Anti Global Warming

[kgregglv]

You might be interested in these two articles.

The first is rather funny. Apparently the reindeer weren't informed about global warming:

http://www.terradaily.com/2006/070207171633.474eyhua.html

Dr. Timothy Ball , Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project <http://www.nrsp.com/>, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg and author: "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Best to you,

Just Ken

kgregglv@cox.net

http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com

http://spencerheath.blogspot.com

http://charlestsprading.blogspot.com

[Michael Russell]

Has Dr. Ball published any peer-reviewed papers on climate change?

Mick

[SaulOhio]

Has Dr. Ball published any peer-reviewed papers on climate change?

Mick

And why does this matter?

For one thing, Dr. Ball is capable of reading the peer-reviewed literature, and making his own conclusions, AND as he explains, the peer-review process on global warming has been corrupted. There are a few examples I have heard of where skeptics presenting their work for peer-review have been treated unfairly.

Even wiuth all this aside, why does someone have to have their work published in the peer-reviewed literature in order to express his opinion? Is Al Gore held to that standard?

Edited February 22, 2007 by SaulOhio

[John Dailey]

~ Al Gore is obviously above and beyond such things as 'peer-review'...except maybe at the AcAw where they confuse SF with documentaries...and politicians with scientists and actors. --- Surprised THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW didn't have a new category called 'speculative-documentary' when it came out. It clearly is a pre-made sequel to Gore's wishful politically-agended fantasies.

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Russell]

Has Dr. Ball published any peer-reviewed papers on climate change?

Mick

And why does this matter?

For one thing, Dr. Ball is capable of reading the peer-reviewed literature, and making his own conclusions, AND as he explains, the peer-review process on global warming has been corrupted. There are a few examples I have heard of where skeptics presenting their work for peer-review have been treated unfairly.

Even wiuth all this aside, why does someone have to have their work published in the peer-reviewed literature in order to express his opinion? Is Al Gore held to that standard?

Dr. Ball is certainly entitled to his opinion and to express his views in op-eds, but if he's going to be touted as a reputable climatologist, I think that being respected in your field is a good thing. I'm also concerned about the oil industry funding he receives. To be honest I don't know enough about climate change to offer an intelligent opinion; and I do know that opponents of Dr. Ball are given to ad hominem attacks, rather than answering the questions he raises. Perhaps I know just enough to be susceptible to the scare tactics of the alarmists. Can anyone recommend a good read on climatology written for someone with no scientific background?

Mick

Edited March 1, 2007 by Michael Russell

[reason.on]

I'm also concerned about the oil industry funding he receives.

Are you equally concerned about the government funding that the alarmists receive? Where did Al Gore get his money? And what about funding from big ethanol?

RCR

Edited March 1, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[reason.on]

Can anyone recommend a good read on climatology written for someone with no scientific background?

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

CM: Even if the UK stopped using energy, cars or industry altogether, world temperature

by 2035 would be just 0.006C less than if we carry on as usual.

http://www.times.spb.ru/index.php?action_i...;story_id=20299

"Unfortunately, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

represents science by supercommittee, as Rule 10 of its procedures

states: "In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting

reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use

all best endeavors to reach consensus." I'll bet Galileo would have

had a rough time with that.

In this context, it is vital to remember that science progresses by

skepticism and by paradigm shifts: A consensus early last century

would have given us eugenics. Moreover, the panel does no original

research, nor does it monitor climate-related data; its evidence is

instead from selected secondary sources. But, above all, this

supercommittee is more political than is often recognized, Rule 3

firmly reminding delegates that: "Documents should involve both peer

review by experts and review by governments."

Friday's summary and "best estimates" of temperature rise by 2100 (as

compared to pre-industrial times) are thus little more than a

committee compromise chewed over by governments with different

agendas: an average potential rise of 3 degrees Celsius (up from 2.5

degrees in 2001); a probable rise of between 1.8 to 4 degrees; a

possible rise of between 1.1 to 6.4 degrees. So you can take your

pick, also bearing in mind that there are groups outside the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that predict cooling by 1 or

2 degrees Celsius. Moreover, the conclusion that climate changes seen

around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause is wonderful

Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass talk.

Unsurprisingly, the report will please neither a Humeian skeptic nor a

<!-- D(["mb","rabid apocalyptic. Indeed, even before it appeared, environmentalists

rabid apocalyptic. Indeed, even before it appeared, environmentalists

were incensed that predictions for the rise in sea levels this century

have been lowered to between 28 and 43 centimeters. They want the

polar bears to be drowning now!

For the skeptic, however, the problem remains, as ever, water vapor

and clouds. Enormous uncertainties persist with respect to the role of

clouds in climate change. Moreover, models that strive to incorporate

everything, from aerosols to vegetation and volcanoes to ocean

currents, may look convincing, but the error range associated with

each additional factor results in near-total uncertainty. Yet, there

is a greater concern.

Throughout the history of science, monocausal explanations that

overemphasize the dominance of one factor in immensely complex

processes (in this case, the human-induced emissions of greenhouse

gases) have been inevitably replaced by more powerful theories."

More:

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2006/June%2017.htm

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4405

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052506C

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_i...p;lastnode_id=0

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706a.htm

http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/05/an_inconvenient.php

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.tonymedley.com/2006/An_Inconvenient_Truth.htm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...convenient.html

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/63450...old%20Media.pdf

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Carter/WE-STERN.pdf

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/no_consensus.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why...s_probably.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../ClimateChange/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic

http://www.dailytech.com/Bad+News+for+Glob...article5914.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20070202a.html

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/...out_let_the.php

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...1-28737,00.html

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11408/...om-al-gore.html

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publi...272611398.shtml

http://info.detnews.com/weblog/index.cfm?blogid=9177

http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_...ey_feb05_07.htm

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit.../gws.guest.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/res...ming_panic.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/...40803093903.htm

http://www.americandaily.com/article/17564

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dl...10363/1006/NEWS

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd5feb97_1.htm

http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=122

RCR

[Michael Russell]

I'm also concerned about the oil industry funding he receives.

Are you equally concerned about the government funding that the alarmists receive? Where did Al Gore get his money? And what about funding from big ethanol?

RCR

Yes, good question, and yes.

Thanks for the links.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Michael Russell

[John Dailey]

~ Gotta go with RCR on this. EVERYONE looks askance at any 'private'-agended funding given to any advocate of point 'X' about subject 'A,' but NO ONE is concerned about political (ie: authorized force-wielding) funding given to the opponents...nor about mainstream-media biased toward...those funded by govts.

~ Sure, 'private'-funders CAN (as has been seen...in the mainstream media; tobacco for ex.) influence 'studies.'

~ But, 'public'-(aka govt)funders CAN'T (as has NOT been seen in the mainstream media; no ex.-guess why?) and NEVER DO influence 'studies'?

~ 'Studies'-wise, we should all separate wheat from chaff...but...not simplistically knee-jerkedly according to who is 'funding.'

LLAP

J:D

[Chris Grieb]

John; Good post. I was thinking of a novel where a Government Science body attacks a new metal. One of the things is that is that the government group is not biased because there the government. Has anyone else read this novel? It's written by a lady with a funny name Ain something.

[John Dailey]

Chris:

~ Yeah, that does ring a bell. There is something familiar about what you bring up.

"Antlers Sloughed" or something like that by some unpopular foreign author (I. Yen Ran?)

LLAP

J:D