No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by TheAvenger

I think a lecture presentation before the 2,500 I.P.C.C. scientists qualifies as "peer reviewed".

Only if you don't know what peer-reviewed means.

Originally posted by darkbluesky


Many of my recent edits are not posting. Has anyone else had this problem?

Hi darkbluesky,

If memory serves, you cannot preview your edits. When you do your post reverts back to its original text without the edits... so iiirc when you make your edit[s] just post them without the preview and you'll be fine.

... now back to the thread already in progress.

Regards.

I certainly hope that the non-scientist reading here understands just how much increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere we are debating with the man-made CO2 addition that is allegedly "causing global warming". A 100 P.P.M.(part-per-million) increase in atmospheric CO2 is just 0.01%,( that's 1/100 of one percent) of the total content of the atmosphere, and a trivial amount. As Dr Beck stated, and correctly so, life would not exist on Earth without CO2. CO2 is not a poison. In contrast, That ice cold cola you drink has around 5,000 P.P.M. of CO2 in it, or fifty times the amount of CO2 that the climate change debate is all about. CO2 is hardly a poison even at the cola level.

I hope that puts the amount of the CO2 atmospheric concentration change in the past 100 years in perspective, and hopefully that one can see why many of us scientists have serious doubts that man-made CO2 is the "irrefutable" cause of global warming. These are my own thoughts. I have no clever website that writes my opinions or rebuttals for me. As you can see, when I have questions about a scientific paper, I go to the author rather than posting canned responses written by an environmental activist group.

Originally posted by melatonin



Only if you don't know what peer-reviewed means.

Well, alright then. Let's just consider all of the presentations given at the I.P.C.C. meetings to be garbage and throw them all out. I suppose the lectures that support YOUR position are the only correct ones, right? Get real, instead of Real Climate.

Actually, Courtney did mention that the paper he presented was published by a peer-reviewed organization.



[edit on 4/6/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Well, alright then. Let's just consider all of the presentations given at the I.P.C.C. meetings to be garbage and throw them all out. I suppose the lectures that support YOUR position are the only correct ones, right? Get real, instead of Real Climate.

Conferences are not peer-reviewed. Generally, they have some sort of selection from abstracts, but no proper peer-review.

Actually, Courtney did mention that the paper he presented was published by a peer-reviewed organization.

It wasn't clear that was the case. He said he got one into some geology journal, and another into 'energy & environment', a generally obscure sub-standard journal with little credibility.

A quick perusal of WoK shows that RS Courtney has published nothing of note. Just 9 letters to various journals, including Nature (ABE: actually 8 letters and 1 discussion). But what can we expect from the editor (maybe former, not sure) of 'TransCoal'.

You might have missed my earlier post, some good points still awaiting your professional attention.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Also, do you really believe that Courtney presented his stuff in front of 2500 IPCC people?

Originally posted by Long Lance


before you send my scurrying for sources and quotes, which you surely will, i'd like to pinpoint the disputed details. with this thread going nowhere fast, i think this approach can only help. the next step would of course be agreeing on trustworthy data sets.

If this question is directed to me, I explained to another member in an earlier post that I do not respond to quizzes. The true/false nature of your questions are a simple debate tactic, generally used with "loaded" questions that I will not fall for. I also will no longer accept any response copied or paraphrased from the Gristmill or any other A.G.W. activist site. On the other hand, if you ask for my opinion, I will give it if I choose to. Most generally, I do.

As for as Mr. Courtney's work, others, I will let him speak for himself. I was not involved in the writing of his I.P.C.C. Stockholm presentation or any of his other work. I have had no contact with Mr. Courtney before today, save reading his work. I think he is a brilliant scientist, and deserves respect, as do I and for that matter, the other sincere posters here

I have some personal matters to attend to this afternoon, but I will look back in here tonight.

Originally posted by melatonin
Also, do you really believe that Courtney presented his stuff in front of 2500 IPCC people?

Question is irrelevant.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Question is irrelevant.

What?

You said:

I think a lecture presentation before the 2,500 I.P.C.C. scientists qualifies as "peer reviewed".

In an attempt to give his argument credibility. So, I assume you must actually believe the words you're typing?

ABE: lets try another tack, you said this was an IPCC meeting, was it?

[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Well, alright then. Let's just consider all of the presentations given at the I.P.C.C. meetings to be garbage and throw them all out. I suppose the lectures that support YOUR position are the only correct ones, right? Get real, instead of Real Climate.

Conferences are not peer-reviewed. Generally, they have some sort of selection from abstracts, but no proper peer-review.

Actually, Courtney did mention that the paper he presented was published by a peer-reviewed organization.

A quick perusal of WoK shows that RS Courtney has published nothing of note. Just 9 letters to various journals, including Nature (ABE: actually 8 letters and 1 discussion). But what can we expect from the editor (maybe former, not sure) of 'TransCoal'.

You might have missed my earlier post, some good points still awaiting your professional attention.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Ad hominem remarks are not welcome here. Criticize the science, but not the man, or please go start your own thread.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Ad hominem remarks are not welcome here. Criticize the science, but not the man, or please go start your own thread.

Except that he is/was the editor of TransCoal and is associated with numerous other coal-industry organisations, and he has published little of note.

I was not involved in the writing of his I.P.C.C. Stockholm presentation

So, did he present in front of 2500 IPCC people at an IPCC conference in stockholm?

Or were you mistaken?

And I have been trying to criticise the 'science', but you tend to ignore anything of substance...

If you're having trouble finding a good place to start, try below. I like to discuss science.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Courtney is himself an I.P.C.C. peer reviewer, so much for your no peer review at I.P.C.C. comment.

It doesn't matter who he worked for in the past. I myself have worked for the feds for example, but it doesn't affect my objectivity. I see plenty of your group at Real Climate, other environmental activist sites. Ad nauseum.

AGAIN, the science, please, not the man. No more nonsense trying to discredit professional scientists because you don't like their position on A.G.W.
You may force me to use my "ignore" button for the first time if you persist.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Courtney is himself an I.P.C.C. peer reviewer, so much for your no peer review at I.P.C.C. comment.

That's not what I asked.

I asked was his Stockholm conference an IPCC event? Was it in front of 2500 IPCC people?

These are your comments, and I think they are wrong. In fact, I know for certain they are.

It doesn't matter who he worked for in the past. I myself have worked for the feds for example, but it doesn't affect my objectivity. I see plenty of your group at Real Climate, other environmental activist sites. Ad nauseum.

AGAIN, the science, please, not the man. No more nonsense trying to discredit professional scientists because you don't like their position on A.G.W.
You may force me to use my "ignore" button for the first time if you persist.

No, it doesn't matter at all.

But the main point I was making is that he is not a scientist. He describes himself as a consultant. He has no PhD as far as I can tell. He has no academic status. He has published little of note.

Why do you keep asking for the science? It's in a post I made earlier. I keep reposting it for you.

I'm ready to discuss it when you are.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I certainly hope that the non-scientist reading here understands just how much increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere we are debating with the man-made CO2 addition that is allegedly "causing global warming". A 100 P.P.M.(part-per-million) increase in atmospheric CO2 is just 0.01%,( that's 1/100 of one percent) of the total content of the atmosphere, and a trivial amount. As Dr Beck stated, and correctly so, life would not exist on Earth without CO2. CO2 is not a poison. In contrast, That ice cold cola you drink has around 5,000 P.P.M. of CO2 in it, or fifty times the amount of CO2 that the climate change debate is all about. CO2 is hardly a poison even at the cola level.

I hope that puts the amount of the CO2 atmospheric concentration change in the past 100 years in perspective, and hopefully that one can see why many of us scientists have serious doubts that man-made CO2 is the "irrefutable" cause of global warming. These are my own thoughts. I have no clever website that writes my opinions or rebuttals for me. As you can see, when I have questions about a scientific paper, I go to the author rather than posting canned responses written by an environmental activist group.

Not being a scientist, i can't comment as fully as i would like, but from listening to people who DO know, and having a laymans understanding of the issues, the theories from both sides make sense, to a degree.
But, to be honest the nay side rings much more true, because it's cold science without any histrionics and cries of "burn the heretic"

I also think that we tend to forget the political nature and the propaganda surrounding this debate.
In my experience, the side who is most vociferous and denigrating to their opponent is the side without right on it's side.
This is a political bandwagon, with massive amounts at stake (and I don't just mean money).
This is now an industry worth billions pa
The nature of the debate (and funding) has made this degenerate into trench warfare
This allows the government to detract from other actions it's taking
this allows governments to tax us more
this allows governments to impose more controls
need I go on?

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by Long Lance


before you send my scurrying for sources and quotes, which you surely will, i'd like to pinpoint the disputed details. with this thread going nowhere fast, i think this approach can only help. the next step would of course be agreeing on trustworthy data sets.

If this question is directed to me...

no, it wasn't.

thanks for quoting me anyway, seems like noone of the proponents wants to (or got me on ignore).



[edit on 6.4.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
no, it wasn't.

thanks for quoting me anyway, seems like noone of the proponents wants to (or got me on ignore).

Oh, OK. You should direct it at someone. I'll answer you in time, I don't have an issue answering questions, and I don't put anyone on ignore.

I'd just like to concentrate on discussion with Avenger for the moment without getting sidetracked again.

please`read carefully, and then tell me politics has nothing to do with it






www.john-daly.com...

Originally posted by melatonin
What?

You said:

I think a lecture presentation before the 2,500 I.P.C.C. scientists qualifies as "peer reviewed".

Except that only about 30 scientists were involved in the IPCC summary for "policymakers", and quite a few of them do not agree with the claim that mankind has caused, or is causing Climate Change/Global Warming.....

That, and the fact that there were no 2,500 scientists... many of those 2,500 people were "policymakers, industry magnates and environmentalists"...

Yes there were some scientists too, but there were no "2,500 scientists", and quite a few of them do not agree with the claim that mankind has caused or is causing Climate Change/Global Warming....

We have already gone through this...yet for some reason you make more false claims...

Originally posted by melatonin
In an attempt to give his argument credibility. So, I assume you must actually believe the words your typing?

ABE: lets try another tack, you said this was an IPCC meeting, was it?

And you come here trying to claim "the IPCC report was written by 2,500 scientists", when that is not true in the least, but I guess you "actually believe the words you are typing"....

The media is in error when it states that,

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –made up of thousands of scientists from around the world — reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels….” (see)

Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists.

climatesci.colorado.edu...

Let's see, again, what some of the scientists have to say about the IPCC...

Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu...

The report just released is merely the 'Summary for Policymakers,' an executive summary of the main report that no one outside a select group sworn to secrecy knows the contents of until May.

Why would the main report and its summary not be issued together?

According to official IPCC procedures, the main science report shall be modified after publication of the summary, so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary. But surely it is the summary that should be edited to reflect the contents of the science report it is supposedly summarizing.
.............
To understand why the IPCC does this, Canadians need to appreciate that the summary is not a scientifically neutral document. It is written to fulfill political objectives in support of carbon dioxide-reduction negotiations.
........................
IPCC lead author and NRSP Allied Scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains: The summary "represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists."

Lindzen also reveals that the summary had the input of not hundreds of IPCC scientists, but only about 30. The creation of the final version was conducted by a plenary session composed primarily of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental and industrial organizations.
..........................
This unorthodox reporting procedure led to the "Chapter 8 controversy" in 1995, in which significant and unwarranted modification of the IPCC science report was known to have been made before it was issued, so as to conform to the summary.

The fact many scientists were involved in reviewing the science report to be released in the spring does not necessarily mean these scientists agree with the report. NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar was an official reviewer of parts of the document that related to his specialty (extreme weather) and has revealed the IPCC ignored his comments entirely.

NRSP Science Advisory Committee member, Dr. Vincent Gray, also an official IPCC reviewer, speaks about his own experience: "They sometimes take notice of your comments. They don't take much notice of mine because most of the time I don't agree with what they are saying. It is not like the scientific press, where you are supposed to answer objections; they don't bother to answer objections; they go their own way."

www.ottawasun.com...

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by thelibra
It's pointless, Melatonin. I've read just about every page in this thread, and pretty much every post of Muadib's reads the same. For some reason, he's fixated on Mann, can't seem to answer legitimate science with real science, and has little, if any, understanding of what actually entails global climate change. All he can do is repeat the same lame "Mann is your idol" tripe over and over.

I am not the one presenting graphs which have Mann's data over and over... Which is the point I was trying to make...

BTW thelibra, I haven't seen you post one iota of evidence in the least, if anyone is "spouting nothing but tripe, is you and melatonin"...

You see, i tend to remain civil if people discuss topics in a civil manner, but melatonin and some others decided to try to play "the smart ass card", hence I had to become sarcastic to respond to their claims.

Anyways, I don't have to explain myself to you, more so when you have not given anything but your own biased claims.

If you want to discuss science, then present scientific evidence and stop overusing your power as a moderator.

I really don't give a crap if you are a moderator, I give respect when there is respect, and if you don't give it, I really don't give a crap about your "moderator status"...

Originally posted by thelibra
Sometimes you just have to accept that there's just some people you can't have reasonable debate with, and all I have to say is thank god he doesn't make policy. Those of us who are able to read at higher than a 5th grade level are with you 100%, Melatonin.

Well, well, well.... Since you haven't presented any scientific evidence to back anything at all, I think it is obvious who has the "5th grade level education"...

I have a Bachelor of Science in Engineering, thank you very much...

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
.............
Those of us who believe in GOOD science, and reject dissinformation, distraction, and personal attacks are with you 100% Muadib.

Thank you for your vote darkbluesky.

Thelibra is another one of those who does not discuss the science, but instead is using his power as a "moderator" to try to claim those who disagree with his views must be "5th graders", but what he doesn't know, or doesn't seem to understand is that by him making that derogatory comment, all he has done is prove that it is him, who is the "5th grader trying to misuse his moderator powers...

Being a "moderator" doesn't mean you are right about anything....but i guess he hasn't find that out yet.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Muaddib]