There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor, and
it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists understand
that.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
I think the Global Warming debate is whether mankind
is a significant factor. Too often scientist use the
media to further there own careers. While scientists
with opposing viewpoints are ignored and treated like
dirt.

There is no consensus. It is clear the dominant
factor is the sun--not man. With orbital tilt, wobble
and other factors being directly related to the amount
of sunlight incident on the earth determining the
temperature of the earth.

Next comes volcano's. It was one of these that caused
the Ross Ice shelf to break off--not man. And volcano's
have been proven to cause cooling. Do you blame man
for causing volcano's?

All the land mass on the earth--every continent can fit
into the area of the Pacific Ocean with room left over
for another South America. That is just the Pacific Ocean.
The ocean surface is huge. The influence of man is very
minor compared to other factors. The earth will always be
either warming or cooling. Since cooling tends to happen
more rapidly, we should be thankful the current trend is
for warming. If you don't like it, lobby for nuking unstable
volcano's to set them going again. A small amout of dust
in the air will end global warming.

I am not opposed to sensible measures to ensure we don't
destroy and pollute our planet. I am opposed to letting the
media decide to sensationalize global warming for the
Liberal political agenda.

Walt wrote:
Bart wrote:

A bit of ash in the air in the northern latitudes
might just start the next ice age. Liberals
prepare to change sides to global coolilng.
Helms A-Lee!

Um, the difference between the sides on the global warming issue is not
liberal vs. conservative, but rather science vs. non-science.

Please get your terms right. Thank you.

Yes, it's possible that the scientific consensus may change. Right now
it's overwhelmingly in one direction - and one potential volcano
eruption won't change that. Although if it does blow we'll see a short
cooling period like we did after Mt St Helens.


http://www.ktva.com/alaska/ci_4381772


Interesting article.

//Walt

Capt. JG wrote:
There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor, and
it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists understand
that.

Wonder who complained about all those dinosaurs pooping all over the
place making methane in their swamps and all....

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor,
and it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists
understand that.


Really?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;308/5723/847


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.PDF

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...O_VIRGO.v2.PDF

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...crimsat_2.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Gilligan wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote

There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor,
and it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists
understand that.

Really?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;308/5723/847


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.PDF

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...O_VIRGO.v2.PDF

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...crimsat_2.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Yeah, really, Glen. From your links:

"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000
global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming."

IOW, some scientists published a model where about a quarter of the
global warming is explained by solar variation. That hardly refutes the
fact that there's a consensus about the reality of the earth becoming
warmer. Or the consensus view that human behavior is a factor.

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what
you are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for
a survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

//Walt

Gilligan is just an interesting troll. No offense is intended I'm sure.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote
There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor,
and it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists
understand that.

Really?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;308/5723/847


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.PDF

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...O_VIRGO.v2.PDF

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...crimsat_2.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Yeah, really, Glen. From your links:

"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000
global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming."

IOW, some scientists published a model where about a quarter of the global
warming is explained by solar variation. That hardly refutes the fact
that there's a consensus about the reality of the earth becoming warmer.
Or the consensus view that human behavior is a factor.

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what you
are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote
There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor,
and it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists
understand that.

Really?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;308/5723/847


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.PDF

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...O_VIRGO.v2.PDF

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...crimsat_2.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Yeah, really, Glen. From your links:

"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000
global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming."

IOW, some scientists published a model where about a quarter of the global
warming is explained by solar variation. That hardly refutes the fact
that there's a consensus about the reality of the earth becoming warmer.
Or the consensus view that human behavior is a factor.

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what you
are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

//Walt

Consensus does not make fact. Phlogiston theory was a consensus. Mars is
experiencing global warming too:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

The sun is the only thing common to Mars and Earth.

The sun's output is increasing, there is even a "consensus" on that:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...rradiance.html

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...5714-6334r.htm

I say that human activity will not warm the planet. During every heat spike
over the last million years, the temperature rapidly dropped. Look he

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


Global warming is at best a transient phenomena. The temperature will always
go to some long term average value. It has for millions of years. Why is it
different this time?

Interesting and related read:

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

Gilligan wrote:

"Walt" wrote

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what you
are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

Consensus does not make fact.

Yeah yeah yeah. And Gravity is just a "theory".

Look, you can either believe the scientific consensus or not. It may
well be wrong - the scientific method is not infallable, it's just the
best we've got. But please stop trying to muddy the water by claiming
that there is no consensus. There is.

snip irrelevant Martian tangent

//Walt

Gilligan doesn't evolve either.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

"Walt" wrote

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what
you are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

Consensus does not make fact.

Yeah yeah yeah. And Gravity is just a "theory".

Look, you can either believe the scientific consensus or not. It may well
be wrong - the scientific method is not infallable, it's just the best
we've got. But please stop trying to muddy the water by claiming that
there is no consensus. There is.

snip irrelevant Martian tangent

//Walt

Capt. JG wrote:
Gilligan doesn't evolve either.

What did you want him to evolve into?

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

"Walt" wrote

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what
you are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

Consensus does not make fact.

Yeah yeah yeah. And Gravity is just a "theory".


Gravity is the least understood of all the forces. There's a consensus on
"dark matter" but no one can measure it or show it exists. But there is a
consensus.


Look, you can either believe the scientific consensus or not. It may well
be wrong - the scientific method is not infallable, it's just the best
we've got.

It may not even be the best we've got. All it is is a "consensus".

But please stop trying to muddy the water by claiming that there is no
consensus. There is.

I really don't believe there is a consensus. The publishing is biased, the
federal government funds a lot of research claining global warming exists.

The warming exists only over very short term running averages, up to the
order of a human lifespan. Any longer period of time averaging the warming
disappears.

I agree the earth has been getting warmer in the last several decades. That
can be measured.

I agree the sun has been warming up. That can be measured.

I don't think computer climate models are useful for predicting anything. No
model has ever been validated. For a long term climate model to work weather
forecast should be quite accurate out to at least one half the time span of
the climate model or even more. Weather forecasts fall apart after one week.
Refute this, show me a validated computer simulation. To say the cause of
warming is primarily due to humans is wacko. Look at the data, the warming
started to occur at the turn of the last century way before cars,
smokestacks and conspicuous consumption Republicans. What caused the other
sudden warmings in the last million years?

Every morning I beat a drum and the sun rises. Tomorrow if I don't beat the
drum, will the sun rise?

Global warming is nature at its best. It may get warmer, but it will cool
down too. It happens regardless of man.

There is no consensus on the actual cause of the warming, except what can be
measured - the sun is getting warmer. The rest is speculation.



snip irrelevant Martian tangent

//Walt