Disagreements over the Science Behind Global Climate Change

[Keith R]

and by the way, the banning motos in the DR was one example of the type of hyperbole you like to engage in. Fact of the matter is, Kyoto does not have edicts per se, and if you've read it, you'd know that. Furthermore, it does not impose any restriction whatsoever on a country like the DR, other than reporting on their GHG emissions, which is not so onerous. As a matter of fact, being a Kyoto contracting party could benefit the DR economically if they got their act together and put together some good CDM or JI projects.

I too would like to China, India and Brazil step up to the plate. I cannot speak for the first two, but my discussions with Brazilian officials leads me to believe that they intend to. The question the Brazilians are grappling with is how best to do so, and that's not an easy question to answer beyond combatting massive deforestation.

I'm glad that you love the DR so much, that is something we share. I know you don't believe that, given your nasty PMs questioning my love for the DR and its environment. But it is real and strong and longstanding (isnce 1986 at least) and I think most who have known me any length of time, both here on DR1 and elsewhere, don't doubt it. Sorry you do.

[bob saunders]

Chris, the Covey comment had nothing to do with Global warming and everything to do with your debating style. I believe the prediction are for the coldest winter in 15 years here in Canada with temperature already down to -35 C in many places. Jarabacoa has had some very cold days already this year. Whether we are having effect on Global warming is really up for debate with both sides of the argument having some validity to their sides. Climatic change, here, and here to stay. Can we affect the amount we pollute, of course.

[bob saunders]

Global Warming - Greenhouse Effects, Global Warming, Climate Change

[bob saunders]

Through the history of the IPCC there has been no shortage of pro-warming scientific effort for example;

minimizing the effect of the sun on climate;
minimizing the significance of the Medieval Optimum ( warm period when there was farming in Greenland);
minimizing the significance of the Little Ice Age (cold period centred on a few hundred years ago), the ice skaters on the River Thames must have been water skiers;
minimizing the significance of the UHI ( urban heat island);
underestimating the significance of global carbon sinks;
over-optimistic claims to have discovered greenhouse signature in global temperature records;
maximizing the significance of the preposterous climate modelling used by the IPCC to drive fear into policymakers

[Chris]

Bob, the site that you are quoting from, is this one or similar:
Reviews of inadequate IPCC greenhouse / climate change science.Carbon Sinks

Please refer to these .. all the questions are answered and an alternative view given. This gives you at least one pro and one con, to start figuring out what is what from there. That is, if you want to.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Bob, the site that you are quoting from, is this one or similar:
Reviews of inadequate IPCC greenhouse / climate change science.Carbon Sinks

Please refer to these .. all the questions are answered and an alternative view given. This gives you at least one pro and one con, to start figuring out what is what from there. That is, if you want to.

Why would there be pro's and con's if the science is settled?

Thanks again, Chris. So far you've helped to prove that:

1) GW is political

and

2) The science is not settled.

Hopefully, we'll expand and complete the list.

Chris, can you tell me how many variables there are in the IPCC climate models?

[Victor Laszlo]

are you guys still at it? I'll check back in a month or two. Maybe by then you'll have agreed that the Earth revolves around the Sun.





(It does, doesn't it? Or is that flawed science too...)

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Victor Laszlo

are you guys still at it? I'll check back in a month or two. Maybe by then you'll have agreed that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

(It does, doesn't it? Or is that flawed science too...)

It does, but not in an entirely consistent orbit, which accounts for variations in climate. And where the "sun" begins depends on the cycle that orb is going through, again having an inpact on our planetary climate.

Thank, Vic!

[bob saunders]

Yes last night I sneezed and I felt the earth move, and it turned really cold almost right away. Seriously though when we had the big underwater
earthquake that caused the Tsunami, perhaps that shifted the earths tilt and caused a wobble in it's orbit. Many reputable scientist believe this could have effected the earth's climate.

[Chip]

cobraboy

You keep hitting the nail on the head but these people just won't listen. As a scientist myself(engineer) I know how information(or misinformation) can be manipluated for whatever reason, especially when the audience honestly aren't qualified enough to understand. Furthermore, in the scientific field, "laws" are called "theories", because inevitably they will change. What that means to the laymen is that we do our best as scientists to understand and predict physical process but understand that in time the understanding may change. Also, as part of the scientific process, before any postulated theory is accepted, it must pass a stringent peer review, and furthermore, will be typically subjected to peer review for the life of it's existence.

Scientifically speaking, what is lacking to make this "global warming" theory valid is sufficient support from peer review. It fails repeatedly when put to the test. Also problematic is the "sample" from which the test is taken, which is the time period of the analysis. Honestly, speaking on pure statistical terms, no definitive answer should be postulated because the sample period is just to small when compared to the total existence of the earth. I'm surprised that real scientists would compromise the scientific method, but then again everything is political and if these guys get to do what they love to do for a living(research) and get handsomely paid in the process and maybe some fame thrown in. I think one can see how opinions can be "swayed" so that the scientist reports what his finacier wants.