What About Global Warming?

Abso wrote, " Are you willing to explain why you see only political bias, and do not argue the scientific research directly?"

Sure. The science does not interest me. It is not dangerous. The politics both interests me and it is very dangerous.

From the good rises in heat and Ocean Levels

Apparently the good people who live on the [b]Carteret Islands[/b] are being flooded out of house & home as well as having their gardens destroyed by sea water bubbling up through the ground at high tide killing off their crops of Coconuts, Bananas, Taro and Breadfruit. Apparently instead of their previous daily diet of the above and fish that they catch they are now limited to the remaining Coconut Trees that as yet have not fallen down a few fish that they catch and the occasional supplies of rice that are not expected to be common.

As you like to insist "Scientists usually measure rises in millimetres and centimetres. But on the Carterets, the tides are growing by a phenomenal rate" but to date there has been a marked absence of any study of this region of the world so other than finding its location in a Goggle Search today because very soon they will no longer exist on anything but old maps that have not been updated, there is no other reference to these sinking islands which will be uninhabitable in a very short time as they are effectively underwater now and instead of fresh crops in the stinking mess of stagnant salt water are mosquito's breeding and spreading Malaria.

But this is Normal and good right?

As these peaceful people are basically subsistence Farmers and fishermen who have limited contact with the outside world they don't need much just a nice area above water where they can continue to grow their food and fish without interference and stay away from the so called civilised world who will contaminate them and lead to their destruction.

So where are you going to put them and remember that this is only the beginning of a much bigger problem that is on it's way now but because you don't look above the ground level where your heads are buried you'll not as yet know of the problems that are happening [b]NOW![/b]

If you think that shelling out to clean up the polluters will cost a lot what's it going to cost to find a suitable living area for these displaced people now and those that will follow them?

Col

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=208151

If memory serves, 'no' is the side of this issue you chose to argue. The link above [i]should[/i] be to the thread for 'no global warming conspiracy'.

They lock in whatever company, or handful of companies, control an industry so that no new competitors can realistically enter that market. Price controls are cool -- if you like to pay for more than what you get in exchange!

(Man is) innocent until proven guilty.

To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any [i]resulting policy[/i] on your personal life than you are for the long term [i]physical[/i] consequences to future generations.

Well, then, stop arguing from the perspective of your perception of the implied consequences on policy and get back to the underlying science.

If you are so certain that I, Absolutely and others are so terribly wrong, and that you possess the wherewithal to scientifically demonstrate such, then agree to the proposed debate and settle the matter.

"[i]You can't learn what you don't want to know.[/i]"

Such exists [b]only[/b] to the extent that it does not affect others.

You have [b]no right[/b] to adversely affect the quality of my life or that of others simply because you desire to so act.

Policy follows Facts.

Get the facts straight [b]before[/b] you determine the appropriate policy.

It is only the ice [i]shelves[/i] which break free of their continental support, and then float in the water, that serve to both raise the ocean level and decrease its salinity.

And, an increase of either snow or ice on the Antarctic continent itself have no effect on it albedo.

And that proved what?

Having a "successful" model merely demonstrates that you've properly indentified the variables and the values of constants in a multivariant equation.

The lack of a "successful" model does not serve to render any physically and/or mathematically necessary relationship between input variables and the output of the function itself non-existent.

It is not that "greenhouse gasses" serve to block the [i]conduction[/i] of thermal energy, but that CO2 and H2O serve to reflect the [i]radiation[/i] of such.

http://brneurosci.org/spectra.png

Absolutely has left your side -- the dark side -- and has seen the light of reason

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2188891

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2188893

And regardless of your incessant insistence, it's not possible to debate "the science" behind the man-caused global warming claim in this discussion forum. First of all, nobody who posts messages in these threads is qualified to debate such issues. I'm assuming, of course, that there are no trained, educated, and experienced people around here -- ones who have spent their careers studying such things and/or conducting their own observations and experiments -- but rather, at best, a bunch of mildly interested bystanders who read magazines and Web sites -- usually in search of justification for their foregone conclusion. At best, you and/or those who disagree with you would have to rely on citing other sources of expertise; and as shown time and again, there's enough dissention to offset any source you could cite; there's plenty of reason to doubt and question motives; and there's plenty of history to suggest that any climate anomaly is actually normal.

If you think you're smart enough to be the know-all and tell-all of all things concerning earth's atmosphere and weather patterns, you'll be the only one who believes such a thing. On second thought, since you always come-across as a boorish know-it-all, you probably do believe it. But no one else does.

Moreover, the real issue, as it affects people like us, IS a political issue -- a fact you have yet to acknowledge. (Which actually makes you wrong on three counts.)

"Man caused Global Warming", is kinda like God.

1. Proving that either [b]doesn't[b] exist is impossible.

2. Those who believe treat it like a religious thing.

:)

Let's see. You twist my arm and compel me to pay and you call it charity? Clearly you are a democrat.

deep wrote, "You have the mistaken impression that this is not about science."

Time will tell. If the science is real it will stand the test of time. If the science is not then it will fall all on its own. Of course, it could be a long, dark age once people give up their liberty to meet the magnitude of the "threat".

"To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any resulting policy on your personal life than you are for the long term physical consequences to future generations."

What do you know. You do get it. This is a power grab, nothing more. There are no long term effects we have any control over. We might as well be arguing about the danger of too many angels dancing on the head of a pin.

The fact that an assertion is not [b]disproved[/b] does not constitute [b]proof positive[/b], only uncertainty. Uncertainty is not a basis for taxation, punitive damages, or any other restriction of liberty, property, or pursuit of personal happiness.

[i]Your right "be left alone" is not without limitations.
Such exists only to the extent that it does not affect others.

You have no right to adversely affect the quality of my life or that of others simply because you desire to so act.[/i]

I refer you to Amendment 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

[b]Science or snow job?[/b]
[i]deep wrote, "You have the mistaken impression that this is not about science."

Time will tell. If the science is real it will stand the test of time. If the science is not then it will fall all on its own. Of course, it could be a long, dark age once people give up their liberty to meet the magnitude of the "threat".

"To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any resulting policy on your personal life than you are for the long term physical consequences to future generations."

What do you know. You do get it. This is a power grab, nothing more. There are no long term effect we have any control over. We might as well be arguing about the danger of too many angels dancing on the head of a pin.[/i]

Of all the possible legacies for future generations, liberty is the most crucial, and the most fragile. Certainly, it would be sad if our descendants' options don't include skiing and building snowmen. It would be sad if the words 'air-con', 'air conditioner', 'climate control' are replaced by something more like 'life preserver' or 'cook prevention'. But liberty is historically rare, and interspersed between centuries- [b]or millennia-long[/b] intervals of [b]brutal tyranny[/b]. Whatever happens to 'the climate', our intellect and wherewithal are sufficient to the task -- provided that we remain free. Without personal liberty we'll be back to tools of stone & wood within 2 generations. If you doubt this, you simply have not read enough of history, or have not understood what you have read.

[i]I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.[/i]

(Albert Einstein)

[b]You have the mistaken impression that this is [i]not[/i] about science.[/b]
To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any [i]resulting policy[/i] on your personal life than you are for the long term [i]physical[/i] consequences to future generations.

The legal right to [b]coerce[/b] in the name of 'global warming' is a very real, [b]physical[/b] consequence, with as great or greater potential impact on future generations as 'global warming'.

To paraphrase you: address the fallacy of a logical contradiction between the physical good of the collective vs. the physical liberty of all individuals (who, to give you a hint, are the 'component parts' of the collective!), or withdraw.

This forum is insufficient for another reason than those maxwell edison has named: inadequate display of graphs and sophisticated numerical analysis.

Nevertheless, the debate [b]should[/b] occur, and we should agree in advance on very clear, strictly enforced rules as to how the politics ("therefore, what?") and the science are discussed -- together or separately. We are, after all, talking about liberty, and about survival, and most of us at least, are doing so in a country in which "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is a statement of loyalty, not of treason, which it would be in most countries in Earth's history.

deep wrote, "Policy follows Facts. Get the facts straight before you determine the appropriate policy."

This is sage advice seldom followed in the real world. Take, as an example, the theory of man-caused global warming. There are data
that have been fitted into speculative models whose end states range from a one to five degree average global temperature change over the next one hundred years. Each of these outcomes is deemed to be catastrophic, resulting in cities under water, the destruction of plant life, the extinction of animals and even an increase in allergies for the unlucky survivors. The policy that always derives from these speculative models is to force America to live in a primitive state.

I am willing to wait on developing the policy until after the facts have been thoroughly established and proved by experience rather than merely by modeling.

[i]deep wrote, "Policy follows Facts. Get the facts straight before you determine the appropriate policy."

This is sage advice [b]seldom followed in the real world.[/b][/i]

Do you agree that if that "sage advice" is heeded in the real world more often, the real world would be a [b]better place[/b]? What would you say to changing the format of the 'global warming conspiracy' vs. 'no global warming conspiracy' [b]debate[/b] to something more like [b]cross-examination[/b] of the prosecutions' witnesses?

[i]Take, as an example, the theory of man-caused global warming. There are data
that have been fitted into speculative models whose end states range from a one to five degree average global temperature change over the next one hundred years.[/i]

That looks to me very much like something a defense attorney might say about the case against your witness.

[i]Each of these outcomes is deemed to be catastrophic, resulting in cities under water, the destruction of plant life, the extinction of animals and even an increase in allergies for the unlucky survivors. The policy that always derives from these speculative models is to force America to live in a primitive state.[/i]

'Your honor, you cannot be [b]seriously considering[/b] a life sentence of universal poverty, based on evidence that has not even passed the standards of 'reasonable suspicion', nor without [b]due process for the accused![/b]

[i]I am willing to wait on developing the policy until after the facts have been thoroughly established and proved by experience rather than merely by modeling.[/i]

However, we all know that the global warming zealots are not willing to wait as long as you are willing to wait. They're after your liberty right now, and they mean it.

. . . there definitely isn't enough evidence to convict anyone. Reasonable doubt can be attributed to the alternate theory of the crime involving solar output cycles alone.

(edit: . . . at least until the pro-warming people in general stop claiming it's a settled matter, scientifically speaking, long enough to actually settle the matter scientifically.)

...I hope maxwell edison will consider the debate 'fair' and join. He has expressed more passion about the topic than anybody else (on the 'no' side), and any debate would be a disappointing anticlimax without him.

Rather, I was addressing sn53's insistence that his [i]personal[/i] "rights" are in all ways and at all times superior to those of others.

The right of [i]any[/i] person to swing his fist ends where my nose begins.

It is this that sn53 refuses to accept.

While it may be that, for some in both camps, it is the case that the issue is one of policy rather than of science, I do not agree that such is the case for all.

Would you claim that those whose "scientific" positions you have here noted as supporting your cause have made their public statements owing solely to their "policy" positions? I submit that you would not. Why, then, hold that all of your opponents cling to policy over science?

If anyone wishes to discuss matters of science, very well; if, on the other hand, you wish to argue over policy, you've put the cart before the horse.

Will you?

Hopefully, maxwell will agree to a process resembling the cross-examination phase of the prosecution's evidence. That would require us to present the evidence we intend to cite in our replies, then take the roles of prosecutor and prosecutor's witnesses. I think it would be fun.

I cannot imagine sn53 arguing against that principle. With that common ground accepted, let's argue about which side is the swinging fist in the 'global warming' debate and which is the nose.

.....the "science" is, at best, inconclusive. Yet, there are those who wish to establish policy based on that "inconclusive science". Moreover, when those policy initiatives infringe on individual liberty, it should give any freedom-loving person reason to doubt, and question, and resist.

EVEN IF, the "scientific" findings were with merit (which they're not), any "solution" that denies individual liberty is unacceptable. Do you disagree?

Nonetheless, that question alone illustrates why it is political, not scientific.

You, deepsand, are in serious denial.

.....HAS BEEN taking place. Just because a new thread is started, it doesn't mean it would be any different -- unless, of course, there really was an impartial moderator and scorer, which is not possible in this forum.

water's bad too?!?!?

Or, that we discuss it like one?

Suppose that at some time, 50 years ago or more, the idea that Welfare is the birthright of the poor and the duty of the rich, had been discussed in those terms. Now, suppose this issue causes the next third of your annual income to be treated as the ward of the states. Do you agree that a trial is a good metaphor?

It's not quite that straightforward, on the "global warming alarmist" side of the debate -- though it is basically that straightforward on the "global warming denier" side, at the moment.

1. alarmist:
The fist (pollution) is swinging at a punching bag (the environment). There may or may not be a person standing on the other side (global warming) -- because it's a heavy-bag, the puncher can't tell without walking around to the other side. Some people claim there's a person on the other side, some claim it's just a reflection of a person in the mirrors on the wall. None of them have yet made it all the way around the bag to check.

2. denier
The fist (governmental economic regulation) has already bloodied the nose (market freedom). It may swing again. It's likely, given time, that the nose will break. The only question is whether that swinging of the fist is some form of self-defense -- and that relies on point 1. If it's not self defense, it's assault.

Actually, I could probably play the part of impartial moderator, if you like. I'm pretty much dead-center on this. My only "bias" on this is that I require some kind of real, tangible evidence of something, without reasonable doubt, before I agree to let someone go off half-cocked and make changes to the way things are run. Perhaps some voir dire (to borrow from the "trial" metaphor) is in order.

that still doesn't help explain why the earth has been warmer in the past... with [b]less[/b] CO2.

I do like the idea of a "trial", at least to the extent of having to support certain claims. If mankind is being accused of destroying the planet, then the burden of proof should fall on the accuser, and it should be more than mere speculation.

I would accept apotheon to not only be a moderator, but to establish the structure and the rules, and to devise some sort of "scoring" system.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1

I would wager that Gore declines.

I'll even offer 2-1 odds.

.

I am interested to see what's at the other end of that URL, however...

"http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1

I would wager that Gore declines.

I'll even offer 2-1 odds."

Source of your info?

deep wrote, "Wasn't addressing said "contradiction."
Rather, I was addressing sn53's insistence that his personal "rights" are in all ways and at all times superior to those of others."

Interesting deep. Does it continue to be a right to life, liberty, and property when the state can take it away on a whim?

Is the mere claim of a future crisis sufficient to reduce us to serfdom?

deep wrote, "On need not know all of the variables ... in order to determine that certain correlations exist. The history of Physics is replete with examples of such."

You sir, are no Sun Tzu.

In a different thread you objected to me saying that I did not have to know every detail of a 1300 year old argument the Sunni have with the Shia of succession to the throne of their political-religion.

Yet here you are saying you don't really need to know the variables before you can decide to enslave American taxpayers.

You sir, are no Sun Tzu.

for about the sixth time :)

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

[i]On need not know all of the variables ... in order to determine that certain correlations exist.[/i]

(I don't have the "real science" rulebook at hand. Perhaps you could point me to a reference.)

... but if your theory fails to adequately explain observations which contradict the theory, the theory itself is junk, regardless of how many people 'believe' it!

I thought I was just volunteering some time and attention, and my relative impartiality on the subject. I didn't know I was coming up with structure, rules, and scoring systems. I may want some help with that.

The first thing that occurred to me along those lines was to actually structure it a bit like a bench trial in criminal court (as opposed to a jury trial). There'd be witness lists for both sides, opening and closing arguments, and examinations, cross-examinations, and redirects for the witnesses -- with the "witnesses" being source materials available online and examinations being quotes and analyses of the content of those sources. Each source would have to be examined separately, to keep things from getting too confusing while examining a given source, though one could refer back to a previous "witness" to tie a point together. New witnesses (sources) that are not specified in advance could only be brought in as rebuttal witnesses, or via allowances for special circumstances. Identification of problems like logical fallacies would take the form of objections.

My second thought was simply that the debate could take the form of something like a free-for-all debate, as we tend to have anyway, but with teams rather than people just wandering in and out as they please, with the ability to eject someone if that person is deemed unfit to continue and the ability to add someone if -- well, something that we'd have to decide. The ultimate "scoring" in such a case would basically amount to convincing me of your position for the win. I'd of course be likely to interject questions and identify logical fallacies I notice, but otherwise mostly refrain from contributing. This one would be easier to get started, but less structured and (at least arguably) more subjective. That subjectivity comes with a benefit, though, in that unlike a formal trial or traditional school style debate format, there's a real pot of gold at the end of the rainbow -- and if you can convince [b]me[/b], you can probably convince others who are similarly inclined toward logic and evidence.

We could also just take a traditional school (or political) style debate format, which might amount to an interesting competition for "honor", but wouldn't amount to much in terms of practical value other than as an exercise for organizing your thoughts on the matter. This is probably my least favorite of the three formats that came to mind (and that I've thought about over since maxwell edison posted his reply to me), but it would be relatively objective and I'm certainly willing to take this approach if that's what everyone else wants.

Something that occurred to me:
A trial-based approach could actually be the genesis of a fun exercise in web development. Maybe create a "trial-format debate" website, designed specifically to facilitate this kind of discussion. Maybe.

At no time did I say anything that could be taken to hold that "(a)mere claim of a future crisis (is) sufficient to reduce us to serfdom."

"Mere claim" and "serfdom" are characterizations of your making, and have no basis is fact.

Put such words as you chose in your own mouth, but stay out of mine.

A refusal to consider a change of policy is a decision to choose the current one, which is to presume that science will [i]not[/i] prove you wrong.

Yet, by your own words, the result of scientific investigation remains unsettled. In that case, consideration to a change of policy is not merely warranted, but required.

In other words, you have put the issue of policy before the facts needed to formulate a sound policy.

To characterize all who believe that there is scientific evidence suggestive of a serious problem worthy of consideration as being "alarmists" is naught but [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i].

And, to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, that the Earth may have at some time been warmer with a lower level of atmospheric CO2 does [b]not[/b] serve to diminish the fact that, [b]for [i]any[/i] given level of solar radiation, the temperature will rise in direct proportion to the CO2 level.[/b]

nor one schooled in any of the hard sciences.

Your allusions to "failed theories," with no concrete example of such, leave me wondering if even you know what you meant.

As each side claims to have science on their side, we have not one claim, but 2 competing ones. Therefore, each side must present evidence to support its respective claim.

And, the appropriate measure of success in such should be by the "preponderance of the evidence."

.

New Scientist Environment

[b]US fudging of climate science - details revealed[/b]

12:30 20 March 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Kelly Young

The Bush administration has again been charged with interfering with federal climate science, in order to underplay the significance of global warming.

In a continuing investigation, the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held its second hearing on the issue on Monday. Documents "appear to portray a systematic White House effort to minimise the significance of climate change", said a memo released by the committee.

The committee heard from James Hansen, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and one of the first scientists to warn of the threat of climate change.

In written testimony, Hansen said: "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now."

[b]"Normal review process"[/b]

However, the committee also heard a former White House aide defending his editing of government reports on climate change, to put them in line with the views of the Bush administration.

Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) from 2001 to 2005, said this editing was part of the normal review process between agencies. Before he joined the White House, Cooney was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, and he now works for the oil giant ExxonMobil.

The committee heard of this top-down pressure on climate scientists during the first hearing in January (see US climate scientists pressured on climate change). Former government scientist Rick Piltz said that Cooney had tried to downplay the consequences of climate change in government documents.

[b]Fudge and delete[/b]

In a 10-year policy plan, Cooney and Brian Hannegan, also at CEQ, made at least 181 edits to emphasise scientific uncertainty regarding the effects of climate change and 113 changes to minimise the importance of human contributions to global warming, according to the committee's memo.

For example, Cooney replaced "will" with "may" in the sentence: "Warming temperatures will also affect Arctic land areas." He also deleted this sentence: "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment."

Cooney says he thinks his edits, including the scientific uncertainties, are in line with conclusion of a 2001 report on climate change by the National Academy of Sciences (presumably this one).

In another case, Cooney said he was concerned that a US Environmental Protection Agency draft report was not leaving enough uncertainty on the link between human activities and observed warning. "I wanted a broad quote because it's an important question," Cooney said in his first public statement about his changes.

[b]Right to speak[/b]

Hansen had previously accused political appointees of trying to silence scientists (see US agencies accused of muzzling climate experts). His case came to prominence in 2006 after he had called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (see Top climatologist accuses US of trying to gag him).

NASA public affairs officer George Deutsch, a political appointee, subsequently denied a media request to interview Hansen and instead offered other NASA managers for the interview. "I'm an American," Hansen said. "And I exercise my right to free speech. If public affairs people tell me I can't do that... I ignore them." Deutsch later resigned when it was revealed he had fudged his r?sum?.

However, the Bush administration is not the only one to have exerted political pressure in this field of research, according to one witness. Meteorologist John Spencer, who said his position is that humanity's role in climate change is not fully understood, said he felt political pressure much earlier ? under the Clinton administration. Spencer, also a proponent of intelligent design, resigned from NASA in 2001 after a 14-year career.

"I'm just pointing out that the political interference goes both ways, but not everybody has felt compelled to complain about it," Spencer told the committee.

[b]Climate Change[/b] - [i]Learn more in our continually updated special report.[/i] http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

[b]Related Articles[/b]

US climate scientists pressured on climate change
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11074
31 January 2007

US agencies accused of muzzling climate experts
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18925403.900
25 February 2006

US climate change assessments misrepresented'
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18625043.500
18 June 2005

[b]Weblinks[/b]

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, US House
http://oversight.house.gov/

James Hansen, NASA
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

Council on Environmental Quality, White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/

New Scientist Environment

[b]Movies map global greenhouse gas movement[/b]

17:00 21 March 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Fred Pearce

It?s not exactly an Oscar-winning show, but it is a scientific first. European researchers have produced the first movies of how atmospheric concentrations of the two most important man-made greenhouse gases ? carbon dioxide and methane ? change with the seasons.

The movies cover the period of 2003 to 2005. The data behind the show come from the first space sensor capable of measuring levels of CO2 and methane through the entire depth of the atmosphere.

The Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Cartography is aboard the European environmental satellite ENVISAT, which was launched in 2002.

The sensor observes the spectrum of sunlight shining through the atmosphere. This provides a proxy for concentrations of the gases, because their radiation-trapping properties work at distinct wavelengths.

[b]Breathing in and out[/b]

What is most immediately obvious in the two movies is how natural ecosystems ?breathe? greenhouse gases. CO2 levels are highest at the end of the winter, before vegetation starts to absorb the gas during the spring growing season. Methane levels are highest in the summer, when forests and swamps release the gas.

The researchers say these natural cycles balance out over the year. What nature releases, it later absorbs. But on top of the season variations, however, CO2 shows a strong increase in average annual concentrations (see the movie here). This is caused by human activity, mainly burning fossil fuels, but also deforestation.

While the gases eventually mix in the atmosphere, the seasonal short-term ?hotspots? revealed in the movies show concentrated sources of emissions, and the ?coldspots? reveal sinks, where nature absorbs the gases.

[b]Model behaviour[/b]

Michael Buchwitz at Bremen University in Germany, who compiled the movies, says they have real research value. For instance, the methane movie reveals larger than expected emissions from tropical rainforests, confirming some recent research findings.

The next step is to compare the actual geographical and seasonal variations in gas concentrations revealed in the movies with the predictions of models. This, says Buchwitz, should reveal shortcomings in the models and help researchers improve them.

The data do not provide direct information on emissions. Nevertheless, they should allow scientists to identify countries that fail to declare all their greenhouse gas emissions to international emissions treaties such as the Kyoto protocol, whose targets come into force at the start of 2008.

[b][i]All the movies can be found here.[/i][/b]
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/

[b]Related Articles[/b]

Satellite to provide new test of global warming threat
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn8091
03 October 2005

Forests belch out greenhouse gas
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18524925.400
26 March 2005

Giant European satellite gets perfect launch
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn1990
01 March 2002

[b]Weblinks[/b]

Mapping project's homepage
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2196949

And it's the reason I seldom engage in conversation with you. Your double-talk and nonsensical talk impress no one. Moreover, it's a primary reason that any "debate" which involves you would be a joke.

he was using a (quite accurate, in my opinion) figure of speech.

The same people who are trying to cram their view of global warming everybody's throats are the same people who want world-wide socialism (with THEM as the overseers and controllers of resources and work product, of course, since THEY know what's better for us than we do ourselves).

That automatically makes them suspect, and anyone who believes them wholesale based on the scant evidence that is available is either a sucker, or complicit.

Science is not something to be cared or not cared about. It is simply about discovery and the understanding. In science, consequences don't matter ("Hey fellow scientist, I just discovered that the world is going to end on August 10, 2151." ... "Really? ... Cool!!! Let's write it in a book!"). They're merely additional data.

If you don't know all of the variables, your theory may be proven wrong by a future theory, and then wouldn't you look stupid if you bet the farm on yours?

I don't want to bet MY farm on YOUR theory.

[i]It is quite obvious that you neither a mathematician, ...
nor one schooled in any of the hard sciences.[/i]

It's not :)

deepsand: "A refusal to consider a change of policy is a decision to choose the current one, which is to presume that science will [i]not[/i] prove you wrong."

The refusal to support the changes of policy directly related to claims of global warming, caused by humans, is soundly, logically based on the assertion that science [i]has not[/i] thus far [i]proven you correct[/i]. Their position requires no speculation as to what science [i]will[/i] or [i]will not[/i] prove. That is what I see as the greatest inherent strength in their argument.

To characterize all who believe that there is [b]not[/b] scientific evidence suggestive of a serious problem worthy of consideration as being "deniers" is naught but [i]argumentum ad hominem.[/i]

Apotheon has applied the commonly used pejoratives to both sides, leading me to suspect that he is quite aware of his own biases, and alert to ours. He is still my favorite for "impartial moderator", but I suspect he is less than enthusiastic about undertaking the task.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2195803

Who could blame him? Who on Earth, and for what reason, would wish to interject himself into such a feud?

[b]Yes, Tony, water VAPOR.[/b]
[i]And, to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, that the Earth may have at some time been warmer with a lower level of atmospheric CO2 does not serve to diminish the fact that, for any given level of solar radiation, the temperature will rise in direct proportion to the CO2 level.[/i]

[b]Other things being equal[/b], "for any given level of solar radiation, the temperature will rise in direct proportion to the CO2 level." Cyclical temperature fluctuations, and the observation that these fluctuations lead rather than follow changes in CO2 concentrations, tends to suggest a more complex, dynamic equilibrium, and to contraindicate application of [i]ceteris paribus[/i] as assumption. It may yet apply, but proof is in order.

The foes of the claim that global warming is real, and caused by humans, are only defending the [b]continuation[/b] of property rights as they are presently defined, not seeking a change in policy. I don't understand how you view them as having any claim to defend. Please elaborate.

[i]As each side claims to have science on their side, we have not one claim, but 2 competing ones. Therefore, each side must present evidence to support its respective claim.

And, the appropriate measure of success in such should be by the "preponderance of the evidence."[/i]

Objectivity is the hallmark of a good scientist. To "care" about objectivity as the means to an end is very different from the bias of "caring" about achieving one result instead of another, from any particular scientific experiment, or set of experiments.

A fun little story:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357