Global warming and the end

[Zanting]

There has been a lot of stretching the truth over climate change.

There sure has

Disinformation, misinformation, and Hot Air in Washington, DC

Sadly...it isn't a joke...

 

[eclipsenow]

I respect the Bible - but when Al Gore goes and steals parts of movies and tells that it is science - that is where the respect goes out the window. There has been a lot of stretching the truth over climate change.

Examples please?

 

[Biblewriter]

Examples please?

I gave you some, and you simply railed against them.

 

[eclipsenow]

Just how much do your "peer reviewed scientists" imagine that the earth can be warmed by anthropomorphic forces?

The chart below, which is figure 7-8 at CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, shows, by simple inspection, that the CO2 in the atmosphere is currently blocking upwards of half of the total upward radiation it could block if the atmosphere were sufficiently rich in CO2 to render it totally opaque to radiation in the range of wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, which is 14 to 18 micrometers. That is, CO2 is already absorbing upwards of half the total upward radiation it could absorb if the atmosphere were 100% CO2!

Now the data from your “peer-reviewed” scientists, which you included in post #96 of this thread, says that CO2 is currently absorbing 1.7 watts per square meter of this upward radiation. If we give you the benefit of the doubt and say that an additional 1.7 watts per square meter of upward radiation could be absorbed, let’s see what happens when we apply this number to the data in your diagram titled “The Greenhouse Effect,” from your same post #96 in this thread. Since all the numbers in this diagram are in watts per square meter, I will not repeat this unit each time I use data from your diagram. Nor will I say allegedly, or supposedly, as would properly be added to each of these numbers.

The atmosphere is currently absorbing 67 from the sun and 452 from the earth, making a total of 519. The atmosphere is currently re-radiating 195 into space and returning 324 to earth. This 324 is 62.4% of the total 519 the atmosphere absorbs. So 62.4% of the additional 1.7, or 1.06 watts per square meter, is the maximum heat that can be added to the earth, even if the atmosphere were increased to 100% CO2.

Now how much can that additional 1.06 watts per square meter heat the earth? The earth is currently receiving 168 from the sun and 324 from the atmosphere, for a total of 492. This heats it to 14 degrees C, or 287.15 K. Increasing the heat input by 1.06 could then increase the absolute temperature to a maximum of 287.15 * (492 + 1.06) / 492 = 287.77 degrees K, or 14.62 degrees C.

This calculation is greatly oversimplified to make it easier to understand. For instance, it does not take into effect the fact that temperature is not directly proportional to radiative energy, as this oversimplified calculation assumed. It also does not take into effect the additional outgoing radiation that would result from any temperature increase, or the fact that this heat increase would move the radiation curve further away from the peak absorption region for CO2. Nor does it take into effect the fact that the internal heat from the center of the earth also affects its surface temperature. But all those considerations would make the calculated available temperature increase even less that that shown in this oversimplifiction.

Even with all these simplifications, this calculation clearly demonstrates that the maximum increase in the earth’s temperature that could be caused by increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere to 100%, would be just over 0.6 degrees C. Such facts, which can be readily deduced by simple calculations, show why so few physicists, engineers, and others who know the real facts of the physical sciences involved, are deceived by the myth of "Anthropometric Global Warming."

Are we expected to believe that a grand total available temperature increase of just over half a degree C could make the polar icecaps melt, flooding the coastal areas, and completely change our climate? That is only slightly more that your "peer-reviewed" scientists claim it has already increased, as shown in the chart in your post #122. Yet we have experienced neither any significant rise in sea levels or any drastic changes in climate.

This hodge podge of home grown calculations smuggles in the Denialist meme "Co2 can't really be that powerful, can it?" You attempt to downplay the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate the sheer power of Co2 by running your home grown figures based on 100% Co2! Dude, what the? Even at the 'low' levels we've got today we're nearly cooking the place!

So, if you think you've disproved the greats mentioned below, please write to a peer-reviewed physics institute to show your careful plotting () and marvellous news that global warming has just 'gone away' as an issue! Great news! That only leaves about 10 other major civilisation threatening environmental battles to be won! But until such time as the world's peer-reviewed atmospheric physics labs are singing your song, I'll stick with the peer reviewed giants.

"The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc)."
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Technically, you are correct that each unit of extra Co2 will diminish in effect as the atmosphere becomes more saturated with it. But by then it will be too late to quibble over such a tiny deceleration in its warming potential. We'll have cooked the planet.

"Forcing due to atmospheric gas For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations can often be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.
For instance, the simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide is:

where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[6] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
A different formula applies for some other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[7]"


Then of course there is the wealth of information at the wiki below.
Global-warming potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Calculating the global-warming potential

Just as radiative forcing provides a simplified means of comparing the various factors that are believed to influence the climate system to one another, global-warming potentials (GWPs) are one type of simplified index based upon radiative properties that can be used to estimate the potential future impacts of emissions of different gases upon the climate system in a relative sense. GWP is based on a number of factors, including the radiative efficiency (infrared-absorbing ability) of each gas relative to that of carbon dioxide, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years) relative to that of carbon dioxide.[3]
The radiative forcing capacity (RF) is the amount of energy per unit area, per unit time, absorbed by the greenhouse gas, that would otherwise be lost to space. It can be expressed by the formula:

where the subscript i represents an interval of 10 inverse centimeters. Absi represents the integrated infrared absorbance of the sample in that interval, and Fi represents the RF for that interval.[verification needed]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides the generally accepted values for GWP, which changed slightly between 1996 and 2001. An exact definition of how GWP is calculated is to be found in the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report. The GWP is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas:

where TH is the time horizon over which the calculation is considered; ax is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase in atmospheric abundance of the substance (i.e., Wm−2 kg−1) and [x(t)] is the time-dependent decay in abundance of the substance following an instantaneous release of it at time t=0. The denominator contains the corresponding quantities for the reference gas (i.e. CO2). The radiative efficiencies ax and ar are not necessarily constant over time. While the absorption of infrared radiation by many greenhouse gases varies linearly with their abundance, a few important ones display non-linear behaviour for current and likely future abundances (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O). For those gases, the relative radiative forcing will depend upon abundance and hence upon the future scenario adopted.
Since all GWP calculations are a comparison to CO2 which is non-linear, all GWP values are affected. Assuming otherwise as is done above will lead to lower GWPs for other gases than a more detailed approach would. Clarifying this, while increasing CO2 has less and less effect on radiative absorption as ppm concentrations rise, more powerful greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide have different thermal absorption frequencys to co2 that are not filled up (saturated) as much as co2, so rising pmms of these gases are far more significant."

 

[berachah]

Bankers’ Chief – Carbon Price Is “Essentially Creating A New Market” | Barnaby Is Right

David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam « JoNova

Greenland icecap thickens despite warming › News in Science (ABC Science)

"What if all the ice melts?" Myths and realities

Science Speak

Climate Audit

CO2 Tax Australia – Julia Gillard – Absolutely Clueless | PA Pundits - International

nzclimatescience.net - The truth - Tuvalu is not sinking

How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air? - One Vibration

 

[SharonL]

Great - thanks for the information. Although they will ask for more - they refuse to believe it is all a scam. I've been around many, many years and there has not been a change of temp. It is a big money maker.

 

[Biblewriter]

This hodge podge of home grown calculations smuggles in the Denialist meme "Co2 can't really be that powerful, can it?" You attempt to downplay the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate the sheer power of Co2 by running your home grown figures based on 100% Co2! Dude, what the? Even at the 'low' levels we've got today we're nearly cooking the place!

So, if you think you've disproved the greats mentioned below, please write to a peer-reviewed physics institute to show your careful plotting () and marvellous news that global warming has just 'gone away' as an issue! Great news! That only leaves about 10 other major civilisation threatening environmental battles to be won! But until such time as the world's peer-reviewed atmospheric physics labs are singing your song, I'll stick with the peer reviewed giants.

"The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc)."
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Technically, you are correct that each unit of extra Co2 will diminish in effect as the atmosphere becomes more saturated with it. But by then it will be too late to quibble over such a tiny deceleration in its warming potential. We'll have cooked the planet.

"Forcing due to atmospheric gas For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations can often be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.
For instance, the simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide is:

where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[6] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
A different formula applies for some other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[7]"


Then of course there is the wealth of information at the wiki below.
Global-warming potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Calculating the global-warming potential

Just as radiative forcing provides a simplified means of comparing the various factors that are believed to influence the climate system to one another, global-warming potentials (GWPs) are one type of simplified index based upon radiative properties that can be used to estimate the potential future impacts of emissions of different gases upon the climate system in a relative sense. GWP is based on a number of factors, including the radiative efficiency (infrared-absorbing ability) of each gas relative to that of carbon dioxide, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years) relative to that of carbon dioxide.[3]
The radiative forcing capacity (RF) is the amount of energy per unit area, per unit time, absorbed by the greenhouse gas, that would otherwise be lost to space. It can be expressed by the formula:

where the subscript i represents an interval of 10 inverse centimeters. Absi represents the integrated infrared absorbance of the sample in that interval, and Fi represents the RF for that interval.[verification needed]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides the generally accepted values for GWP, which changed slightly between 1996 and 2001. An exact definition of how GWP is calculated is to be found in the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report. The GWP is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas:

where TH is the time horizon over which the calculation is considered; ax is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase in atmospheric abundance of the substance (i.e., Wm−2 kg−1) and [x(t)] is the time-dependent decay in abundance of the substance following an instantaneous release of it at time t=0. The denominator contains the corresponding quantities for the reference gas (i.e. CO2). The radiative efficiencies ax and ar are not necessarily constant over time. While the absorption of infrared radiation by many greenhouse gases varies linearly with their abundance, a few important ones display non-linear behaviour for current and likely future abundances (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O). For those gases, the relative radiative forcing will depend upon abundance and hence upon the future scenario adopted.
Since all GWP calculations are a comparison to CO2 which is non-linear, all GWP values are affected. Assuming otherwise as is done above will lead to lower GWPs for other gases than a more detailed approach would. Clarifying this, while increasing CO2 has less and less effect on radiative absorption as ppm concentrations rise, more powerful greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide have different thermal absorption frequencys to co2 that are not filled up (saturated) as much as co2, so rising pmms of these gases are far more significant."

So since you can understand neither their calculations nor mine, you resort to challenging me to submit my calculations for "peer review" by those who are already wholly committed to the deception?

They have already refused to approve numerous calculations discrediting their theories.

The Climategate e-mails revealed that they conspired to exclude anyone except their cohorts from he peer review process. They also revealed that they conspired to not even check the credentials of those alleging to be scientists who supported their theories.

This is in stark contrast to the Petition Project, which will accept no signatures until the credentials of the signed have been checked and certified as genuine.

 

[eclipsenow]

Bankers’ Chief – Carbon Price Is “Essentially Creating A New Market” | Barnaby Is Right

David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam « JoNova

Greenland icecap thickens despite warming › News in Science (ABC Science)

"What if all the ice melts?" Myths and realities

Science Speak

Climate Audit

CO2 Tax Australia – Julia Gillard – Absolutely Clueless | PA Pundits - International

nzclimatescience.net - The truth - Tuvalu is not sinking

How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air? - One Vibration

These articles all rant about this and that... and portray too many ridiculous, "moon is made of cheese" arguments to be taken seriously. I'm not even going NEAR the solution to global warming until you give me just ONE good reason why you don't accept the peer-reviewed science, so please drop the oh-so-boring paranoia about 'carbon pricing'. I might even agree with some of those articles critiquing that!

So, please, respectfully I'm going to have to ask you to choose one scientific discussion that most convinces you. Info-bombing a bunch of irrelevant garbage is an old troll's trick, but honestly discussing one topic through to the end, well, that's just too threatening to many denialists.

 

[eclipsenow]

So since you can understand neither their calculations nor mine, you resort to challenging me to submit my calculations for "peer review" by those who are already wholly committed to the deception?

I note you quickly divert attention from....

"decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc)"...

to have a go at me? Nice diversion there!

They have already refused to approve numerous calculations discrediting their theories.

Poppycock. This is basic physics. If you're challenging the Radiative Forcing of Co2, then you may as well defy the boiling point of water at sea-level. This level of stuff just isn't DEBATED any more. It's so well established by so many tests, it's just something you look up in a book!

The Climategate e-mails revealed that they conspired to exclude anyone except their cohorts from he peer review process. They also revealed that they conspired to not even check the credentials of those alleging to be scientists who supported their theories.

Trolling again? Just ignore the evidence I submit about so called 'climate-gate' and re-assert the same boring junk. You honestly fill your head with these whacky beliefs? :o Wow. How sad for you. What a strange, frightening world you must live in where every climatologist is hypnotised by aliens / a Communist world government conspiracy / whatever. Not only that, every physics lab in the world is in on it too.
But, not really.

Science Assessment Panel

The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."[62]

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to bust your bubble, but it needed busting. You're living in a reality bubble, tucked away from the modern world behind a shield of your own political and ideological preferences. But reality is different. Co2 really DOES trap heat by a certain amount. A testable, reliable, measurable amount. An amount verified by all the studies I quoted above (and you conveniently just ignore!)

This is in stark contrast to the Petition Project, which will accept no signatures until the credentials of the signed have been checked and certified as genuine.

Now I know you're an internet troll. Either that, or just not real good at ... reading ... about the things you praise before you praise them? In other words, you've just put your foot in it. Big time!

Would this be the same Petition that had such wonderfully qualified signatories as people from MASH, Star Wars, and the Spice Girls? Well done! You've made my case for me! I wish more denialists like yourself, people with 'sciencey' credentials even, would make this kind of gaff on this kind of scale more often!

NAS

George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."[19] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[20] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[21]

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooops!

 

[Biblewriter]

I note you quickly divert attention from....

"decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc)"...

to have a go at me? Nice diversion there!
Poppycock. This is basic physics. If you're challenging the Radiative Forcing of Co2, then you may as well defy the boiling point of water at sea-level. This level of stuff just isn't DEBATED any more. It's so well established by so many tests, it's just something you look up in a book!
Trolling again? Just ignore the evidence I submit about so called 'climate-gate' and re-assert the same boring junk. You honestly fill your head with these whacky beliefs? :o Wow. How sad for you. What a strange, frightening world you must live in where every climatologist is hypnotised by aliens / a Communist world government conspiracy / whatever. Not only that, every physics lab in the world is in on it too.
But, not really.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to bust your bubble, but it needed busting. You're living in a reality bubble, tucked away from the modern world behind a shield of your own political and ideological preferences. But reality is different. Co2 really DOES trap heat by a certain amount. A testable, reliable, measurable amount. An amount verified by all the studies I quoted above (and you conveniently just ignore!)

Now I know you're an internet troll. Either that, or just not real good at ... reading ... about the things you praise before you praise them? In other words, you've just put your foot in it. Big time!

Would this be the same Petition that had such wonderfully qualified signatories as people from MASH, Star Wars, and the Spice Girls? Well done! You've made my case for me! I wish more denialists like yourself, people with 'sciencey' credentials even, would make this kind of gaff on this kind of scale more often!


Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooops!

Nice dodge - but that is not the "Petition Project."

Global Warming Petition Project

I know you will not accept any level of evidence, so I am not going to bother with this any more. I have significant things to do, instead of dealing any further with this nonsense.

 

[eclipsenow]

Nice dodge - but that is not the "Petition Project."

Global Warming Petition Project

I know you will not accept any level of evidence, so I am not going to bother with this any more. I have significant things to do, instead of dealing any further with this nonsense.

Ha ha ha! The Oregon Petition IS the "Petition Project". Compare your website petition and the Oregon Petition text. It's the same. For once in your life, READ the text dude!


So, Petitions signed by Star Wars, MASH, and the Spice Girls strike you as authentic huh?

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Biblewriter]

Ha ha ha! The Oregon Petition IS the "Petition Project". Compare your website petition and the Oregon Petition text. It's the same. For once in your life, READ the text dude!


So, Petitions signed by Star Wars, MASH, and the Spice Girls strike you as authentic huh?

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This claim is blatant fraud. I downloaded the entire 31,000 + names and did a computer search, and not even one of these names was there. This is typical of the fraudulent claims made by the Global Warming crowd.

 

[eclipsenow]

The wording of the petition may be that same. But the methodology is 100% different. If the makers of the Oregon Petition used the same wording, they did this in a fraudulent attempt to discredit the Petition Project. But as fraud is noting new to these people, t does not surprise me.

(Sighs and shakes head at the gullibility of people who are just too frightened to accept the truth).

The Petition's Sordid Beginnings​

The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].
Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren't, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.
Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
An Unverifiable Mess
Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.
For example,
"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]
"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon
"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.
And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.
Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.
Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.​

Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda​

Because you seem to cry 'conspiracy' any time you meet some actual EVIDENCE, I think you're starting to fit this next bill.​

Remember that creepy old guy in your neighborhood that had a lot of guns and was always yelling at you to keep off the grass? Or maybe you can picture the archetypical survivalist freak in a bad science fiction movie? (Tremors comes to mind.)
Now you can meet that person in real life. My video, “32000 Scientists”, is one of my most popular, because it addresses the widely circulated meme about a petition of ”scientists” who purportedly deny the reality of climate change.
32000 Scientists - YouTube​

The originator of the bogus petition is Art Robinson, an entrepreneur serving the needs of the paranoid, right wing, conspiracy theorist and survivalist subculture from his lair in rural Oregon. Mr Robinson is now running for Congress as a Republican Tea Party candidate. Last week, Rachel Maddow featured an interview with Mr Robinson in full-on climate conspiracy crazy mode.
Hilarity ensued.​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BNVTFP9-iQ8​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j0jnp2d8czU​

It just gets better.

The OISM’s qualifications for being a “scientist” are expansive, and as such there are a number of questions that have to be answered before we can take this list seriously. What expertise does a nuclear engineer or a medical doctor or a food scientist or mechanical engineer have that makes them qualified to have an informed opinion on the cause(s) of recent climate disruption? How many of these names are working climate scientists instead of science or math teachers or stay-at-home-mom’s with engineering degrees? How many of these people has actually published a peer-reviewed paper on climate? How many people took a look at the card that served as a “signature” (click on the image to see a larger version) and realized that they could lie about having a science degree and their deception would never be discovered?
At this point it’s literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM’s word that they’re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm

 

[berachah]

These articles all rant about this and that... and portray too many ridiculous, "moon is made of cheese" arguments to be taken seriously. I'm not even going NEAR the solution to global warming until you give me just ONE good reason why you don't accept the peer-reviewed science, so please drop the oh-so-boring paranoia about 'carbon pricing'. I might even agree with some of those articles critiquing that!

So, please, respectfully I'm going to have to ask you to choose one scientific discussion that most convinces you. Info-bombing a bunch of irrelevant garbage is an old troll's trick, but honestly discussing one topic through to the end, well, that's just too threatening to many denialists.

I will leave that to an expert.....

David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam

Dr David Evans’ address to the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally, Perth Australia, 23 March 2011.​

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid 1990s.

At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade – yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected”. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.
One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a government climate scientist again.
They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results “global” warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.
So it’s a question of trust.

If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now.
So what is really going on with the climate?

The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
We are now at an extraordinary juncture.

Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!
A carbon tax?

Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the stone age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold – in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!
Sorry, but you’ve been had.

Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes carbon dioxide a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

 

[eclipsenow]

I think you want to have a long, hard think about Dr David Evans and his classic 'world banker' conspiracy theory shtick with anti-semitic overtones. This is hardly someone to get your scientific theory from!
Profile: Dr David Evans | Watching the Deniers

I also wouldn't believe him because he appears to be a flat out liar, making all sorts of bizarre claims to be everything from a rocket scientist (he's not) to working on a word processor for Microsoft (they've never contracted or employed him).
David Evans | DeSmogBlog

In summary: he's bizarre, and seems more in love with the sound of his own voice than facts. Avoid quoting him if you wish to maintain any sense of credibility.

 

[Biblewriter]

I think you want to have a long, hard think about Dr David Evans and his classic 'world banker' conspiracy theory shtick with anti-semitic overtones. This is hardly someone to get your scientific theory from!
Profile: Dr David Evans | Watching the Deniers

I also wouldn't believe him because he appears to be a flat out liar, making all sorts of bizarre claims to be everything from a rocket scientist (he's not) to working on a word processor for Microsoft (they've never contracted or employed him).
David Evans | DeSmogBlog

In summary: he's bizarre, and seems more in love with the sound of his own voice than facts. Avoid quoting him if you wish to maintain any sense of credibility.

I notice that, without even one exception, all the information you have posted came from a web site dedicated either to the concept of proving Anthropometric Global Warming or to the concept of discrediting those who reject this idea.

You will always get a very slanted view if you only read one side of a debate. But this appears to be what you do, contrary to what your opponents in this thread have done, for we have posted a significant amount of information from web sites espousing each side in this debate.

 

[berachah]

Yes Eclipsenow, you conveniently ignore the article and attack the man. A classic example of someone who is stumped for a legit response.

It was long ago revealed that this whole global warming theory was a scam designed to create another commodity that would allow those behind the scheme to make trillions.

A systematic process of removing 'unsuitable' weather stations, funding politically correct 'scientists' and releasing data with dubious science has become standard fare. If you repeat a lie often enough it is sure to become fact as Hitler once said.

I have no doubt this scam is going to become a worldwide tax burden and it wont be long before farmers are taxed for their farting cows and humans are taxed for exhaling CO2.

Carbon trading will have absolutely no impact on the levels of CO2 whatsoever. Meanwhile Al Gore (of Blood and Gore fame) and therest of the same old international con artists will be laughing all the way to the bank..(if they dont already own one)

I for one would like Australia to get rid of their annual $1bn climate ministry joke and instead build 100 000 solar panels for houses each year. Now that would be a solution instead of trading in carbon credits which does nothing for the environment.

 

[eclipsenow]

I notice that, without even one exception, all the information you have posted came from a web site dedicated either to the concept of proving Anthropometric Global Warming or to the concept of discrediting those who reject this idea.

You will always get a very slanted view if you only read one side of a debate. But this appears to be what you do, contrary to what your opponents in this thread have done, for we have posted a significant amount of information from web sites espousing each side in this debate.

Hi Biblewriter, it's much worse than that! As you of course know! ANY evidence that convinces anyone anywhere of global warming is faked. I've just got to keep away from those distorted websites that might change my poor guillible mind! I've got to read balanced websites like you do, websites by survivalist anti-Semitic types gearing up for the guv-ern-maynt to come an git me!

But surely I am allowed to read websites that quote summaries of material written by the National Academies of science from around the world? I don't have to limit myself to the 'moon is made of cheese' conspiracy types quoting 'petitions' put together by madmen?

Academies of Science (general science)

A total of 34 national science academies have made formal declarations since 2001 confirming anthropogenic global warming and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. This includes 33 who have signed joint science academies' statements and one individual declaration made by the Polish Academy of Sciences made in 2007.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes Eclipsenow, you conveniently ignore the article and attack the man. A classic example of someone who is stumped for a legit response.

There are responses to his many claims. I actually share some of his concerns about a carbon tax just being a money raising scheme and not really dealing with the very real challenge that is global warming! But my first point is that this guy is not entirely trustworthy. He's not a qualified climatologist, and not reliable. That's worth pointing out for starters!

 

[eclipsenow]

Hi Biblewriter,
You have all the physics and evidence available to every National Academy of Science on the planet, and yet still decide to ignore the truth. Rather than believe the physics adds up to global warming, you ignore the peer-review process and run off and invent your own calculations and rationalise away any warming. Rather than admit the historical fact that Joseph Fourier discovered Greenhouse gases decades before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, you assert this is all a Communist conspiracy. Indeed, everything is a conspiracy! Rather than accept that the Petition Project had it's origins in the Oregon Petition, your knee-jerk reaction is to cry 'It's a CONSPIRACY of the guv-ern-maynt come to git me!" (Well, that's the accent I hear when I read the paranoid accusation of the next paragraph).

"The wording of the petition may be that same. But the methodology is 100% different. If the makers of the Oregon Petition used the same wording, they did this in a fraudulent attempt to discredit the Petition Project. But as fraud is noting new to these people, t does not surprise me."

Rational evidence for global warming is explained away a conspiracy. But I've found the opposite. Every single time I investigate Denialist claims I discover they are based on half-truths or outright lies. The *climatologists* are the ones trying to tell the truth, but their every word is twisted and distorted. "Mike's nature trick" and "hide the decline" are ripped out of context and made to say things they never said. Fox News then just reports a Climategate conspiracy as a fact, and gullible Republicans feed hungrily on the lies.

But the reality is the basic physics of Co2 in the Radiative Forcing Equation prove we should expect warming, and rising sea levels, higher temperatures, and melting arctic ice all prove it. The world's research and climate labs have independently concluded that global warming is occurring. Every National Academy of Science on the planet says it is happening! Rather than a gravy train, climatologists like James Hansen end up *persecuted* by their employers for stating it is happening, and in the meantime fossil fuel companies pay millions to Denialist "Think tanks" to hide the truth.

And, dear oh dear, the Petition Project DID in fact originate from the Oregon Petition, and the founder of this thing is in FACT a raving looney!
Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

Ha ha! "Since most intellectuals live in survivalist compounds, we are truly blessed that from this cutting edge facility, Robinson produces his curriculum and newsletter so that we may capture a glimpse of his genius, and begin to paint a picture of his perfect world."

And that includes:-
* Dumping nuclear waste in the ocean and in the concrete that makes up our homes
* Abolishing public schools, because the public school system is "Child abuse, there is just no other way to describe it."
* Recommending children instead stay at home and read a home school curriculum which includes the racist novels by G.A.Henty who writes that the average negro has the intelligence of a European child
* AIDS is not caused by HIV and instead is all a government conspiracy.

Art Robinson the crazy old fool that ran for Congress in Oregon - YouTube

But Biblewriter would probably have us believe that Art Robinson's own newsletter is a conspiracy to make Denialist's look bad!