This sounds a little like you looked up their personal biography info. Is that what you meant? Or do you mean you looked up some research papers by them, read through the science, reviewed their conclusions, and looked for rebuttal?

Not only are they stating that global warming isn't causing hurricaines, they're disputing the claim that there even is an increase in hurricane activity. Essentially, they're telling the Chicken Littles of the world that they're full of shit.
Your quote by the AAAS stated exactly that.
Are you now saying that the AAAS is full of shit? If they're not, then I would suggest a washcloth for yourself because one of you made the statement above.

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Re the Hindu Kush and Glaciers, this one might interest you Cat:

ARTICLES / PAPERS HINDU KUSH HIMALAYA

BTW, Cato ... wikipedia had this to say about your source:

then there's this:

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heartland Institute

its an interesting source, Cato.

California Glaciers in 2003? well ... as we can see from the article re the Himalayas, the trend is not uniform even in that region ... and this article tends to suggest the same is true in California: Sierra glaciers in retreat, and we find later articles like this: California Wild Fall 2005 - California Glaciers (2005). For what its worth, it does appear that high glaciers in California are bucking the trend. I don't know that this contradicts global warming theory - I am aware that there will be increased precipitation in some regions, and if this is in regions/seasons which are cold, there is no reason why there wouldn't be some thickening of glaciers.

I don't know if you realise, Cato - but the term Global Warming is not really used much anymore. I see reference to Climate Change.

BTW - Ned Rozell has a BA in journalism. This by no means would preclude him from being able to report accurately on science issues, however I think glaciologists may be a better source of information.

Yes, the Hubbard Glacier is bucking the trend, however elsewhere USGS makes it clear that "Most mountain glaciers have been retreating since the latter part of the 19th century." and that "throughout the state(of Alaska), more than 98% of valley glaciers that terminate at an elevation below 1,000 m are retreating, thinning, or stagnating."

USGS Contributions to the Climate Change Science Program

Interesting you mention the Briksdal Glacier, which has receded by 120 metres (ie over 120 yards) in one year. This has been well documented.

The New Zealand situation is interesting. There have been several articles in the New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics which counter the premise of the link you posted, however the University of Otago states quite clearly that not enough is known about New Zealand Glaciers. It appears certainly that there will be advancing glaciers in parts of the western Highlands, however this does not appear to be universal. As I have stated before, increased precipitation at higher altitudes can certainly have this effect.

Cato, you said: but I don't understand why sea level rises in some regions should be a problem for you ....

you said are you sure of this?

have you not heard of floods in Europe and central Asia in recent years? of Bushfires in Europe, of abnormal bushfire seasons in Australia? of the fact that four of Australia's major cities are now on such tight water restrictions that in some places you will be fined for washing your car? What about droughts in Africa, flooding in SEAsia, floods in Northern Australia?

At the same time - I'm not going to say they are or are not caused by global warming, only that these events are in line with the predictions that I have been familiar with for over a decade ... I don't know that Global warming causes these events, and I won't claim it does ... but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some causal factor....

this article links to 200 scientific studies: WWF - Climate change impacts on BIRD SPECIES

here is something for you on the tuatara: Warming May Drive Gender-Bending Reptiles Extinct, Scientists Say

there are countless articles that go into detail, but should I be spending my time on this, when you don't really care?

which publisher with a vested interest ... and what vested interest?

you know that I have been discussing this for a long time before Gore splashed onto the scene - this is not relevant to any discussion you are having with me.

without logical proof is the key phrase here, I think.

in all honesty, Cato, the ones I have met who question the validity of Anthropogenic contribution to CC tend to be voicing opinions outside their areas of expertise. I have yet to meet anyone researching Earth/Life sciences who regards climate change as anything but one of the most significant issues of our time. Most choose to minimise their own ecological footprint as much as possible.

the link cited several articles from well known and well respected science journals that refuted the key points more than once. Don't try and pretend it was the journalist who was the problem. The creators of your 'Swindle' documentary didn't do their homework.

they do. thats why evidence is so important.

JP, in my part of the world ... the term 'extreme weather events' does not mean the same as hurricanes.

Yes, shoot the messenger. That's good debate, Daisy.
As I expected. When proved wrong, find a way to make it fit into your worldview and move happily on.
Because it's hard to scare people and raise money if you keep beating people over the head with "warming" when it's really cold. What use is a term like "climate change"? Are you under the impression that climate doesn't change?
Yup, shoot the messenger.
Ahh, but we know enough about the rest of the 6,000 glaciers on this planet to make the blanket statements you want to make?
Huh? They're not a problem for me. You, and your source, first claim that sea levels are rising on a global scale, then argue that sea levels are rising only in certain regions. The former has something to do with a warming globe, the latter has something to do with something else.
Positive. Do you have any comparative studies of "extreme" weather prior to 1850 and today?
Hmmm, that didn't seem to be your position at the beginning of this debate. It's also clearly not the position of the AAAS.
Thanks, give me some time to read through the studies. While I do, could you perhaps explain how these studies show the link between a warming planet and an anthropogenic cause, specifically CO2?
What have I written that has either implied or stated directly that would lead you to believe this?
The AAAS.
I explained that. The AAAS publishes Science, as well as other scientific publications. It's to their benefit that there be some catastrophe that people will buy their magazine to keep up to date on. Now, does this mean the planet isn't warming and Man isn't responsible? No. It means the AAAS is not someone I want to be taking my policy positions from. The fact they've taken a position makes me want to ignore their magazine. Because I want my science unfiltered and unedited. How 'bout you?
Yes it is if you're going to try and draw a distinction between religious faith and global warming faith. You wrote that religious faith uses fear to force an opinion - AGW proponents do the same thing.
Super! Let me see your logical proof. If you recall I've been asking for it from the beginning.
What does this have to do with anything? Are you arguing that if you haven't met them then their arguments aren't valid? Because there are a lot of climatologists who do not agree with you.

What about your proof that "the majority of scientists from around the globe who have been studying these patterns for years have come to the conclusion that there is a 90% certainty that anthropogenic factors play a part"?
Not the point, Daisy. Your reporter wants to shut down the debate. The "film's main contention" is not "that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun." The film's main contention is that there are other possible explanations for the minor amount of temperature increase observed. And the sun has not been excused from the scientific debate, regardless of what your reporter wants to believe. What do you think, Daisy? Does the sun have nothing to do with a warming planet?
And yet you believe the debate is over. We don't need to ask any more questions like, "Is this warming a long term trend? Is it caused by CO2?" These questions are already answered so we can just move on, right?

You don't consider hurricanes "extreme weather events" or do you think that the AAAS were deliberately ignoring them in their BS attempt to scare people?

Oh, and using Wikipedia as an authoritative source to denounce the works of the Heartland Institute is hysterical.

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

I have found in discussing these issues it is often important to identify the sources. Many have an agenda to push - as it appears, does the source you cited.

so why bother?
In actual fact, I am glad you brought it up. I was aware the influence of precipitation (and we do know that distribution is altering), but I had no idea that even over relatively small ranges there are such vast difference. Still - what I do see is that some of the factors, such as altitude, are common across several regions.

as I am sure you are aware, Cato, in the last 25 years there has been a huge increase in the knwledge we have in a whole lot of scientific disciplines - including those areas directly related to the study of climate change. Scientists are well aware that it is more complex than mere 'warming' - and there are some possibilities that the warming trends may impact on currents that may even result in cooling in some regions.

At this point in time, it would be inaccurate to refer to the phenomoenon as 'global warming.'

when responding to an agenda driven poster, it s often advisable to check sources.

in many regions there has been extensive studies over a long period of time, and the trend overall is that glaciers are shrinking. The University of Otago professor was merely stating a fact - there hasn't been enough study done on New Zealands Glaciers - and they are now actively involved in that.

A lot of scientists don't like to say X is happening, unless they can see that it is. (BTW - most of those involved in the CC debate say 'it is likely' or 'based on the evidence it appears that...')

maybe you are right. there obviously needs to be more research

no - but we do know that floods in central Europe and Switzerland like those we have seen in recent years have not occurred in the last 500 yrs +.

There are also some societies that have had extensive record keeping systems for millenia (eg China), where no mention is made. Generally, you can get a lot of information from studying economic history. Massive flooding which would affect people in food producing regions will always be recorded.


In general I say that these things are in line with the predictions. Obviously, there may be members of the AAAS who say these events are caused by global warming. They know more than I do. My background is not the physical sciences ... and although I believe current Climate Change is a major issue, and is caused (or at least influenced to a large extent by anthropogenic factors - I don't know for certain, and am not qualified to say.

We do know that environmental change influences animal behaviour. I am sure if you read some of these links you will see that climate change is a significant factor in many cases, although I have seen some where I would argue that other causes of habitat loss are likely to play a bigger part, as is the introduction of exotic species which ether predate or compete with other species.

I haven't seen any evidence that you do. While you criticise me for my closed mindedness on the issue, I can in all honesty accuse you of the same.

I find it interesting that you prefer to rely on publications from conservative think tanks, rather than publications from the world's largest association of scientists, when discussing this issue.

I find that your regard for science is fairly low overall, and I am curious to know more about you. If it were only the AAAS, and their members list was being depleted as a result of this - which should be the outcome if, as you say, the AAAS is cooking the facts to fit their sales, I would say you have a point ... however the AAAS is one of many groups of scientists around the globe who also see climate change as a major concern..


conservative anti CC theory pundits often use fear mongering in the form of predicting economic collapse. And in any case - there are extremists in all churches - including economic churches.

there is proof that our climate is changing. There is proof that this is happening more rapidly in recent years. There is strong evidence to suggest anthropogenic influence.

if you would like to supply a list of climatologists who don't think its an issue - I will be happy to look through it and see what they think. Feel free.

well, it is the point. How can you have a film called 'the great global warming SWINDLE - arguing that there are other causes for Global warming - and then using sources that have been disproven several years before .. and several times?

Its pretty sloppy for a documentary film maker.

And on a contentious issue, such as climate change, the producers would have surely have done their research ... or were they thinking their audience were all mugs?

You started a thread about the film. IT was a swindle to the viewer - because information that was KNOWN to be proven wrong was used.

the trend does appear long term, reputable scientists have identified a link between CO2. Maybe the jury is out on a lot of the detail, and if we look at recent years it is pretty clear that there is always something to learn ... in any case it does appear we need to start looking at how we will cope with climate change. We also need to be sensible about how we use our resources in any case with 6 billion people on this planet, and China and India rapidly developing.

Thinking about impacts, and planning for the future is a sensible approach.

hurricanes are not the ONLY form of extreme weather events known to man. I am surprised you don't know that.

I used another source as well ... in any case, the type of institution can be interesting when you are looking at who has an agenda. I think scientific organisations are usually a better source of information than either conservative think tanks, or greenpeace. Even the ordinary media is probably better - if you don't rely to much on the commentary.

As does the reporter who wrote your rebuttal, but I don't dismiss his science because of that fact. See, everyone has an agenda, Daisy. That's why we need to look at their science and not their person. What you're doing is called "ad hominem", and it's fallacious debate.
Because, in spite of everything, I still think you're an intelligent, reasonable, and logical person. I'm hoping you'll refine your arguments so they make more sense.
Then what use is "climate change"? Again, are you under the impression that climate on this planet does not change?
Why? My son told me today the sun is 93 million miles away from Earth. Should I do a background check on him to make sure he's not a paid mouthpiece for "The-Sun's-Right-Next-Door" lobby? Science is science, Daisy. It doesn't matter who's mouth it comes out of. When asked how he felt having 200 scientists disputing his theories, Einstein said, "It only takes one to prove me wrong." Do you believe that science changes depending upon who claims it?
Do you think we know enough about the approximately 6,000 glaciers on this planet to make statements like the ones you're making?
And a statement like, "Based upon observations, it is likely that some of the 6,000 glaciers on this planet are shrinking and some are growing." Would be an accurate and truthful statement. One I would have no problem with. However, it doesn't increase donations and doesn't create panic. So we won't see that statement coming from the AGW crowd.
Hey! We can agree on something!
Source, please. And how does this prove an anthropogenic link?
Floods have been a big deal since the dawn of civilization. That's why there are so many similar Biblical flood stories in nearly every religion.
Okay, why do you believe that?
You're not addressing the point, Daisy. We can agree that climate changes influence animal behaviour. That's not saying anything. Show me how this is caused by CO2.
Well, I've written several times that I'm concerned for the environment. So much so that I'm angry so much attention is being placed on a trace atmospheric gas which couldn't possibly explain the observations we have made. I'm angry that so much attention is being taken away from the important issues on this planet. I'm angry that the AGW proponents have hijacked the global debate on the very real issues of pollution, poverty, and health. All for a political agenda. I'm surprised you're not angry too.
Well, of course I disagree. First, because I didn't accuse you of being closed minded - you have refused repeated requests to prove you are not. You have made ad hominem attacks on sources rather than refute their science while I ignore your sources obvious biases and stick to their arguments. Second, because either I clearly understand both sides of the issue, or you've failed to prove I do not. I wouldn't be so clearly informed about this issue if I was closed minded. I'm not sure how you define "closed minded".
Because it doesn't matter who reports the science, Daisy. Every article I've quoted references a legitimate scientific study. You could, as I have, review the actual studies, determine if they are logical, search for rebuttals, and make your own decision. Instead, you choose to dismiss the science out of hand just because it comes from a source you disagree with politically. That simply makes no sense to me.
Why do you believe that? Because I don't agree with you, or because the science I have quoted is fallacious?
I never wrote this. I wrote they have a vested interest in making sure the global warming scare doesn't go away. Let me be clear - this doesn't make what they're saying wrong. But given your predilection toward distrusting sources with a bias, I would think this would concern you. Does it not concern you because they're saying what you want to believe, or because you've looked at the issue from all sides and found their science to be more solid? If the former, then you're basing your belief upon faith. If the latter, then I would like to know what part of the science from the opposing view you found deficient.
And there are many scientists around the globe who do not. Do you believe your science based on lot, or upon the actual science?
Do you not see the overt political bent to your preference over whom you believe? Science is not politics, Daisy. Doesn't matter to me if you're socialist, liberal, republican, or democrat. If your science is wrong then it's wrong.
By how much? And what is this proof?
What is "recent years"? And where is your proof?
In what form? CO2?
Why? Are we doing science by vote now? If your group is bigger than mine then you win? Or would you like to do a biographical search on them to see if there's anything in their history which would allow you to dismiss their research without even looking at it? Good science, Daisy.
How can you have an international body using graphs that have been disproven? How can you have scientists making predictions that have failed to come true time and time again? How can you have meaningful progress in anything when you silence one side of the debate?
There have been recent studies on the sun's effect on our climate. Mr. Monbiot is attempting to shift the debate away from other, natural explanations for the observed warming. That is dishonest. What do you think? Do you think the sun has nothing to do with climate on this planet?
What is "long term"? And where is your evidence to support this?
A link which shows temperature rises, then CO2 rises.
Why? We've coped with it in the past without the advances in technology we have today.
I agree. And money is a resource too. We can use it to chase demons, or we can use it to really make a change on this planet. If you had $1Trillion American dollars, would you rather try to change the temperature on the planet by .01C, or feed, provide clean water, medicine and energy to 1 million people?