More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

[Mr. Fechter]

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

You didn't even read the article.

"Though he can't say for certain," leads us to "if that's true." NOW THAT'S MODERN SCIENCE!

Yeah, this is real solid stuff; "Though he can't say for certain, the winds appear to be carrying more moisture from the warming Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea eastward."

"If that's true, some of the moisture would fall into the region around the Caspian Sea. But as the winds rise into Karakoram's frigid heights, any remaining water would come down as snow, feeding the glaciers."

The fact is that, " Researchers have also found that glaciers on California's Mt. Shasta have been growing for decades. And glacier recession has been blunted in the mountains of Oregon and Washington state because of increased moisture from the warming Pacific Ocean."

"Growing for decades," and its all really not happening, HAH!

I put up the article to show that glacier growth IS HAPPENING. They can't deny it, but they still have to come up with a "we don't really know, but if we're right it could mean." Kind of like "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it," don't you think?

And that's the kind of science you are relying on. A teaching moment, no???

[Jeff Young]

Did you read the article before you posted it?

You seem to miss the recorded scientific fact that the oceans are warming. Given that the oceans are warming, and air temperature is as well, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that in areas where there is increased moisture in the air, that is generating more snow and blunting glacier recession in a few places.

Like a good scientist, he acknowledges that while the theory is sound, there are gaps in it. Like all theories. Do you believe in evolution for example? Or the theory of relativity? Each have unexplained gaps in them, like all theories.

I did find it to be a teaching moment. An honest scientist offers a reasonable explanation for observed phenomenon. Others just on the fact that all theories have some gaps to say with certain that the entire theory - based on measurable data -- is conclusively a fraud.

Sounds more and more like that the Church did to Galileo back in the day. No! Can't be! You can't prove it all! Heretic! Wealth transfer! lol...

[Mr. Fechter]

This time, "science" is the "church" Jim. I hate repetition, but how else do you say the data has been altered. How do you get around that????

You accuse me of being closed minded, and yet how open is yours?

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Did you read the article before you posted it?

You seem to miss the recorded scientific fact that the oceans are warming. Given that the oceans are warming, and air temperature is as well, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that in areas where there is increased moisture in the air, that is generating more snow and blunting glacier recession in a few places.

Like a good scientist, he acknowledges that while the theory is sound, there are gaps in it. Like all theories. Do you believe in evolution for example? Or the theory of relativity? Each have unexplained gaps in them, like all theories.

I did find it to be a teaching moment. An honest scientist offers a reasonable explanation for observed phenomenon. Others just on the fact that all theories have some gaps to say with certain that the entire theory - based on measurable data -- is conclusively a fraud.

Sounds more and more like that the Church did to Galileo back in the day. No! Can't be! You can't prove it all! Heretic! Wealth transfer! lol...

[Jim Craik]

Originally Posted by lonesomebob

This time, "science" is the "church" Jim. I hate repetition, but how else do you say the data has been altered. How do you get around that????

You accuse me of being closed minded, and yet how open is yours?

Missleading information has come from both sides. That does not change the fact that the world is warming!

You still have not told us yout name.

I think you do have something to hide!

[Mr. Fechter]

Dear, sweet, little Jimboree, fear not, there are mechanisms in place here to detect multiple ID's on GT40's. If you are concerned, ask Ron to look into my account.

Here's what they do; Users With Multiple Accounts

Originally Posted by Jim Craik

Missleading information has come from both sides. That does not change the fact that the world is warming!

You still have not told us yout name.

I think you do have something to hide!

[Jim Craik]

Ron, I was under the impression that you want folks to use their real name.

So Bob, man up, what do you have to hide?

[Jeff Young]

My mind is very open. I have not decided whether there is sufficient evidence to establish man made warming (although I think that evidence strong) or whether what we are seeing are natural patterns.

I've read Mann's work based on historical data using tree rings and ice cores, and McIntyre's criticisms of it. I've read the competing theories on whether the oceans are warming and the measurement issues on ocean temp. I've read about the accuracy of satellite data (and the problems with it) v. ground temp stations. I've read about the impact of solar activity on weather patterns.

I've done some reading (can't say I understand it all) on the models that have been used to construct an undertsanding of weather patterns over the last several hundred million years, and have a rudimentary understanding of what concerns scientists: those models work very well up until 1870 or so. After that, the rise in global temperatures can't be accounted for using the traditional natural inputs.

What have you done? Faux News does not count...

Originally Posted by lonesomebob

This time, "science" is the "church" Jim. I hate repetition, but how else do you say the data has been altered. How do you get around that????

You accuse me of being closed minded, and yet how open is yours?

[Mr. Fechter]

I haven't seen you address the Climategate emails. How do they fit into your opinions?

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

My mind is very open. I have not decided whether there is sufficient evidence to establish man made warming (although I think that evidence strong) or whether what we are seeing are natural patterns.

I've read Mann's work based on historical data using tree rings and ice cores, and McIntyre's criticisms of it. I've read the competing theories on whether the oceans are warming and the measurement issues on ocean temp. I've read about the accuracy of satellite data (and the problems with it) v. ground temp stations. I've read about the impact of solar activity on weather patterns.

I've done some reading (can't say I understand it all) on the models that have been used to construct an undertsanding of weather patterns over the last several hundred million years, and have a rudimentary understanding of what concerns scientists: those models work very well up until 1870 or so. After that, the rise in global temperatures can't be accounted for using the traditional natural inputs.

What have you done? Faux News does not count...

[Mr. Fechter]

Originally Posted by Jim Craik

Ron, I was under the impression that you want folks to use their real name.

So Bob, man up, what do you have to hide?

Back in the Nineties, I was involved in daytrading penny stocks. I was in the middle of a stock that I bought in at fifteen cents. It went to thirty dollars. I found out that the officers of the company were not what they appeared to be and began posting such.

I actually experienced malicious phone calls, physical threats, and vandalism to my home for being so brash as to tell the truth and try to warn other investors. I will never again expose myself to that kind of human behavior by being so foolish as to broadcast my identity on the internet.

[Jeff Young]

Most of them center around holes in the historical record and some of the data collection issues. First, this conversation will end quickly if you continue to talk about "24,000 e-mails disproving man-made global warming" or that "all of the data is altered."

Those are just flat out mistatements.

What we have in a very few of those e-mails are scientists -- and I agree this is improper -- trying to explain and I agree in some cases fudge data that doesn't fit a model tha tis supported by the overwhelming majority of the rest of the data.

In my opinion, based on the little reading I've done on the history of scientific theory (Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a good start) is that most of this is normal. You rarely if ever have a theory that is supported by all the data, especially in complex systems.

Mann and some of the folks in the UK have acted very poorly, and like children in regards to the scientists on the other side, in some of those e-mails. But like the independent reviews of those e-mails done by outside organizations, these instances are few and not outcome determinative. The majority, probably even the vast majority of the data and the analysis, is sound.

And that is true on the skeptic side. There are valid criticisms of the models and the data that need to be addressed in a professional, open, scientific manner.

But if you truly believe "all" or "most" or even more than just a very small portion of the data was in your words "altered" you're just factually wrong.

[Mr. Fechter]

It is heartening to read that you say, "And that is true on the skeptic side. There are valid criticisms of the models and the data that need to be addressed in a professional, open, scientific manner."

With that in mind, do you think we should rush headlong into the type of global regulation that will cripple the Western World?

[Jeff Young]

Finally a good discussion.

I agree 100% that is the hard call. Taking measures to stop what some scientists think is happening will be expensive and difficuult and I agree hurt western countries more than the third world.

Right now, I'd say there is not enough evidence to take drsatic measures, but enough thta we should be doing somethings.

The balance? I really don't know and I don't think the scientists do collectively either. Clearly, "nothing" is not right nor is "going back to live in caves." The correct balanced response? I just don't know. Too complicated for this dumb attorney.

[Mr. Fechter]

And yet, we are now committed to a deal;

Durban climate change conference: Big three of US, China and India agree to cut carbon emissions - Telegraph

If China lives up to that deal, I will be impressed.

[Jeff Young]

Reasoable cutting of carbon emissions I am ok with. Devil is in the details -- how are we going to do it, what will it cost, etc.

[Mr. Fechter]

Aye, there's the rub.

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”
Thursday, 18 November 2010 13:16 Neue Zürcher Zeitung

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

[Jeff Young]

I think you posted that blurb before and I don't think that is exactly what the quote said. Can you send the full link again?

Some of the "redistribution" fear gets caught up in the discussion over making sure that emitters of pollutants and carbon pay for the external costs of doing so. That I agree with in a broad sense, although I acknowledge it can be easy to do it in a way that unfairly penalizes western industrial countries.

[Mr. Fechter]

In the meantime, the IPCC has pulled that quote from their website; http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ip...ds-wealth.html I'm not surprised.

All I have now is the original interview in German. Hopefully there is a German member here or a friend of yours there who is willing to interpret it for you. OR,,,,,, certainly you learned German whilst attending University!

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» (Politik, Schweiz, NZZ Online)

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

I think you posted that blurb before and I don't think that is exactly what the quote said. Can you send the full link again?

Some of the "redistribution" fear gets caught up in the discussion over making sure that emitters of pollutants and carbon pay for the external costs of doing so. That I agree with in a broad sense, although I acknowledge it can be easy to do it in a way that unfairly penalizes western industrial countries.

[Jim Craik]

Originally Posted by lonesomebob

Back in the Nineties, I was involved in daytrading penny stocks. I was in the middle of a stock that I bought in at fifteen cents. It went to thirty dollars. I found out that the officers of the company were not what they appeared to be and began posting such.

I actually experienced malicious phone calls, physical threats, and vandalism to my home for being so brash as to tell the truth and try to warn other investors. I will never again expose myself to that kind of human behavior by being so foolish as to broadcast my identity on the internet.

I have gotten malicious posts and physical threats right here on this site. That does not make you special!

You know our names, tell us your name.

Bob, if folks new your name mabye you would think twice before being rude, obnoctious and calling people names.

Seems fair to me!

We are brave enough to stand by our words, how about you!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Fechter]

You tell 'em, Jim! He's on the run now, man you are macho.

Originally Posted by Jim Craik

I have gotten malicious posts and physical threats right here on this site. That does not make you special!

You know our names, tell us your name.

Bob, if folks new your name mabye you would think twice before being rude, obnoctious and calling people names.

Seems fair to me!

We are brave enough to stand by our words, how about you!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Fechter]

Originally Posted by lonesomebob

You tell 'em, Jim! He's on the run now, man you are macho.

Oooooooooooooops! Forgot to switch to one of my other aliases. Sorry!