonofagun]

I remember Ice Age being predicted by Roma Club and lot of other scientists. Global warming does not exist, the climate changes, always have and always will - GW is political vehicle for US president wannabe and currently it is a religion. You either believe it or you don't. Ever heard of Climategate?

 

[Loren49]

I stand corrected for using the wrong label though I did not have the wrong concept in mind. Also that word had nothing to do with the point I made.

Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:
Democracy:
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences

Republic
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.


On GW - as stated earlier the stolen emails were meaningless in relation to the total body of research. Many believe the scandal was manufactured, bought and sold by the deniers. Some believe we could burn every bit of fossil fuels and return that carbon to the atmosphere and not have any effect on the big world. Kinda like putting as much oil in the ocean as we'd like and have no effect because oil naturally leaks and its a big ocean.

Many feel the science and logic points in a different direction.

Loren

 

[charlz]

On GW - as stated earlier the stolen emails were meaningless in relation to the total body of research.

So in your mind that fact that the tree ring data and the thermometer reading data do not match up does not throw the whole modeling methodology into question? That fact that the proxie the entire model is based on is suddenly divergent enough from expectant/desired results that they truncate the data? Then since that didn't show the results they want they append data from another source that does show what they wanted? All without disclosing either one? Doesn't sound even just a _little_ disingenuous to you?

Thermometer readings show surface temps going up, tree rings show temps going down over the same time frame... doesn't that make you go hmmmmm? ??

 

[Loren49]

If you read the following article it may open your mind to the possibilities.

A few quotes from the following article.

Tree rings: Chainsaws at dawn - Environment - The Independent

"Professor Mike Baillie, who collected much of the data, insists it is not suitable for use in the climate change debate. He explains why some trees including those he studied do not give clear, reliable temperature data. "Not all tree rings are the same. We live in a temperate climate, which means there's a limited amount of climate information you can get out of studying our trees the climate they grew in is a balance of temperature and rainfall, it isn't extreme enough to allow the reconstruction of a single climatic variable. You get some information, but it appears to be mostly to do with rainfall not temperature." Baillie adds that if you want accurate climate reconstructions, you have to go to places where the trees are responding to a controlling variable, such as summer temperature.

"You can extract climate information from trees mostly pines from more extreme environments, like northern Scandinavia and Siberia; trees from high altitudes and high latitudes where the summer warmth was very important." His tree rings just don't tell us anything very concrete about temperature, let alone confirm a medieval warm period.

It's not the first time that tree rings have been at the centre of a climate change furore. Tree ring data was at the heart of "climategate" last November, when hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia allegedly revealed a cover-up.

Head of the unit, Phil Jones, famously wrote of "hiding the decline". But this was in reference to tree ring records, not global temperatures. The "decline" referred to the fact that recorded temperatures from reliable tree rings, broadly in line with thermometers since records began, started diverging around the 1940s.


Not all tree rings lead to reliable climate reconstructions. And even some of those that used to, seem to have now for mysterious and much-debated reasons stopped responding to temperature. One thing seems certain though: sceptics are still likely to use trees to attempt to run rings round our perception of climate change."



It appears that the majority of climate scientists do not agree with you. The methods of the deniers of climate change reminds me of the way the tobacco industry denied the health issues of smoking. They spent millions on discrediting and smearing the studies and people who disagreed.

Loren

 

[charlz]

It appears that the majority of climate scientists do not agree with you. The methods of the deniers of climate change reminds me of the way the tobacco industry denied the health issues of smoking. They spent millions on discrediting and smearing the studies and people who disagreed.

So a majority of climate scientists do not agree that tree ring data is a good proxy for temperature? Yet that is what Mann et al used for the 2001 IPCC report and what Al Gore used in his movie.

Am I missing your point here? From what you quoted my comments were spot on: the model used by Mann et al. is not a good one.

 

[Loren49]

The article discussed the conclusions of scientists. It seems that tree ring size is not determined by temperature alone. It has been a number of years since the report you are referring to. Science moves forward as more is discovered. (factors that determine ring size) I'm sure they are aware of your concern.

More CO2 info
RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Loren

 

[kevindsingleton]

Not sure that it is accurate to label anyone who does not see things your ways as a leftist or is that the definition of the word?

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

It seems that you and those who believe as you do have failed to challenge the existence of the, as you imply to be clearly unconstitutional agencies. Maybe you could coach the Federal and Supreme Court Justices on the Constitution.

Yeah, maybe I will. Did you read the Constitution, yet?

I used the "freedom of speech" example to show the weakness of your "I support rule of law" statement as there are no laws written in the Constitution. Your logic fails.

So, you use something that's not a law to demonstrate the rule of law? Who's logic is it that's failing, again?

Those who do not comply with our laws do not support the rule of law. In our democracy there are ways to challenge these laws. It is not through anarchy and babble.

Anarchy is one way (See: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al. See, also: 2nd Amendment. See, also: Joel 3:10). Babble, as you mention, is unlikely to be successful. Perhaps you should retire that tactic, now?

 

[kevindsingleton]

On GW - as stated earlier the stolen emails were meaningless in relation to the total body of research. Many believe the scandal was manufactured, bought and sold by the deniers.

Nobody believes that. Was it the "vast, right-wing conspiracy"? You dismiss the fact that the scientists had to lie to make the data fit their viewpoint. Who's the "denier", now?

Many feel the science and logic points in a different direction.

It doesn't really matter what you feel. What matters are the facts. Your "facts" are fabricated by liars. We have proof.

 

[kevindsingleton]

"Professor Mike Baillie, who collected much of the data, insists it is not suitable for use in the climate change debate. He explains why some trees including those he studied do not give clear, reliable temperature data. "Not all tree rings are the same. We live in a temperate climate, which means there's a limited amount of climate information you can get out of studying our trees the climate they grew in is a balance of temperature and rainfall, it isn't extreme enough to allow the reconstruction of a single climatic variable. You get some information, but it appears to be mostly to do with rainfall not temperature." Baillie adds that if you want accurate climate reconstructions, you have to go to places where the trees are responding to a controlling variable, such as summer temperature.

So, if you want to prove global warming, you go to a hot place, and take your readings, there. If you go to a less hot place, you won't get the data you need, and you'll have to lie in your emails. Got it?

"You can extract climate information from trees mostly pines from more extreme environments, like northern Scandinavia and Siberia; trees from high altitudes and high latitudes where the summer warmth was very important." His tree rings just don't tell us anything very concrete about temperature, let alone confirm a medieval warm period.

So, his trees are worthless indicators of global warming, and we should ignore the data they provide that doesn't support the global warming theory. Got it?

It's not the first time that tree rings have been at the centre of a climate change furore. Tree ring data was at the heart of "climategate" last November, when hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia allegedly revealed a cover-up.

Allegedly? Do the blinders ever come off?

Head of the unit, Phil Jones, famously wrote of "hiding the decline". But this was in reference to tree ring records, not global temperatures. The "decline" referred to the fact that recorded temperatures from reliable tree rings, broadly in line with thermometers since records began, started diverging around the 1940s.

So, the wheels started coming off the global warming theory over seventy years ago, but we can't possibly let people know about it. Got it?

Not all tree rings lead to reliable climate reconstructions. And even some of those that used to, seem to have now for mysterious and much-debated reasons stopped responding to temperature. One thing seems certain though: sceptics are still likely to use trees to attempt to run rings round our perception of climate change."

Trees stopped responding to temperature? Was there some cataclysmic change in tree DNA? Was it by global agreement? Why would trees, who were so cooperative for so long, suddenly start skewing the global warming data, forcing the scientists to lie in their emailed discussions of the data? That seems so ...untree-like!

It appears that the majority of climate scientists do not agree with you. The methods of the deniers of climate change reminds me of the way the tobacco industry denied the health issues of smoking. They spent millions on discrediting and smearing the studies and people who disagreed.

Reading the lies in their emails is free.

 

[Loren49]

Read carefully - scientists have concluded that temperature is not the only thing that determines ring size (drought, etc.) - therefore what at one time looked like a real contradiction between rising temperature and ring size, no longer stands. (again this is the conclusion of the clear majority of scientists - especially those not employed by BP etc.) Note that the rising temperature data was there from the start. Also I did not quote that temperature had no effect on ring size.

I am not a scientist nor do I personally intend to peer review their work. I may not be as wise as some.

Concerning the Constitution - you are avoiding my point or not getting it. Laws are set by means established in the Constitution. It is not black and white which is why there are many volumes of case law. That is where the real work is done.

Another example - the 2nd Amendment establishes the right to bear arms. The Laws passed along with case law establishes what that means - what can be possessed and where. Does it mean we can each have our own Nuke or slingshot? Since you have read the Constitution and seem to have the answer to what it means, you could save all of us lots of money by informing the Supreme Court Justices.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comments nor get into a debate over who babbles the most. I do enjoy a good discussion even when we disagree on many issues. Name calling serves no purpose.

Loren

 

[kevindsingleton]

Another example - the 2nd Amendment establishes the right to bear arms.

The Constitution does not establish the right to bear arms. Again, that's where we're disconnected. The Constitution establishes a system of government, and restrains the powers of the federal government to absolutely nothing more than is enumerated. Everything else is reserved to the States, respectively, and to the people. That's why I suggested you read the document. I still think it would do you some good.

The Laws passed along with case law establishes what that means - what can be possessed and where.

None of which is done in the Constitution, and has absolutely no bearing on whether some government agencies are authorized as Constitutional powers of the federal government.

Does it mean we can each have our own Nuke or slingshot?

If you can afford it, secure it, and maintain it, the Second Amendment does not preclude any "arms". You may run into some trouble with the UN and the IAEA.

Since you have read the Constitution and seem to have the answer to what it means, you could save all of us lots of money by informing the Supreme Court Justices.

It won't save you any money. I'll gladly discuss the Second Amendment, but this is not the place to do so. The point of delving into that area of the discussion was to determine whether the Constitution authorizes the federal government to create agencies that usurp powers and rights retained by the States, and the people, per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Any honest reading of the document precludes that assertion. Note the qualifier, "honest".

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comments nor get into a debate over who babbles the most. I do enjoy a good discussion even when we disagree on many issues. Name calling serves no purpose.

It was you that brought up "babbling". I quoted you.

The short version of all this is, you want me to change my way of life because you "feel" or "believe" that global warming is not only occurring, but is caused by activities of Man.

I challenge you to prove it, since you are the one who wants to curtail my liberty and take my wealth to satisfy your "feelings" and "beliefs".

The "proof" you have proffered is easily refutable by highly respected and qualified scientists, and also consists of outright lies and manipulation of inconvenient data to produce a result that favors your point of view.

I remain unconvinced, and refuse to perform in any fashion that creates any hardship on my part, citing the fact that you have not provided irrefutable evidence that Man can, or has, had any long-term effect on the global climate, or that any alterations to my current habits will have any positive effect.

You simply cannot prove that "we" are causing any "climate change". Therefore, I refuse to capitulate to your demands that I make undesirable changes to my lifestyle.

I don't know how I can say it any plainer than that.

 

[Loren49]

Quote singleton:
The Constitution does not establish the right to bear arms.

Are you claiming that the 27 amendments to the constitution are not now part of the Constitution?

If you go to this site you will see the original text along with the amendments. Are they wrong? When the court has rule on firearms issues they have not said the law was amendment-able they ruled it was unconstitutional.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I predict that if you tried to own a submarine with about a dozen nuclear warheads and missiles that most would not believe that you "believe in the rule of law!"

singleton Quote:

It won't save you any money. I'll gladly discuss the Second Amendment, but this is not the place to do so. The point of delving into that area of the discussion was to determine whether the Constitution authorizes the federal government to create agencies that usurp powers and rights retained by the States, and the people, per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Any honest reading of the document precludes that assertion. Note the qualifier, "honest".

The people who decide these things are the judges and ultimately the Supreme Court Justices. Why don't you work for the elimination of some agency as you are so confident they are un 9th and 10th amendment-able?

singleton quote:
You simply cannot prove that "we" are causing any "climate change".

Substitute "smoking" for "we" and "health risks" for "climate change" and you could have made lots of money with the tobacco companies.

There are already many regulations because of pollution and greenhouse gases which effect our lives. Many feel that increased energy independence and weaning our nation from oil will lead to a safer, more prosperous nation. I'm sorry if you feel threatened by this. I feel threatened by our blind waste of fuels and the battles we fight over seas to keep it flowing to us.

Loren

 

[sld]

Many feel that increased energy independence and weaning our nation from oil will lead to a safer, more prosperous nation. I'm sorry if you feel threatened by this. I feel threatened by our blind waste of fuels and the battles we fight over seas to keep it flowing to us.Loren

That has absolutely nothing to do with the thread about global warming. Every American will agree that we need to cut our dependence on foreign oil.

 

[Loren49]

sld
I didn't specify independence from foreign oil alone. If our energy independence included a large portion of renewable sources of energy in conjunction with less waste (ex more energy efficient homes and vehicles etc) then it has everything to do with global warm. This assumes there is a connection between fossil fuels and greenhouse gases. For those who deny that connection, nothing mankind does has anything to do with it which makes some feel free.

In short - I disagree.
Loren