American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

99
I don't intend to get into discussion with you beyond this one "food for thought" as I need to refocus my energies on other life issues. Either the water level is rising in the Netherlands or the land is sinking. Since sea-level rise is estimated to be 12" over the next 40 years it is unlikely to be a melting ice issue. Perhaps it is a sinking land issue.

"However, the IPCC cannot be basing its estimate on sea-level rise, since even its maximum
projected rise of just 30 cm (1 ft) by 2050 would not cause significant coastal flooding or shoreline erosion. There are several coastlines (the east coast of England, for instance) where the land is sinking as a consequence of post-ice-age isostatic recovery, or where (as in Bangladesh) tectonic subduction is similarly causing the land to sink. But such natural causes owe nothing to sea-level rise."
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

klm,

I am truly sorry that I appeared hostile. I really wasn't.

We do have opposing worldviews with very little in common. My view is from the cultural/political aspect along with identifying sources of truth and misrepresentation of truth. Yours appears to be from the anthropogenic global warming science exclusively.

Gore is the poster boy for anthropogenic global warming. His film is severly flawed with at least 35 significant errors, yet he is given an Oscar for this "sci-fi" documentary and a Nobel Peace Prize (shows how a prestigious organization has gone bad; now Obama for doing nothing). The Democrats call him up before congress as an expert witness for global warming and our school kids are indoctrinated in government school science classes by having to watch Inconvenient Truth. Gore has had a profound affect on our culture and affected opinions of Americans.

A good debate between Gore and Lord Monckton would do truth well for all Americans to witness. Other debates between pro and con scientists are in order as well.

Newsweek was only reporting what environmental scientists were reporting to the writers. Publications such as these impact public opinion as well, based on whatever truth or misinformation is provided them. Needless to say, the environmental scientists were vascillating 4 times last century between global warming and cooling and the publications were reporting these vascillations.

The title and subject matter for this thread is about American opinion changing on global warming: American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive. Gore, Newsweek and pro- Vs con- anthropogenic global warming science are all appropriate topics for this thread.

Again, I am sorry for the appearance of hostility. I pray you will accept my apology.

Take care

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

steve,
Isn't the IPCC and the proposed Copenhagen Treaty all about CO2?

Have you read about what the cost will be for what appears to be a non-issue? Huge transfer of wealth, instituting a marxist based global government, destroying our standard of living by government policy.

Vaclav Klaus made some interesting recommendations that puts realism to this whole game:
What do you think about this approach?

My [Klaus} recommendations are as follows:

1.The UN should prepare two parallel IPCC’s and publish two competing reports. To get rid of the one-sided monopoly is a sine qua non for an efficient and rational debate. Providing the same or comparable financial backing to both groups of scientists would be a good starting point.

2. Countries should listen to one another, learn from mistakes and successes of others, but each country should be left alone to prepare its own plan to tackle this problem and decide what priority to assign to it among its other competing goals.

We should trust in the rationality of man and in the outcome of spontaneous evolution, not in the virtues of political activism. Therefore, the answer is adaptation, not attempts to mastermind the global climate.

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Rev,
You misunderstand Prov 26. Prov 26:4 has to be used along with Prov 26:5
4 Don’t answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you’ll be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his foolishness, or he’ll become wise in his own eyes.[3]
Prov 26:4-5 (HCSB)

For instance; don't engage an opponents logical fallacies (Prov 26:4) but introduce substantial information and data to support your position and refute the opponents erroneous claims (Prov 26:5)

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

klm,
I do believe your statement "The physical principles were worked out in the 19th century, and the possibility of anthropogenic emissions leading to global warming was predicted in the late 1800s." is deeply flawed and baseless:
Dave Barton's congressional testimony;
"Environmental science has a demonstrated pattern of announcing strong conclusions, and then reversing itself following further time and study. Consider further that the clamor about radical climate change is not new. In the 1920s, the newspapers were filled with scientists warning of a fast approaching Glacial Age; but in the 1930s, scientists reversed themselves and instead predicted serious Global Warming. But by 1972, Time was citing numerous scientific reports warning of imminent “runaway glaciation,” and in 1975, Newsweek reported overwhelming scientific evidence that proved an oncoming Ice Age, with scientists warning the government to stockpile food; in fact, some scientists even proposed melting the artic ice cap to help forestall the coming Ice Age. In 1976, the U. S. Government itself released a study warning that “the earth is heading into some sort of mini-ice age,” but now, a mere two decades later, the warning of the imminent Ice Age has been replaced by the warning of an impending Global Warming disaster. In eighty years, environmental
science has completely reversed itself on this issue no less than three times.

Furthermore, the scientific community is even reversing itself on its current claims.
Just a few years ago scientists predicted that the seas would rise from 20 to 40 feet
because of Global Warming, with “waves crashing against the steps of the U.S.
Capitol” and “launch[ing] boats from the bottom of the Capitol steps”; additionally, onethird
of Florida and large parts of Texas were projected to be under water. Now the
estimates have been revised to anywhere from a few inches to a few feet at most. Clearly, the science on this issue continues to oscillate; in fact, Senator Inhofe has been
one of many who have tracked the number of leading scientists who, after announcing
their position in support of anthropogenic Global Warming, have reversed their position
after further research. Such a lack of consensus and so many forceful assertions and
repudiations merit a very cautious and guarded approach to any policy on this subject.

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

steve,
Not a tangent. Just part of the politics dealing with the global warming issue. Bottom line, the real man-made global warming issue is not about science but politics and the proposed policies.

The minutia is fine for you, your topic is not critical for me. Take your college tests; I don't need them. Does your topic explain the medieval warm period and the studies that show temperatures preceed CO2? From the results I had seen by Lord Monckton the CO2 back in the era you are studying was much higher than we have now and the temperatures were relatively cool. The CO2 concentration during the Medieval Warm Period was lower than today yet the temperatures were higher. Nothing that matches the alarmist computer models. So delve into your minutia; I don't need it for being informed about the global warming debate, the politics involved and numerous misrepresentations committed by the alarmists.

"The author states that it is "interesting to ask what, if any, correspondence exists between ancient climate and the [newly derived CO2] estimate." Indeed, it is very interesting to ask that question; for the political future of the entire world rests on the validity or invalidity of the climate-alarmist supposition that changes in the air's CO2 content are major determinants of changes in climate. So what do the new results show?

Rothman reports that the CO2 history he derived "exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales." In another place he writes that "comparison with the geologic record of climatic variations reveals no obvious correspondence." And in yet another place he says that although the most recent cool period corresponds to the relatively low CO2 levels of the present, "no correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate is evident in the remainder of the record."

If the truth be told, however, a simple visual examination of the author's plot of CO2 and climate vs. time clearly indicates that the three most striking peaks in the atmospheric CO2 record occur either totally or partially within periods of time when earth's climate was relatively cool. Hence, not only is there no proof for the climate-alarmist contention that higher CO2 concentrations tend to warm the planet, there is evidence in this study to suggest that just the opposite may be true.
Reviewed 8 May 2002"

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

klm,
You suffer from committing logical fallacies; ad hominem again and faulty appeal to authority.

This is political and the funciton of IPCC constitutes junk science:

"The IPCC’s agenda is often misunderstood. It is not to discover the truth about how the world’s incredibly complex and ever-changing climate operates. It is, instead, to justify control of the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. According to its Web site, the role of the IPCC “is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”

Lindzen and Choi have shown the green house effect is very questionable. But what the heck, they use empirical data Vs the flawed computer models of the alarmists. Your contention is not fact but hypothesis; and what appears to be a disclaimed hypothesis at that.

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

klm
Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes
This study was a joke; her sloppiness was exposed and confirmed.

The PIG to Global Warming, Christopher Horner.

"Oreskes screed may still be cited as the basis for an absurd celluloid tale of doom, and maintain a status among the deep-green believers, but the stain on her reputation as a academic will not soon fade. She is fortunate to have entered a field notorious for rewarding such behavior."

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Hi steve,

I said I was not going to discuss the minutia. It is being done by experts in their respective fields. I don't have to study the minutia to know that CO2 has little to do with global temperatures and the cause of global warming/cooling/change after weighing the discussions for and against man-caused global warming. This is a politically driven issue and the politicians are much more dangerous to our way of life on this issue. The IPCC is politically driven and there is much concern with the final reports they publish and the alarmist tone inputted by the politicians.

The uni is not the center of all knowledge. Textbooks and professors have their place, but so do other sources outside the uni. Textbooks and profs have specific worldviews and will be biased accordingly. So Gore and Monckton do have their place in this debate as they bring to the debate the political and economic elements as well as validity of the science they use in making their conclusions. Do we want to forgo more sovereignty and instill more marxism and greater taxation or not? Is there truth to the alarmism?

The Brits apparently have lost their voice to a rather totalitarian government in the EU. We still have some voice left over here and can still impact what our politicians do to a limited extent. So public debate is necessary to help us make informed decisions without delving through the minutia. We have to discern sources of truth and lies and go for it.

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

klm
That's nice. There is no concensus on man caused climate change. The NIPCC uses the scientific findings just as the alarmist do. It all depends upon the worldview they start from for interpreting the data.

This is a political issue. It started out as a political issue. The govt funds only proponents of the man-made global warming bent; guess what the govt funded studies will conclude? Reference R Lindzen and his encounter with Sen Gore.

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

steve,
No, I am not discussing the minutia you delve into. I am discussing what this thread is based on. The politically motivated outcome of the IPCC report and dissenting, scientific reporting found in the NIPCC; how and why public opinion is showing that we are waking up to lies. The basis of the alarmism is challenged which does mean that CO2 emissions is challenged. You may find contrary views to the IPCC based on peer reviewed research the IPCC selectively ignored to be enlightening. http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html

This is what I am really addressing:

An open debate is necessary. [I am not saying you should be a debater but rather the experts from both sides should debate in public forums. AGore and your Lord Monckton, Fred Singer and those from the IPCC, etc. Our media has been decidely one-sided about the issue and have resorted to name calling and ad hominem attacks along with the alarmists. The likes of AGore have refused to debate]

I have concluded that this is politically driven to create the largest wealth transfer via taxation that the world has ever experienced. The copenhagen plan will also establish an international government to regulate the cash flow. This is very much in line with a marxist worldview ideology.

You may enjoy listening to a fellow Brit, one very wise and knowledgeable about the whole picture of the alarmism. You'll find the link "Listen to the full interview with Lord Monckton" at
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=734422

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

klm,
It was an ad hominem attack as you failed to discuss the merit of the report refuting the IPCC report. Rather you go into an opinionated attack. It appears to be your MOO. Perhaps you should do some research for yourself; There was no industry money involved with production of the report.

It is only your biased opinion and wish that the petition were a bad joke. The list is verified contrary to your claim.

It might do you good to read the report before you discuss it.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition
Project signatories, subdivided by educational
specialties. These have been combined, as indicated,
into seven categories.
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth
sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in
specialties directly related to the physical
environment of the Earth and the past and current
phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes
935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical
methods. Since the human-caused global warming
hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer
projections and not upon experimental observations,
these sciences are especially important in evaluating
this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810
scientists trained in the fundamental physical and
molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids,
which are essential to understanding the physical
properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in
the molecular interactions and behaviors of the
substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are
composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964
scientists trained in the functional and environmental
requirements of living things on the Earth.

Church Bells Toll 350 Times for Climate Change

HAWK49 »

Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

web,
Praying and witnessing with the love of Christ is definitely in order. We are also charged to be salt and light to a dark world and to be good stewards of God's creation, as well as identify false philosophies and discern the truth. LWF has definitely sold out to satan's religion.

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:34 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

steve,
some scientists agree with what you are studying, many others disagree. I recall a petition presented last year about 30,000 scientists, many in the climatology business, disagree with your sources and the IPCC findings.

An open debate is necessary.

I have concluded that this is politically driven to create the largest wealth transfer via taxation that the world has ever experienced. The copenhagen plan will also establish an international government to regulate the cash flow. This is very much in line with a marxist worldview ideology.

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:04 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

klm,
ad hominem attacks seems to be your specialty. Where's the substance?

Principal findings of the book include the following:

Climate models suffer from numerous deficiencies and shortcomings that could alter even the very sign (plus or minus, warming or cooling) of earth’s projected temperature response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.
The model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth--especially for a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level--is much too large, and feedbacks in the climate system reduce it to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.
Real-world observations do not support the IPCC’s claim that current trends in climate and weather are “unprecedented” and, therefore, the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
The IPCC overlooks or downplays the many benefits to agriculture and forestry that will be accrued from the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.
There is no evidence that CO2-induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, either on land or in the world’s oceans.
There is no evidence that CO2-induced global warming is or will be responsible for increases in the incidence of human diseases or the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions.

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

HAWK49 »

Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:36 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia.

Perhaps true debate is in order before the "alarmism" is considered valid.

Church Bells Toll 350 Times for Climate Change

HAWK49 »

Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

The location of the LWF General Secretariat in the Ecumenical Center in Geneva, Switzerland, ensures close cooperation with the World Council of Churches (WCC) and other Christian world communions, as well as international secular organizations.

Another Marxist based spiritual organization. What a surprise! Ideology at the expense of truth.

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

HAWK49 »

Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

johnzon,
you didn't acknowledge the points with your quest for how far back do we go in searching the evidence. You are obviously on a different quest.

As far as how far back to we go. I answered that. Not knowing the creators has not prevented science and archeology from proceeding. Performing research on the creations was sufficient to advance knowledge.

Your specific concern is about God and His existence. You'll find everything He wanted us to know in the Bible. This will give you greater intellectual fulfillment than being an agnostic.

If your enquiry is in earnest there are some of us on this site that can answer some of your questions.

What created God?
How was God created?
When was God created?

Philosophically, there is no problem with an eternal God. What you are proposing in your questioning is an infinite regress, but eventually you'd have to end at an initial cause. God tells us in scripture He is the initial cause, there is no need for an infinite regress to finally arrive at the initial cause. The first cause must be uncreated and eternal. http://www.existence-of-god.com/index.html

Why does God get to be God and the rest of us mere mortals?

Creator Vs creation. Why does a human get to be master and a dog his subserviant pet? Or a parent the authority over a child? It's His rules, not ours. He gives us a free will to accept His truths or reject them. Through His grace He offers all of us a chance for redemption from our sins.

I wonder if God feels pretty fortunate that God is God and not say a poor Ethiopian scratching out a living in the bush. Maybe its like Bill Gates thinking he is really quite fortunate to have become a multi billionaire. thanks his lucky starts everyday so to speak.

God loves us all but grieves over those that reject Him. God's concern for His special creatures is not material wealth but faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. His concern will be for the spiritual salvation for both the Ethiopian and Bill Gates. Our life on earth is short compared to an eternal existence in heaven or hell. He did not promise us an easy life nor one of material equality.

For me, I think it would really be cool being God, to have all that intelligence and knowledge to understand the structure and composition of the universe and all that is in it.

He offers you a chance to understand much more than you do through His words of truth and wisdom found in scripture. One assurance He does offer is internal peace from the trials of life provided by His comfort.

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

HAWK49 »

Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

johnzon;
Let's take a look at a few examples;
biological evolutionists go back to the single cell....and stop there. Where did the cell come from?

evolutionary cosmologists go back to the cosmic egg...and stop there. Where did the egg come from?

The Rosetta Stone; an Ancient Egyptian artifact which was instrumental in advancing modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. The stone is a Ptolemaic era stele with carved text made up of three translations of a single passage: two in Egyptian language scripts (hieroglyphic and Demotic) and one in classical Greek.

Do you doubt that an intelligent agent created this stone? What did he look like? How old was he? Who created this intelligent agent? How tall was he? How much did he weigh? Who created his creators?

Do not having answers to these typical johnzon questions deny that the Rosetta Stone was designed and benefited us for understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphics?

Did not having those answers stop our reasearch of the stone to learn how to use it?

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

HAWK49 »

Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:50 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

viking,
I did not change the rules. Check the time frame of posts. The 10/9 1:43 post asked you a question about the syllogism and I expected either a yes or no. Instead, you jumped right into the discussion.

When you return next week we will begin with origins and then work our way to mutation and natural selection. I intended to do this after you accepted the syllogism Sorry about that. You can start your response from this point. You shouldn't have any trouble accomodating to this.

As for EV; The results are derived from an intelligent designer commonly known as the programmer. As one architect level programmer from Microsoft told Meyers looking at the evolutionary algorithms: There is absolutely nothing surprising about the results of these algorithms. The computer is programmed from the outset to converge on the solution. The programmer designed the code to do that...everything interesting in the output of the program came as a result of the programmer's skill--the information input. There are no mysterious outputs."

Computer science has two principles that codify this insight. Indeed, these principles can be or, in some cases, were derived from a careful analysis of evolutionary algorithms themselves. The first principle is called the no free lunch theorem..developed at NASA's Ames Research Center...Dawkins's simulation provided an obvious illustration of this....The second principle is called the law of the conservation of information...the computer does not create any new information. The computers are no more capable of creating new information than an iPod is for creating music.
Bottom line, it is responding to what the intelligent agent (the programmer) told it to do. It takes a computer scientist, information specialist, to recognize this.

ref pp 291-292, Signature in the Cell

Royal Truman on EV: Selection is intelligently driven. Careful reading reveals not a simulation but a designed convergence algorithm. The two matrices of numbers, plus a tolerance score, define goals which can change slightly across generations. The immediate goals are instantly known and flawlessly acted upon by the computer program, with no consideration to survivability uncertainties.