Inhofe: Global Warming Ppl, "The Third Reich"

[aoxamaxoa]

The laughing stock of a nation....
http://www.senatemajority.com/outrageous_quote_of_the_day_james_inhofe

[iplaw]

I hate it when people compare things to Hitler or Nazis regardless of the topic. If he would have restricted his comments to the first line about it being a hoax he would have merely echoed the quote of William M. Gray from Colorado State University, but he chose to go the hyperbole rout. DUH...choose your words more wisely Inhofe.

[TheArtist]

Read the Wikipedia article.

Seems to me that there was observed a temporary cooling in the 70s.  The science of monitoring and modeling global temperatures was just starting and naturally "just getting its bearings" so to speak.  As this cooling was noticed hypothesis to explain how this could be occuring were put out.  It seems that some of them were correct, the cooling did happen during that time and some of the causes postulated (particulate pollution, smog etc.) were having an effect in that direction.  

 However it appears that as time went on and they gathered more data and started refining their models they noticed that the temporary cooling effects of particulate pollution that did happen in the 70s were starting to become outweighed by the warming effects of carbon monoxide and other greenhouse gasses.

  Now it appears that the earth is actually getting warmer and and at a faster pace than seems to be consistent with natural fluctuations.  

 When glaciers that have been around for tens of thousands of years or more could vanish within a persons lifetime.  That does not seem to be a normal fluctuation.  When animals (like polar bears) which as far as we know take quite a while to evolve to be suited for specific habitats, have those habitats start to recede at such rapid rates that they cant evolve to keep up.  This again seems to indicate a more rapid than normal fluctuation.  

 Now I dont know either way if man is causing or influencing what appears to be this apparent change.  But it at least makes me want to know more, as do many scientists I am sure.  And I sure as heck dont know enough to be so bold as to demonize either camp.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Here are a few:

Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia

Ross McKitrick (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago... [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.

Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: "At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."

William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." Mr. Gray, who has worked in the field for 50 years, has labeled global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air". In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air's increased greenhouse gas content."

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."

Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project: has changed his position from "The earth is not warming significantly" (paraphrase) to "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it"

Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. Dr. Carter says, "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada. Dr. Patterson states, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Jan Veizer, Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa, writes: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005

Sherwood Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, formerly a research physicist at the USDA Water Conservation Laboratory and adjunct professor Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."

Here is a link that lists some of these experts and more:
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm

I only list these individuals to show that we can do the dance of dueling experts all day long.  There is no consensus.

If you take all the names listed on this obviously anti-global warming site, they still represent a microscopic fraction of the number of scientists that say that there is no question that we are in a state of global warming. It's kind of like the 9/11 conspiracy folks, they can also find a handful of "experts" that say that the government was behind 9/11. But in fairness, I'll look more closely into it. I'm curious as to how many of the people listed there KNOW that they're listed there. (They've listed email addresses and I'm going to email several of them and we'll see how many responses I get.) A problem that you run into with anti-global warming sites, 9/11 government conspiracy sites, etc. is that they will misrepresent what "experts" have said in order to make it fit their agenda. We'll see.

[TheArtist]

Just want to add a bit of clarity for people who arent versed in science.  The media, and many careless scientists often misuse the word "theory".

  I remember from my 8th grade biology class the stages of development are like so.

1. Idea or notion:  (hmm this apple seems to have fallen to the ground pulled by some force)

2. Hypothesis:    Presented as testable, able to be proven false and verifiable. The test is written and given an answer. (I think the apple fell because of...and here is how we can test for this) (according to mathematical models a large enough star will under certain conditions collapse and become so gravitationally dense that even light cannot escape"hypothesis for the existence of black hole")


3.  Theory:   Once a hypothesis has stood up to being argued against and repeated attempts to be proven wrong, can it become a theory. The test is given and the answer is tried to be disproven but stands. (Theory of gravity) (The model of a black hole stands up to scrutiny and arguments, possible canditates for a black hole are found using indirect evidence"theory for the existence of black holes")


4.  Law:  After time a theory can gain the status of law if it is sufficiently verified and stands up to repeated observational truthand consensus. (Law of Gravity) (a black hole is found and proven to exist "law of the existence of black holes" they are still only theories)


I am sure my examples are less than perfect lol, and its also important to note that there may not be a specific moment when say a hypothesis becomes a theory, or a theory a law.


 The reason I am putting this up is because I see, even on this thread, examples of where the term "theory" is improperly used.  In the Wikipedia article about Global Cooling it sates that it was a theory.  It could not have been a theory at that time because only after a hypothesis has been formed and repeatedly tested can it become a theory.  The study of global climate change was too new in the 70s for it to have been properly tested to become a theory.  

The reason this is important, is because one often hears about a theory being proven wrong when in reality it was a Hypothesis that was proven wrong.  People will then use this incorrect statement of a "theory being proved wrong" to suggest that other  actual theories are on equally tenuous ground. The misuse of the word theory, when hypothesis should have been used, degrades the term.  In science, unlike politics, the terms MUST be uniform, consistent, and as precise as possible.  Otherwise arguments and discussions will end up running around in circles.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Just want to add a bit of clarity for people who arent versed in science.  The media, and many careless scientists often misuse the word "theory".

  I remember from my 8th grade biology class the stages of development are like so.

1. Idea or notion:  (hmm this apple seems to have fallen to the ground pulled by some force)

2. Hypothesis:    Presented as testable, able to be proven false and verifiable. The test is written and given an answer. (I think the apple fell because of...and here is how we can test for this) (according to mathematical models a large enough star will under certain conditions collapse and become so gravitationally dense that even light cannot escape"hypothesis for the existence of black hole")


3.  Theory:   Once a hypothesis has stood up to being argued against and repeated attempts to be proven wrong, can it become a theory. The test is given and the answer is tried to be disproven but stands. (Theory of gravity) (The model of a black hole stands up to scrutiny and arguments, possible canditates for a black hole are found using indirect evidence"theory for the existence of black holes")


4.  Law:  After time a theory can gain the status of law if it is sufficiently verified and stands up to repeated observational truthand consensus. (Law of Gravity) (a black hole is found and proven to exist "law of the existence of black holes" they are still only theories)


I am sure my examples are less than perfect lol, and its also important to note that there may not be a specific moment when say a hypothesis becomes a theory, or a theory a law.


 The reason I am putting this up is because I see, even on this thread, examples of where the term "theory" is improperly used.  In the Wikipedia article about Global Cooling it sates that it was a theory.  It could not have been a theory at that time because only after a hypothesis has been formed and repeatedly tested can it become a theory.  The study of global climate change was too new in the 70s for it to have been properly tested to become a theory.  

The reason this is important, is because one often hears about a theory being proven wrong when in reality it was a Hypothesis that was proven wrong.  People will then use this incorrect statement of a "theory being proved wrong" to suggest that other  actual theories are on equally tenuous ground. The misuse of the word theory, when hypothesis should have been used, degrades the term.  In science, unlike politics, the terms MUST be uniform, consistent, and as precise as possible.  Otherwise arguments and discussions will end up running around in circles.

Yes, well, haven't you heard that the theory of gravity has been refuted by the experts?  Intelligent Falling is the real culprit:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Seriously, good point.  Sometimes it is important for us to return to high school to remember the importance of precision in language.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Just want to add a bit of clarity for people who arent versed in science.  The media, and many careless scientists often misuse the word "theory".

  I remember from my 8th grade biology class the stages of development are like so.

1. Idea or notion:  (hmm this apple seems to have fallen to the ground pulled by some force)

2. Hypothesis:    Presented as testable, able to be proven false and verifiable. The test is written and given an answer. (I think the apple fell because of...and here is how we can test for this) (according to mathematical models a large enough star will under certain conditions collapse and become so gravitationally dense that even light cannot escape"hypothesis for the existence of black hole")


3.  Theory:   Once a hypothesis has stood up to being argued against and repeated attempts to be proven wrong, can it become a theory. The test is given and the answer is tried to be disproven but stands. (Theory of gravity) (The model of a black hole stands up to scrutiny and arguments, possible canditates for a black hole are found using indirect evidence"theory for the existence of black holes")


4.  Law:  After time a theory can gain the status of law if it is sufficiently verified and stands up to repeated observational truthand consensus. (Law of Gravity) (a black hole is found and proven to exist "law of the existence of black holes" they are still only theories)


I am sure my examples are less than perfect lol, and its also important to note that there may not be a specific moment when say a hypothesis becomes a theory, or a theory a law.


 The reason I am putting this up is because I see, even on this thread, examples of where the term "theory" is improperly used.  In the Wikipedia article about Global Cooling it sates that it was a theory.  It could not have been a theory at that time because only after a hypothesis has been formed and repeatedly tested can it become a theory.  The study of global climate change was too new in the 70s for it to have been properly tested to become a theory.  

The reason this is important, is because one often hears about a theory being proven wrong when in reality it was a Hypothesis that was proven wrong.  People will then use this incorrect statement of a "theory being proved wrong" to suggest that other  actual theories are on equally tenuous ground. The misuse of the word theory, when hypothesis should have been used, degrades the term.  In science, unlike politics, the terms MUST be uniform, consistent, and as precise as possible.  Otherwise arguments and discussions will end up running around in circles.

With all due respect to your 8th grade biology teacher, he has given you an archaic definition of the word theory. The problem with this definition is that it causes more confusion than it dispels. People like creation pseudo scientists will use it to point to the theory of evolution and claim that it's ONLY A THEORY. Well, it's not called a theory because it there are doubts about it or because it hasn't been proven. It's called a theory of evolution because the definition of a theory is "body of principles" that explains something. Look the word up. Look at how it's used.

And the word "law" is no longer used because someone is always coming along and throwing a monkey wrench in the works. Take your example of Newton's "law of gravity". By your teacher's definition, it shouldn't be possible to prove a law wrong. But even Newton's "law of gravity" doesn't stand up in its entirety under the weight of the theories of relativity. (The "law of gravity" involves a lot more than the simple notion that what goes up must come down.)

[iplaw]

1.  Papaspot, you asked for expert opinion from scientists who don't believe in global warming, not a technical critique of them.  

2.  That list, as I said, was a short list of scientists who don't buy in, not an exhaustive one.  No one has done a polling of scientific minds to determine statistically who buys in and who doesn't.  To assert that most scientists believe a theory presumes to know with certainty how many do and don't believe and we simply don't know.

3.  There is a fundamental flaw in your analogy to the 9/11 folks because most of the "experts" they use are speaking about topics they are not "experts" in.  In their case you have mostly philosophy PHDs talking about engineering and physics.  That isn't the case here, most of the people in that list are qualified to speak on the subject.

They may all be kooks, but if that was the point you were wanting to make all along you could have made it without having me waste my time looking them up.

The biggest reason I question the theory is that one of my best friends has a PHD in Geophysics and currently works for ONI.  We have discussed this topic on multiple occasions and he has stated that the current computational methods for modeling geophysical events like climate change are fundamentally inadequate.  Basically that we don't have the computing methods sufficient to make calculations that correctly model the earth, it's too complex.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by papaspot

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Just want to add a bit of clarity for people who arent versed in science.  The media, and many careless scientists often misuse the word "theory".

  I remember from my 8th grade biology class the stages of development are like so.

1. Idea or notion:  (hmm this apple seems to have fallen to the ground pulled by some force)

2. Hypothesis:    Presented as testable, able to be proven false and verifiable. The test is written and given an answer. (I think the apple fell because of...and here is how we can test for this) (according to mathematical models a large enough star will under certain conditions collapse and become so gravitationally dense that even light cannot escape"hypothesis for the existence of black hole")


3.  Theory:   Once a hypothesis has stood up to being argued against and repeated attempts to be proven wrong, can it become a theory. The test is given and the answer is tried to be disproven but stands. (Theory of gravity) (The model of a black hole stands up to scrutiny and arguments, possible canditates for a black hole are found using indirect evidence"theory for the existence of black holes")


4.  Law:  After time a theory can gain the status of law if it is sufficiently verified and stands up to repeated observational truthand consensus. (Law of Gravity) (a black hole is found and proven to exist "law of the existence of black holes" they are still only theories)


I am sure my examples are less than perfect lol, and its also important to note that there may not be a specific moment when say a hypothesis becomes a theory, or a theory a law.


 The reason I am putting this up is because I see, even on this thread, examples of where the term "theory" is improperly used.  In the Wikipedia article about Global Cooling it sates that it was a theory.  It could not have been a theory at that time because only after a hypothesis has been formed and repeatedly tested can it become a theory.  The study of global climate change was too new in the 70s for it to have been properly tested to become a theory.  

The reason this is important, is because one often hears about a theory being proven wrong when in reality it was a Hypothesis that was proven wrong.  People will then use this incorrect statement of a "theory being proved wrong" to suggest that other  actual theories are on equally tenuous ground. The misuse of the word theory, when hypothesis should have been used, degrades the term.  In science, unlike politics, the terms MUST be uniform, consistent, and as precise as possible.  Otherwise arguments and discussions will end up running around in circles.

Well, it's not called a theory because there are doubts about it or because it hasn't been proven. It's called a theory of evolution because the definition of a theory is "body of principles" that explains something. Look the word up. Look at how it's used.

Take your example of Newton's "law of gravity". By your teacher's definition, it shouldn't be possible to prove a law wrong. But even Newton's "law of gravity" doesn't stand up in its entirety under the weight of the theories of relativity. (The "law of gravity" involves a lot more than the simple notion that what goes up must come down.)

 My apologies, I was in a rush and didnt lay things out as they should have been.  When you said a theory is a body of principles that explains something, I agree, what I was trying to get at was the stages of getting to those principles.  One must have one or several hypothesis that then become those principles.  Those principles have to come from somewhere and be proven to be principles first.  Once hypothesis stand, then they become those principles or Theory.

 Yes my "law of gravity" was a gross oversimplification, my bad.  

 What I think that I see in science these days is the lack of consistancy and prescision of usage of terms.  And you know what, it gets them into trouble.  They have fallen into the trap of using words too loosely, like the common person usually does.  After all they are still people, but when I was a kid it was drilled into me that you MUST be as precise as possible when doing science.  But here we are today with muddled meanings because they dont. I look at those Wikipedia definitions and shudder at how vague they often are. How common usage is accepted often over what was once specific usage.  

 One must also be aware that in different fields of science one word can have different meanings.  One word or term as sociologist would use it may be different than the same words meaning in say anthropoogy or psychology. And all of those definitions could be specifically different than how it is commonly used.  And each slight change in definion of the same word can be critically important in understanding what is going on.  

 Often times we get trapped by generalities or models.  Like at one level in school you are taught that an atom is composed of electrons, neutrons and protons. A hydrogen atom is one proton and one electon zipping arount it.  This model works for basic chemistry and visualization.  But then when you get to say High School chemistry.  Well I remember my chemistry teacher saying, "Remember all that stuff you learned about atoms? Forget it, its wrong"  Then she spent the next hour scribbling X,Y,Z axis, valances, probability formulas and the like on several walls of blackboards lol.  I just wanted to go back to grade school lol.

 But my original contention stands.  I believe that Global Cooling in the 70s was more in the league of a Hypothesis "at that time untested principles and formulations" not yet a Theory or set of accepted principles that had withstood scienific scrutiny.

 Even by your "body of principles" definition you must contend that when the average person says "Well I have a theory about that" that that is not a real theory. Its more of a hypothesis or contention.  This is common usage and many scientists also use the word this loosely and muddle, to their own detriment, the conversation and arguments. Thus allowing Inhofe his easy play.  Perhaps its not his fault but the scientists fault for not being more precise as to what they are talking about.

[Conan71]

I have it from a very reliable source that global warming is a result of the smoke from all of the weed these conspiracy theorists are smoking.[8D]

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I have it from a very reliable source that global warming is a result of the smoke from all of the weed these conspiracy theorists are smoking.[8D]

Now now, havent you learned anything? Wouldnt that be conspiracy hypothesists?[]

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

1.  Papaspot, you asked for expert opinion from scientists who don't believe in global warming, not a technical critique of them.

I clicked on about a dozen and a half of the profiles and (of the few that weren't broken links) I didn't find a single person listed there that said that they don't believe in global warming. Perhaps you could narrow it down for me?

quote:
2.  That list, as I said, was a short list of scientists who don't buy in, not an exhaustive one.  No one has done a polling of scientific minds to determine statistically who buys in and who doesn't.  To assert that most scientists believe a theory presumes to know with certainty how many do and don't believe and we simply don't know.

Spend some time in the scientific journals. You'll find lots of discussion about global warming. You WON'T find anyone saying that it doesn't exist.

quote:
3.  There is a fundamental flaw in your analogy to the 9/11 folks because most of the "experts" they use are speaking about topics they are not "experts" in.  In their case you have mostly philosophy PHDs talking about engineering and physics.  That isn't the case here, most of the people in that list are qualified to speak on the subject.

And most of the people on the list give no indication that they don't believe in global warming.

quote:
They may all be kooks, but if that was the point you were wanting to make all along you could have made it without having me waste my time looking them up.

And how much time did you waste? A minute? A minute and a half?

quote:
The biggest reason I question the theory is that one of my best friends has a PHD in Geophysics and currently works for ONI.  We have discussed this topic on multiple occasions and he has stated that the current computational methods for modeling geophysical events like climate change are fundamentally inadequate.  Basically that we don't have the computing methods sufficient to make calculations that correctly model the earth, it's too complex.

When you're talking about computer modeling, you're talking about predictions for the FUTURE. It doesn't take a computer model to determine what's going on right now.

I know of no credible scientist that claims that we're not in a state of global warming. The evidence is there and its indisputable. There is some controversy as to how much of it is caused by human activity. But even there, the evidence is strong that human activity is at least a significant factor.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/1128ice.shtml

Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?

[Conan71]

quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?

That is assuming that the current scientific theories and procedures are correct and can accurately reflect what the air bubbles in the ice mean.  Obviously, internal combustion engines and other sources that burn hydrocarbon fuels emit CO, CO2 and other gasses, but how can we be for certain this is causing global warming and it's not just another warming cycle in the life-cycle of the planet.

This is a whole lot of worry about nothing right now.  The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.

Not to mention those Christian extremists or Conservative extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it either. []

[iplaw]

Maybe I should have been more specific to say that they don't disbelieve in global warming. They are skeptical about the human factor so as to argue against jumping to conclusions and adopting massive changes that effect our economy like signing on to the Kyoto protocol.  Sorry if you thought I was arguing otherwise or I made it sound like I was.

quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?

Why don't we leave answers to questions like these up to experts who know what they are talking about unlike you and I who like to take "facts" like this possibly out of context to try and prove our point.      

quote:
But even there, the evidence is strong that human activity is at least a significant factor.

Define significant.  This is where I think the argument rests and where dueling experts come into play.  If you are adamant about your position then provide us with some scientists who can quanitfy that statement and not make generalities.