2/4/2007
no, Patricia, global warming is not ‘indisputable’
From Delaware online there was a letter published that I thought warranted a few answers. What’s great about letters to the editor is that they just sit there without a response; and the editors can decide whether or not to publish responses.
Biased critics attack state’s global warming position
I would call that a biased headline, lol, in other words, as Iraq the Model said, ’since when did wondering become analysis?’ Today, we see many examples of it; particularly in the first few pages of the UN IPCC Report see UN Releases Its Global Warming As Caused By Man Report (Part 1) and UN Releases Its Global Warming As Caused By Man Report (Part 2). Bill points out that the term “very likely” a number of times in the first few pages. Instead of getting a report outlining a definitive cause and effect, which actually would be science, we get ‘very likelies’.
How can our state climatologist file briefs opposing our state’s position on global warming? And how does a university department head get to appoint a state title?
Maybe they’re looking at other data which hasn’t been produced by the obedient jackboots of the radical green environmental movement.
As for The Competitive Enterprise Institute , which calls itself “a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government,” it is in fact an ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business.
Now this is a revealing paragraph. It actually is a non-profit, non-partisan research group. What you’re revealing there, is that much like Hillary Clinton, you’re advocating that evil corporations don’t deserve any profits from their work; that it belongs in the deep pocket of government. This is about redistribution of wealth; not really about the science behind global warming, which is vague and inacurrate, at best.
These people exist to confuse the public on issues important to saving corporate profits. Exxon Mobil Corp. has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998. CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.
Remember the free enterprise system? Wave it bu-bye.
The science behind global warming is indeed considered indisputable. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions.
Patricia J. Madore, Hockessin
Science magazine also spreads Evolutionist propaganda of the secularists who favor nature over man. This is about restricting man at the hands of government, which many of us who still believe in a free enterprise system, would like to stop. The more we have legistlation, the higher the taxes, the fewer the freedoms. Limited government, in fact, is a very basic tenet of conservatism. Or, at least it used to be. Now we see RINOs who actually support some of this environmental mumbo jumbo. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who does, has completely sold out. But that doesn’t mean I have to accept your selling my tax dollars down the river; or converting all businesses into government-owned and controlled entitites, either.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Rockefeller and Snowe are criticized by editors in their own states for their attempts at stifling debate on this issue. It is revealing that they’re so open about it. But, as Hillary said once; ‘we’re going to take things away from you for your own good.’ She also recently said something about taking the taxes from the oil companies to use toward environmental causes. Summing it all up, these people should be taken down a few pegs; they’re not our superiors, and they should not be given the power to make decisions for the rest of us; particularly when we have no input into them.
In the still heated debate between those who are blindly following the empty rhetoric as opposed to those who are willing to look at the motivation behind those who are spouting these theories, it is wise to proceed, I think, with caution. But as long as they can keep up with the hysteria; Congress is likely to respond with legislation. I thought I saw a report that said the President himself is starting to give on the issue, which is something that I’m thoroughly anticipating. The UN’s report said “very likely” too many times for something that is supposed to be ‘indisputable’. I also saw reports that the eeevvvviiillll oil companies have ‘paid to suppress’ scientific evidence of global warming. The hysteria on that side is up to a practically fevered pitch, but that’s what is going to motivate Congress. Let’s hope that it doesn’t go much further and that there are enough voices out there to combat what the Teresa Heinz Kerry’s are looking to accomplish with all of their money thrown at the Green causes. I didn’t expect that things would be happening so rapidly on all of these scores; it’s difficult to keep up with, and the big picture view is a looming disaster for what was once the ‘free enterprise system’. Remember good old capitalism? What kind of country are we going to be passing down to our progeny? I shudder to think.
I am satisfied when both sides of an issue get a hearing. Unfortunately, many times the conservative viewpoint is now censored. This is noted in Bill’s post here about the ’scientific method’, concluding with
if you do not 100% agree with them, then shut the hell up:
A report summary issued Friday by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “should erase any doubts, even among the most dedicated skeptics, that the time for action to combat global warming is now,” said National Audubon President John Flicker.
As for those who question the latest scientific consensus on global warming — ignore them, Flicker suggested: “The clarity and completeness of the IPCC’s global warming findings permanently relegates skeptics to the fringe,” he said.
Got that? You are wasting your time trying to have a discussion with those who believe/feel deeply in climate change. They will refuse to not only have no rational, scientific, factual, adult converstations with you, they will refuse to converse at all. If climate change is such an established fact, then why can’t they debate it? Because feelings are not facts.
Facts never bother leftists.
Thanks to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Right Truth, Big Dog’s Weblog, Shadowscope, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, The Amboy Times, Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Right Celebrity, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123 Beta, Maggie’s Notebook, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Jo’s Cafe, Adam’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Thought Alarm: And the Truth Shall Set You Free (If It’s Not Supressed), Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
February 4th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
facts never bother leftists!..amen !..and ty for the links!..:)
February 4th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
The “National Post” just published and interesting series of articles about some scientists who are questioning the UN’s line on global warming. Some people calls them “deniers”, implicitly comparing them to the nut-jobs who deny the holocast. These newspapers articles are an excellent background showing why that accusation is ad hominem — an obvious smear to dismiss scientific evidence. (link)
February 5th, 2007 at 10:43 am
“They will refuse to not only have no rational, scientific, factual, adult converstations with you, they will refuse to converse at all.”
This is strange. Usually “science” involves a process where one has a theory, gathers information, makes predictions, tests those predictions, and either revises or confirms the theory.
There is little needs for debate regarding global warming because all the data points to the same conclusion. This is the same as evolution. It is an outstanding theory for explaining the data, or “facts” as they are called.
Usually when one wants to question a theory, they are required to offer an alternate theory. For that alternate theory to be accepted, it must be supported by more data.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Yeah, never mind the ‘executive summary’ that was just released. It was not published by the science group but a bunch of political appointees.
The scientific reports will be released in three reports due in Feberuary (2), and in May.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Actually there have been some drafts of the scientific reports that people have already seized upon and studied.
See Melanie Phillips here.
Junk Science dot com here
Monckton Apocalypse Cancelled here (pdf file)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007 Analysis and Summary, by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Figures in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third. Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century. UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling…
The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink. The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions…Though carbon dioxide in the air is increasing, global temperature is not. Figures from the US National Climate Data Center show 2006 as about 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer worldwide than 2001. Since that is within the range of measurement error, global temperature has not risen in a statistically significant sense since the UN’s last report in 2001…
Though the mass media are now well-programmed to focus on the more alarmist aspects of the report, the halving of the sea-level projection is in effect a declaration, from the heart of the ‘consensus’, that the consequences of warmer worldwide weather will be minor and may be beneficial, that the worst scenarios are no longer probable, and that the panic is officially over.
February 10th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Wow, you’re living in an alernate universe. Not ‘all the data points’ point to the same conclusion from even a cursory analysis of the IPCC’s draft report.
And, the theory of evolution is very similar to the IPCC’s draft report in that no other data is allowed.
The theory of evolution continues to prop ancient disproven examples and no new examples have emerged.
For example, the four-winged fruit fly: disproven. Finch beaks: disproven. Piltdown man’s skull: fake. There is a purpose for vestigial organs, and so on. What has happened with the IPCC’s report is that they are forcing the models to fit their conclusions, just as they do with the theory of evolution.
And that, my dear friend, is not science.
At Junk Science dot com, some of the disturbing parts about publishing the conclusions first and coming up with the data three months later:
This boils down to; a) we dictate that you’re not allowed to read the scientific evidence or analyze it, and b) you must force your research to conform to the party line.
Melanie Phillips points out more about the scientific draft, which is an illustration of political correctness having crept into science; there are some things that are unacceptable if your research produces the ‘wrong’ conclusion. You are expected to bend your models in order to produce the ‘correct’ results.
Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl wrote this in protest:
February 10th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
First off, that’s five years. The report shows during the last century, temperature rose .74 degrees. This is faster than almost any other time in history.
From the report.
You say that methane levels are not rising, yet the report states.
if you look at the graph, then your statement is flat out wrong.
Next, regarding the draft…”First, we have the ridiculous notion that “PLEASE DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE THE DRAFT REPORT” ”
IT’S A DRAFT! That’s the whole point, i.e. please don’t cite this as a final report, because it’s not. Trust me, as someone who deals a lot with official finanical and legal documents, “DRAFT” means A LOT.
Melanie Phillips is a hack. Why should I look at anything she has to say?
Lubos’ main claim to fame seems to be a professional climate skeptic. I don’t see him collecting much first hand data, only playing with numbers.
Regarding evolution…please give me another theory that explains life as we know it better. Back it up with as much data as possible. Your comments regarding “well, what about…” are silly, at best. Please explain DNA to me. Explain how it changes to adapt organisms to an environment. Explain why it does.
Please give me a better theory. Unless you can do that…you have no leg to stand on.
On the same side…please give me a better theory, backed my more research, for global wraming. We ARE seeing global temperatures rise (some of us more than others) rise quickly. Faster than at any time in human history. There are a number of theories why this is happening. Please, if you don’t like the “because we are polluting our environment” theory, GIVE ME A BETTER ONE.
And if you go with the “human greed” theory, you have to realize that the BIG MONEY is in denying globla warming.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I’ve written a couple of posts since this one, Lefty, maybe you ought to try and keep up, rather than continue in the same thread where you’re just winding up in the spam bucket.
Read Lord Monckton’s articles and take it up with him and Richard Lindzen and others, ok?
You might try to pick this up, because I’m going to be referring to this after I get it, too.
The Left has used the natural environment as an excuse for increasing government control over us, declaring ‘earth day’, and giving us all kinds of ridiculous things to change in our every day lives in order to stop global warming. Save the baby seals! The whales! For the children! And recently the amazing propaganda for the United Nations and environmentalism inserted into the adorable movie, “Happy Feet.”
The chicken littles’ doomsday-scenario environmental scares they’ve manufactured haven’t been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.
Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left’s manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes — and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that “global warming” is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true.
Global warming is the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could “solve” it. According to the logic of the greens’ own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.
Horner details how today’s environmentalists use strong-arm legal tactics — and worse — against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examines the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it.
It’s time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism gives you the facts you need to do so.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Concurrent with the rise in global mean surface temperature during the 1990s (the “hottest decade on record”) there was a dramatic drop in the number of surface reporting stations, especially in Arctic regions of the former Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, when you eliminate a significant number of lower temperatures from the set of global reported temperatures, you obtain a higher mean. In that book you will learn about the fraudulent nature of the now infamous “hockey stick,” a graph created by Michael Mann, which purported to show that after 900 years of steady temperatures, the last 100 years have witnessed a dramatic rise in temperature resulting in a graph shaped like a hockey stick. This graph, first published in the journal Nature, and then republished in numerous UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) press releases, was one of the most popular and convincing pieces of evidence ever marshalled in favor of global warming. Of course, in producing a graph showing no climate change for 900 years, Mann had to completely ignore the well established medieval warm period from 1000 to 1300AD and the subsequent “Little Ice Age” which lasted into the mid 1800s and from which we have just recently emerged.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Don’t Believe the Hype.
Al Gore is Wrong.
There is no consensus on global warming.
by Richard Lindzen
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists–especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
If big money is denying global warming, why is big money like the Tides Foundation and ketchup money funding the research and much of the green causes?
You’re taking that report as gospel, my friend. Which is typical of greens unable to think for themselves. (Reference: Discover the Networks)
Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner’s Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its “save the rainforest” campaigns. In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018.
The Ruckus Society is a member organization of the United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition . The Ruckus Society also endorsed a May 1, 2003 document titled “10 Reasons Environmentalists Oppose an Attack on Iraq,” which was published by Environmentalists Against War.
Financial backers of the Ruckus Society include the Turner Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, the Compton Foundation, and others.
Earth First’s militant message was supported by a Harvard-educated Montana recluse named Ted Kaczynski (later to be known as the “Unabomber”), who mailed dozens of letter bombs, killing three and wounding 28. After raiding Kaczynski’s cabin in 1996, FBI agents discovered several volumes of the Earth First! Journal. Also found was a publication called Live Wild or Die, which was financed by EF!’s co-founder Mike Roselle and featured a catalogue of the environmentalist movement’s most hated, the so-called “Eco-F*cker Hit List.” Prominent on this list was the Exxon oil company. A February 2, 1994, article in the Earth First Journal! erroneously claimed that a firm called Burson-Marsteller was in charge of Exxon’s public relations efforts in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Kaczynski is believed to have sent the mail bomb that killed Thomas Mosser, an executive with Burson-Marsteller, at his New Jersey home December 10, 1994.
Declaring that it believes in “using all the tools in the tool box,” EF! today affirms its continued commitment to “monkeywrenching.” In 2001, EF! activist John Stephens said that arson attacks were on the whole “a positive thing” for environmentalist groups to undertake. Promotional literature for a July 2005 EF! retreat, marking the organization’s 25th anniversary, lured participants with promises of “rowdy rallies” to be followed by discussion sessions “plotting our escape from the U.S. government.”
Viewing itself as a “movement” rather than an organization, EF lacks a fundraising arm and an identifiable leadership. The only contact information available for EF is a list of Post Office boxes in various states. No names are revealed. Further complicating scrutiny of EF’s finances is the fact that EF is not a registered nonprofit and files no forms with the IRS. EF! solicits contributions through its California-based “Direct Action Fund.” EF has also received funding from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; the Turner Foundation; the Tides Foundation; the Foundation for Deep Ecology, and the New-Land Foundation.
And those are just three examples of your ’starving’ environmentalist causes that have nothing to do with as you call it ‘big money’.
See also: Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (Hardcover)
February 10th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Well, since you called Melanie Phillips a ‘hack’, with absolutely no reasoning behind it but that she disagrees with you, then that means that Lord Monckton, Richard Lindzen and others are ‘hacks’, also because they don’t agree with you. And frankly, that makes me a hack because I don’t agree with you, and so, we’re left with this stalemate. You are an authoritarian leftist who wants to dictate what I have up here, what I put up here, and quote from the UN’s report as though it’s some kind of holy writ.
It’s not.
Lord Monckton:
In the current draft, the UN cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third, to 1.6 watts per square metre. It now thinks pollutant particles reflecting sunlight back into space has had a strong cooling effect. As a deterrent to direct comparisons between the two reports, the key table of ‘radiative forcings’ the list of human influences on the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere - has been rotated by 90 degrees compared with the 2001 table. The UN uses a 90% confidence rate rather than the 95% interval rate that is normal statistical usage. This has the effect of giving the UN’s projections a more misleading appearance.
Th UN’s best estimate of project temperature increase in response to CO2 reaching 560 parts per million, twice the level in 1750, was 3.5C in the 2001 report. Now it is down to 3C.
The 2007 draft concludes that it is very likely that we caused most of the rise in temperatures since 1940. It doesn’t point out that for half of that time, from 1940 to 1975, temperature actually fell even though carbon dioxide rose-higher every year than the previous year.
Of the UN’s six modeled scenarios, three are extreme exaggerations. Two assume that population will reach 15 bn by 2100, though demographers say population will peak at 10b in 40 years and then plummet. The UN’s high-end temperature projection to 2100, up from 5.8 to 6C, is based on these extreme and unrealistic scenarios.
The new report confirms the finding of the 2001 report that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons and hurricanes, though it may increase the intensity of some storms a bit.
Computer models heavily relied upon in this report did not predict the considerable cooling of the oceans that has occurred since 2003-a cooling which demonstrates that neither the frequency nor the intensity of the hurricanes in the year of Katrina was attributable to global warming.
The UN’s models also failed to preduct the halt to the rise in methane concentrations in the air that began in 2001.
Now that is Lord Monckton talking, and since he is accurate as far as I can tell on his analysis of what is and isn’t in the report, what is missing, what is exaggerated and what is inaccurate, why should I doubt him on this point on the methane concentrations dropping? If you have an issue with it, take it up with him and find out where he gets that, or how to make those calculations and get off my back.
And they did not predict the timing or size of the El Nino which hiked temperature in 1998. Without it, the satellite records show little or no greenhouse warming. Land-based temperature records may accordingly overstate the problem.
This, along with negating the Sun’s influence on warming is incredibly misleading.
This is like asking a weather man, who is oft wrong on a mere 5-day forecast, to predict climate change 100 years into the future. It just ain’t gonna happen, and it isn’t realistic! And what’s worse, is we already know what the conclusions are that they’re trying to force into these models.
Just one of the many problems with the UN’s draft is that it contains no explanation for the defective and discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph that abolished the warm climate of the Middle Ages. This represents intellectual dishonesty and raises questions about the entire report.
Ambiguities in the report, and considerable discrepancies between it and its predecessor, show that there is absolutely no scientific consensus on many points for which consensus is often claimed. Overall, the report is drafted so as to allow environmental extremists to cite its high-end projections as evidence of the need for action.
China has 30,000 coal mines. It’s opening a new pit every week and a new coal-fired power station every five days until 2012. Well before then, China will overtake the US as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
The IPCC will approve the complete report for publication at its 36th session in Bangkok, Thailand, in May 2007. Meanwhile, there will be constant pressure from the vociferous body of politicized scientists, bureacrats, and lobby groups to suggest that the 2007 report is more alarming than the previous ones. But the sharp downard revision in the values of the two central variables-the human contribution to warming compared with 1750 and the project rise in sea level to 2100-indicates that the UN has come to appreciate the dangers that would have arisen if it were to have persisted in its former exaggerations.
The question is this: By how much will the increases in greenhouse gases cause temperature to rise? On the answer to that question, there is no scientific consensus at all.
The panic is officially over, even though you’re still looking for reasons to panic. Go ahead; but do it somewhere else.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Congrats. You can copy and paste.
I’m not sure what that proves, exactly, but you did a good job on it.
From your C&P’ed rantings, I see a few main recurring points.
First, you think this is some liberal conspriracy to gain power. You don’t think there is any merit to any person that wants a clean environment, and see the whole scientific world as a liberal plot to liberalize the liberal liberal liberal.
I got it, you think everything is a political game. I understand that. I think it’s a bit simplistic, and think that it also tends to hamper rational thought, as you now emotionally attach any perceived “liberal” position to all the others. And we all know that Liberals are godless, treasonous communists.
Second, you seem to think that anyone who argues against the facts presented in the report is, ipso facto, correct because they are arguing against liberal/green/envirofascists and therefore correct.
Third, it seem every single one of the contrary points cherry picks the dataset. Whether you only want to look at 2001-2006, or 1940-1975, it seems a bit disengenuous, on the face of it. While methane distribution may have decreased (thanks to envirofascists) since 2001, the facts remains that they are far above any other point in history.
You also seem to dismiss the idea that climate is a chaotic system. In such a system there will be up and downs within the system. The other fact that remains is over the longer term, we are seeing a warming climate.
Much like my examples regarding evolution, you don’t seem willing to offer any theory outside the conspirational ones.
Please, think and type for yourself. There’s no need to cut and paste huge swaths of text. Write your own stuff, and link to other people’s.
Finally, I don’t understand how trying to limit our use of, and dependence on, fossil fuels can be seen as a bad thing. From your side links and other posts, I understand you are an Islamofearist. Why not choose a course of action that would help to limit our dependence on, and funding of, fundamentalist regimes?
March 8th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
oh, me again. lol, still looking for the original draft but this site pops up a lot.
anyway, I’ve tried talking to Ms Phillips and to be blunt, she doesn’t understand, just repeats others opinions… - which is a shame as I was looking forward to a good argument.
If you read this, please pick up where we left of Ms Phillips.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I’m reading this but I don’t understand your request. Go to Junk Science dot com, they’ve got the draft report, second-order draft, and third assessment report.
Archive copy of the second-order draft of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The second-order draft was distributed in 2006, 5 years into what has so far been a 6 year process and these copies were archived last May.
THE IPCC TAR (THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT) SECTIONS The Scientific Basis, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Mitigation (Working Groups 1, 2 & 3) are sometimes mysteriously unavailable. Fear not, this mirror frequently works when the primary is unavailable and, should that fail, we guess we can always ask for assistance hosting and making public our archive. The basis for the Stern Review should be publicly accessible, no?