fayfreethinkers.com

Doug wrote:Haven't changed your position? At least now you acknowledge that global warming is taking place. A while back you weren't even at that point. You were citing a guy who was claiming that the Earth is cooling.

From my first words about it here that I can find - March 6, 2006, Doonesbury nails the IDM thread:

Darrel> Is there really "consensus" in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change?

Hogeye> Of course there is. Even global warming* skeptics generally agree. What they disagree with the alarmists about is: 1) whether greenhouse gasses are more significant than other anthopogenic factors like land-use, 2) whether the climate is out of the normal range, compared to historical variances such as the Medieval Warm Period, and 3) the political question of what, if anything, should be done about climate change, and the cost effectiveness of proposed "remedies."

That's the same position I have now, the same I've had all along. Perhaps your mental caricature of the opposing view misled you into thinking I had some other opinion. BTW, I often quote people that I don't agree with 100%. Hell, I don't know anyone I agree with 100%. If I ever did, I would almost certainly not be freethinking! (So please don't assume that I agree with everything someone says just because I quote them.)

Doug wrote:The significance is already apparent to other industrialized countries. Only the big rogue state, the U.S., is out of the loop officially.

Countries don't have brains, thus can't evaluate significance. It is true that some rulers and politicians from industrial States pretend that global warming is significant and catastrophic. And many from underdeveloped States deny the significance, not wanting to sacrifice future industrialization and the well-being of "their" people. The political org IPCC run by that cartel of States called the UN claims it's significant. Many scientists and climatologists, some even hired by the IPCC, disagree. The political flunkies that edit the IPCC ignore the scientist "members" when they don't regurgitate the desired results. In the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" some of them are interviewed. One guy even had to threaten legal action to get his name off the IPCC report!

Hogeye wrote:

Doug wrote:Haven't changed your position? At least now you acknowledge that global warming is taking place. A while back you weren't even at that point. You were citing a guy who was claiming that the Earth is cooling.

DAR
Actually he has been all over the place. He will agree with whatever GW skeptic denier letter or article happens to be handy, as long as it fits dogma.

HOG
From my first words about it here that I can find - March 6, 2006,...

"Darrel> Is there really "consensus" in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change?

Hogeye> Of course there is. Even global warming* skeptics generally agree."

DAR
But now, in knee jerk defense of the ridiculous discredited letter by Mr. Vance, he is glad to parrot the astonishingly incorrect:

"humans are .01% of the cause of global warming"

Acknowledging ".01%" is a joke. But jokes fit dogma, so it's in.

D.

Hogeye wrote:The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4899458831
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Great video debunking global warming alarmism. Includes critique of Gore's blather, history of GW alarmism (started with Thatcher!), many notable scientists, members of IPCC, etc. 1 hr and 15 minutes.

DAR
Oh, this just in:

***
'Sun not behind global warming'

* Leigh Dayton, Science writer
* July 10, 2007

THE key plank of a controversial British documentary has been discredited by new research showing that the sun is not causing global warming.

The findings are in stark contrast to claims made in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which is to be shown on ABC television on Thursday.

The program dismisses the widely held conclusion that greenhouse gases from human activity are driving global warming, instead claiming that changes in solar activity have triggered recent warming.

"Manmade global warming is unmitigated nonsense," the program's writer and director, Martin Durkin, wrote in last Saturday's The Weekend Australian.

But solar physicists at Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and the University of Southampton, along with colleague Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Dorf, Switzerland, have found that while solar activity may have played a role in climate change in the first half of the last century, it is not driving the recent rapid warming.

Their conclusion was based on a study of all the available solar data for the past 100 years.

They found no correlation between total solar radiation, the number of sun spots or cosmic ray intensity and global warming since 1985.

"Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability," they will report this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

University of Melbourne climate scientist David Karoly commented: "These findings completely refute the allegations made by some pseudo-scientists that all recent global warming is due to solar effects."

...

Mike Lockwood, a professor at the Rutherford laboratory, told the journal Nature that he and Dr Froehlich were "galvanised" to conduct a new and comprehensive study of solar data following allegedly misleading media reports about global warming, including those made in Mr Durkin's documentary, which screened in Britain in March.

Despite their findings, Israeli scientist Nir Shaviv, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, continued to support the solar theory. He told Nature the new findings may not reflect a "lag" between solar activity and warming.

Along with Urs Neu, of the climate and global change forum of the Swiss Academy of Sciences in Berne, Professor Karoly dismissed Dr Shaviv's suggestion.

"We have much evidence (from different types of research) that most of the observed warming over the last 20 to 30 years is not due to solar influences," Professor Karoly said.

LINK

DAR
The guy who created this "Swindle" movie gets interviewed and thoroughly roasted. His dishonesty is blatantly revealed. Watch him squirm in two eight minute sections:

ABC Australia's Tony Jones Dissects, Debunks Martin Durkin

Bonus:

***the Commission also concluded that Durkin had misled his interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview footage in a misleading way [7]. For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV.[8]According to The Independent, Durkin "accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as 'complete tosh'."***

...also: Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the program, later said of her participation in the program: "I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position." I also think Durkin should have been asked about his efforts to show that breast implants improve the health of women.