Let's Be Sensible Please

[SCYUKON 0]

At last glacial maximum CO2 concentration was a little under 200ppm, over ~10k years it rose by about 80ppm. It was then fairly stable for another ~10k years (about a 10-20ppm increase). Since 1750 the CO2 concentration has risen by about 100ppm due to anthropogenic effects. So closer to a shot glass than an ocean I would say.

hmmn. 200/1,000,000 = 2/10,000 = 0.0002 = 0.02% I would say peeing in ocean.....how on earth can they even measure to that accuracy now....

[Balloon guy 158]

I love when liberals pass laws without thinking. Thanks to the Kyoto Accord, countries are CUTTING down trees, in order to replant and get the financial credit for replanting. Yep, they make money for destroying the old growth forest, as long as they replant. Here's the relevant part of the story;

The first is the threat to the world's forests, especially old-growth forests which do not soak up carbon from the atmosphere. By seizing these forests, cutting them down, and converting them to carbon-intensive plantations, Third World governments and their cronies can cash in on carbon credits, to the dismay of the old-growth forests' inhabitants

link to story

[SCYUKON 0]

I love when liberals pass laws without thinking. Thanks to the Kyoto Accord, countries are CUTTING down trees, in order to replant and get the financial credit for replanting. Yep, they make money for destroying the old growth forest, as long as they replant. Here's the relevant part of the story; link to story

Guess they can't call themselves treehuggers anymore after that, eh? ;)But seriously though, I think the more I learn, like from articles like that, the more I go from just ignoring the GW alarmists to getting stark raving mad at their stupidity. The consequences of their stupidity are really starting to have an impact. Too bad they could not be thrown in jail for negligence or malpractice or just simple professional incompetance - they might think twice about causing all this ruckus based on models that they are just now trying to figure out a way to calibrate.Great link on the urban renaissance site as well:http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/...s&SubID=913

[ghoti 0]

hmmn. 200/1,000,000 = 2/10,000 = 0.0002 = 0.02% I would say peeing in ocean.....how on earth can they even measure to that accuracy now....

I'd have to read up on how they measure but top of my head guess is using a mass spectrometer. I do know that one group has been taking direct samples of the atmosphere from a site on the top of Hawaii for 50 years or so which is why we have a semi-long observational record. Paleo-levels come from measuring the gas content of bubbles trapped in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.Sure 200ppm is a tiny concentration, but tiny concentrations of things can still have a big effect. Random example, hydrogen cyanide is lethal at ~300 ppm, hazardous at ~150 ppm and health & safety regulations would generally mandate levels be not more than 10 ppm. The issue is that human activity is significantly altering the background level of CO2 (in % of initial value) and hence the background level of greenhouse warming.

[SCYUKON 0]

I'd have to read up on how they measure but top of my head guess is using a mass spectrometer. I do know that one group has been taking direct samples of the atmosphere from a site on the top of Hawaii for 50 years or so which is why we have a semi-long observational record. Paleo-levels come from measuring the gas content of bubbles trapped in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.Sure 200ppm is a tiny concentration, but tiny concentrations of things can still have a big effect. Random example, hydrogen cyanide is lethal at ~300 ppm, hazardous at ~150 ppm and health & safety regulations would generally mandate levels be not more than 10 ppm. The issue is that human activity is significantly altering the background level of CO2 (in % of initial value) and hence the background level of greenhouse warming.

I tell you what, if you want some more good reading, check out the link I posted above to the Urban Renaissance Institute. I will cost you $3 to join and $1 month thereafter, or $12 yearly, but there are a series of 35 articles called "The Deniers" which list the background of these so called minority dissenters (they have their CV at the end of each article) and also some very interesting news on who makes up the IPCC and how their processes operate. Definitely an enlightening read.For starters, there is a satellite being launched soon (or already has) which by the summer of 2009 should be able to look at the whole artic region and confirm earlier testing that showed it is actually Growing, not decreasing in size. A good read, and the dudes who are dissenting are people within IPCC.Here is a sample doc:The Deniers, Part XXII: Some restraint in Rome by Lawrence SolomonPresident George Bush meets Pope Benedict in June. Some Vatican authorities are lobbying the Pope to press the U.S. administration to act on global warming. "It's not for me to say what the Pope and President Bush should discuss, but certainly they will discuss current issues and therefore I imagine and I hope they will [discuss climate change]," said Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, the Vatican organization charged with developing policy for the environment and social issues. Cardinal Martino spoke at the start of "Climate Change and Development," a Vatican study seminar two weeks ago designed to "search for solutions to the phenomenon of global warming." The 80 scientists, politicians, theologians and bishops in attendance were asked to consider that: "Global warming may bring about not only the imposition of drastic corrective means to protect the natural environment, but also a grave threat that destabilizes the world." By the seminar's end, the 80 participants had heard dire warnings from some experts, but they heard much more, too – that global warming is natural, the cause of warming being primarily solar and that it can be beneficial. During the two-day event, tensions were often high – the Catholic News Service, which interviewed participants at the private event, described how one pastor needed to calm down a distraught participant in the corridor, and used words like "bitter" and "heated" to set the early mood at the seminar. No one left the seminar thinking that the science of global warming is settled. To the dismay of those hoping that the high-level group would inspire a Church-led climatechange crusade, the Cardinal, in closing the seminar, urged caution in taking any position on global warming. The man most responsible for quelling any potential call to action is one of the Vatican's own, Antonino Zichichi, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Dr. Zichichi, who made the seminar's most powerful presentation, set its tone. It amounted to a damning indictment of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body responsible for most of the dire warnings that the press reports daily. Dr. Zichichi demonstrated "that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view," reported Zenit, a news service that acts as an extension of the Vatican administration. "On the basis of actual scientific fact 'it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes,' and that it is plausible that 'man is not to blame.'" Dr. Zichichi has concluded that solar activities are responsible for most of the global warming that earth has experienced – he estimates that man-made causes of global warming account for less than 10% – and his conclusions have gravitas: This man is the president of the World Federation of Scientists, past president of the European Physical Society, past president of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics, and past president of the NATO Science Committee for Disarmament Technology. He is also Italy's most renowned scientist, credited with the discovery of nuclear antimatter, the discovery of the "time-like" electromagnetic structure of the proton, the discovery of the effective energy in the forces which act between quarks and gluons, and the proof that, despite its complex structure, it is impossible to break the proton. "There is a need to do more work, with a lot more rigour, to better the models being used," he argued in a 60-page written paper that accompanied his speech to the seminar. The Vatican seminar was extraordinary, participants agree: Faith and reason met in inspired discussion and debate about global warming, and despite the occasional heat, came away the wiser for it. How different from the debate on climate change conducted by environmental groups, or, for that matter, the Parliament of Canada, the U.S. Congress or the German Reichstag, where global warming discussions rely on faith alone, and result in one-sided dogma. Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------CV OF A DENIERAntonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna, has published over 800 scientific papers and 10 books, some of which have opened new avenues in subnuclear physics. He has received numerous awards and honorary degrees from academic institutions around the world, and is the subject of seven books published by others about his accomplishments. He founded and directs the Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture, an organization dedicated to voluntary scientific service, the elimination of secret laboratories, and scientific freedom.

[SCYUKON 0]

Here is another article from this series. I better stop now before this goes from research to plagiarism.....such a fine line....The Deniers, Part XXV: They call this a consensus? by Lawrence SolomonOnly an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled. So said Al Gore . . . in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable. Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent. More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies. My series set out to profile the dissenters – those who deny that the science is settled on climate change – and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop – the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of e-mails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series. Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists – the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects – and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position. What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be online in the second half of 2007." An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused. A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities. Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world's most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 "planetary emergencies," among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being "Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone)." Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right.

[SCYUKON 0]

Geez - I can't help myself. Now the head of NASA is on my side..............The Deniers, Part XXVI: NASA chief silenced by Lawrence SolomonThe head of NASA – the National Aeronautical and Space Association is – "an idiot" and "in denial." He is also "surprisingly naive" and "a fool." With his judgment and competence so lacking, demands abound for his resignation as head of the largest and most accomplished science agency in the world. Those comments and others in the past week have come from scientists shocked to learn that NASA chief Michael Griffin thinks differently than they about global warming. Among the most shocked is one of Dr. Griffin's own employees, James Hansen, a top climate scientist who "almost fell off my chair" when he learned that his research hadn't convinced his boss. "It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," he told ABC News, referring to an interview of Dr. Griffin on National Public Radio. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change." Some might think Dr. Griffin is entitled to think for himself. Apart from his PhD in aerospace engineering, he holds five masters degrees, he is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the International Academy of Astronautics, he manages a US$1.1-billion climate-research budget and was unanimously confirmed to head NASA by the United States Senate. But no. He is either "totally clueless" or "a deep anti-global warming ideologue," concludes Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in a statement similar to many. Dr. Griffin's radio interview drew this storm of controversy after he was asked about the seriousness of global warming. He replied by saying, "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change." Dr. Griffin doesn't dispute that the Earth has been warming. He does dispute that we can – or even should – do anything about it. "First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I'm, I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." Dr. Griffin's interview was prompted by criticisms from environmental journalist Greg Easterbrook, who charged that Dr. Griffin is wasting NASA's time and money on misguided space exploration projects, such as a manned mission to Mars and the establishment of a permanent base on the moon. Instead, Easterbrook argued, Dr. Griffin should be exercising his right to free speech, coming out against misguided NASA policies and spending more on legitimate priorities, such as greater global-warming research. The Easterbrook charge led National Public Radio to ask Dr. Griffin why he wasn't "battling [global warming] as an army might battle an enemy." Dr. Griffin's response: "Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to effect climate change in either – in one way or another . . . . NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, 'battle climate change.'" More howls from critics, who believe Dr. Griffin should be using his discretion to skew NASA's mission away from its core purpose – and away from his fiduciary responsibilities to his organization – and toward the service of fighting climate change. To which Dr. Griffin responds, not unreasonably, "The question is, in a democratic society, who gets to choose. Unfortunately for Greg, it's not him." Unfortunately for society, Greg Easterbrook happened to be wrong in another claim: that Dr. Griffin hadn't lost his right to speak out. For all intents and purposes, he has. Within days of the uproar, Dr. Griffin decided that he should not have discussed "an issue which has become far more political than technical." In an apology to his staff, he said, "I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this," adding that, "it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it." Dr. Griffin is now one more scientist who will not dispute the existence of a "scientific consensus on global warming." Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------CV OF A DENIERPrior to heading NASA, Michael Griffin served as space department head at Johns Hopkins University's applied physics laboratory in Laurel, Md. He was previously president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, Inc. and chief executive of Orbital Sciences Corporation's Magellan Systems division. Earlier, Dr. Griffin served as chief engineer and as associate administrator for exploration at NASA, and as deputy for technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. He is the lead author of more than two dozen technical papers, as well as the textbook Space Vehicle Design. He earned his doctorate at the Michael Griffin University of Maryland.Some more info on Mr. Griffin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin

[seemorenuts 0]

Maybe we and the politicians can benefit from Aristotle...What is Political in Sub-politics?How Aristotle Might Help STSGerard de Vries Department of Philosophy, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Nieuwe Doelenstraat 15, 1012 CP Amsterdam, The Netherlands, g.h.devries@uva.nl Recent contributions by Collins, Evans, Jasanoff and Wynne tothe discussion of how science and technology studies (STS) mightcontribute to understanding `subpolitics' — the complex,expert knowledge-intensive and distributed political issuestechnological societies have to deal with — and involvementof STS scholars in experiments to extend public participationin decision-making about science and technology are shown tobe based on an un-reflexive use of an off-the-shelf conceptionof politics. This conception, grafted on the old model of thesovereign, frames political actors as `mini-kings': as subjectswith preferences, interests, aims and plans that they want tobe executed. To reveal the limitations of this conception ofpolitics, I confront it with Aristotle's conception of politics.The conception of politics that has guided work in STS is shownto be based on too narrow a conception of political action thatfails to properly account for the object of politics. I arguethat Aristotle invites us to analyse the object of politicsin ways that closely resemble the way in which STS has learnedto analyse the object of experimental science. Although Latourcomes close to the tasks that an Aristotelian conception ofpolitics suggest, his Politics of Nature shares some of thelimitations that trouble other work of STS in the politicaldomain. Despite 25 centuries separating us from his conceptionof politics, Aristotle may help STS to understand the politicsimplied in subpolitics.Key Words: action • democracy • expertise • poiesis • politics • political philosophy • praxis • subpolitics

[coesillian 0]

Geez - I can't help myself. Now the head of NASA is on my side..............The Deniers, Part XXVI: NASA chief silenced by Lawrence SolomonThe head of NASA – the National Aeronautical and Space Association is – "an idiot" and "in denial." He is also "surprisingly naive" and "a fool." With his judgment and competence so lacking, demands abound for his resignation as head of the largest and most accomplished science agency in the world. Those comments and others in the past week have come from scientists shocked to learn that NASA chief Michael Griffin thinks differently than they about global warming. Among the most shocked is one of Dr. Griffin's own employees, James Hansen, a top climate scientist who "almost fell off my chair" when he learned that his research hadn't convinced his boss. "It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," he told ABC News, referring to an interview of Dr. Griffin on National Public Radio. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change." Some might think Dr. Griffin is entitled to think for himself. Apart from his PhD in aerospace engineering, he holds five masters degrees, he is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the International Academy of Astronautics, he manages a US$1.1-billion climate-research budget and was unanimously confirmed to head NASA by the United States Senate. But no. He is either "totally clueless" or "a deep anti-global warming ideologue," concludes Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in a statement similar to many. Dr. Griffin's radio interview drew this storm of controversy after he was asked about the seriousness of global warming. He replied by saying, "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change." Dr. Griffin doesn't dispute that the Earth has been warming. He does dispute that we can – or even should – do anything about it. "First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I'm, I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." Dr. Griffin's interview was prompted by criticisms from environmental journalist Greg Easterbrook, who charged that Dr. Griffin is wasting NASA's time and money on misguided space exploration projects, such as a manned mission to Mars and the establishment of a permanent base on the moon. Instead, Easterbrook argued, Dr. Griffin should be exercising his right to free speech, coming out against misguided NASA policies and spending more on legitimate priorities, such as greater global-warming research. The Easterbrook charge led National Public Radio to ask Dr. Griffin why he wasn't "battling [global warming] as an army might battle an enemy." Dr. Griffin's response: "Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to effect climate change in either – in one way or another . . . . NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, 'battle climate change.'" More howls from critics, who believe Dr. Griffin should be using his discretion to skew NASA's mission away from its core purpose – and away from his fiduciary responsibilities to his organization – and toward the service of fighting climate change. To which Dr. Griffin responds, not unreasonably, "The question is, in a democratic society, who gets to choose. Unfortunately for Greg, it's not him." Unfortunately for society, Greg Easterbrook happened to be wrong in another claim: that Dr. Griffin hadn't lost his right to speak out. For all intents and purposes, he has. Within days of the uproar, Dr. Griffin decided that he should not have discussed "an issue which has become far more political than technical." In an apology to his staff, he said, "I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this," adding that, "it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it." Dr. Griffin is now one more scientist who will not dispute the existence of a "scientific consensus on global warming." Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------CV OF A DENIERPrior to heading NASA, Michael Griffin served as space department head at Johns Hopkins University's applied physics laboratory in Laurel, Md. He was previously president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, Inc. and chief executive of Orbital Sciences Corporation's Magellan Systems division. Earlier, Dr. Griffin served as chief engineer and as associate administrator for exploration at NASA, and as deputy for technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. He is the lead author of more than two dozen technical papers, as well as the textbook Space Vehicle Design. He earned his doctorate at the Michael Griffin University of Maryland.Some more info on Mr. Griffin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin

nicely played SPAM, you set it up perfectly bravo

[SCYUKON 0]

nicely played SPAM, you set it up perfectly bravo

Hee Hee - is that all you have left? You think I am shilling for that site? LOLweakaments. I just found out about it from BalloonGuys post and in the interest of research paid the money to go read the articles. What's the matter did you do the same and feel a bit silly all of a sudden? It's ok to admit you are wrong you know. I used to think AJ off was the chit till I found this forum........Oh well glad to see someone fire back, even if it was this weakazzz stuff. I was afraid that I had ended the thread for a minute.But mentally, I am satisfied that I have done my homework, checked out the links you GW alarmists suggested, found out how weak and uncalibrated the models really were (confirming my suspicions - thanks for that), then did some further research which shows an alarming number of some really big scientific names (and the list continues to grow) who think the GW alarmists are a joke, and further question the validity of the "top 2500 scientists BS".And all you have is trying to accuse me of being a spammer. VNH.

[Loismustdie 0]

Hee Hee - is that all you have left? You think I am shilling for that site? LOLweakaments. I just found out about it from BalloonGuys post and in the interest of research paid the money to go read the articles. What's the matter did you do the same and feel a bit silly all of a sudden? It's ok to admit you are wrong you know. I used to think AJ off was the chit till I found this forum........Oh well glad to see someone fire back, even if it was this weakazzz stuff. I was afraid that I had ended the thread for a minute.But mentally, I am satisfied that I have done my homework, checked out the links you GW alarmists suggested, found out how weak and uncalibrated the models really were (confirming my suspicions - thanks for that), then did some further research which shows an alarming number of some really big scientific names (and the list continues to grow) who think the GW alarmists are a joke, and further question the validity of the "top 2500 scientists BS".And all you have is trying to accuse me of being a spammer. VNH.

You didn't need to go through all of that. You have what the less analytically inclined call a bullshit meter- you know, somehow, whether God given or by eveelushion, when people are feeding you bullshit. Congratulations. It can never be taken from you.

[SCYUKON 0]

You didn't need to go through all of that. You have what the less analytically inclined call a bullshit meter- you know, somehow, whether God given or by eveelushion, when people are feeding you bullshit. Congratulations. It can never be taken from you.

Ya, good point. But in my line of work I am constantly helping produce quasi-legal Decisions on multimillion dollar rate applications (work for the Provincial Utility regulator now) which have to have contain solid evidence to support the conclusions which are reached, so I guess I musta thought I was at work or something ;)Plus I guess I got pissed when Kermitdafrog went after my "professional rigor". Bad move. But overall I just decided it was time to (hopefully) shut these GW alarmists up for good once and for all and put this thread to bed. I take it I have accomplished my goals as Kermitdafrog has not been seen since and all Cocecillian has left is calling me a spammer.So I think I am officially done with this thread!D

[Zeatrix 0]

Dr. Zichichi has concluded that solar activities are responsible for most of the global warming that earth has experienced – he estimates that man-made causes of global warming account for less than 10% – and his conclusions have gravitas: This man is the president of the World Federation of Scientists, past president of the European Physical Society, past president of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics, and past president of the NATO Science Committee for Disarmament Technology.

You know, most of it made sense until this paragraph. I agree that Global Warming isn't 100% proved. The IPCC themselves also agree to this, since they say it's over 90% certain, which isn't 100%. But to blame the good old sun? Come on, this has been disproved in numerous scientific articles published in well respected scientific journals like Nature and Science. You should know by now that it has been proved that the sun IS NOT solely responsible for the steep rise in average temperature on earth, some papers have suggested that it has had some effect but far from all of the historically unmatched temperature increase can be attributed to it. 10%, like Dr. Zichichi claims, is far fetched. Anyone claiming this by now without passing a peer review can't be taken seriously. Here is a nice article (with references ) on the subject.

[Zeatrix 0]

Chart showing the mild year we've had of hurricanes.If the other side can point to Katrina and shout the sky is falling, then they have to live with the proof that the sky is still floating

Well, if you pay close attention to what scientists say about hurricanes and global warming (Gore mentions it too in his film) you'll realize that they have never claimed that global warming will cause MORE hurricanes, but that the hurricanes that do form will be STRONGER. The reason is simple, hurricanes get much of their energy from the ocean. If the ocean gets warmer (which it will if average temperatures increase) then the hurricanes get more energy. Rather simple, when you simplify it, that is.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, if you pay close attention to what scientists say about hurricanes and global warming (Gore mentions it too in his film) you'll realize that they have never claimed that global warming will cause MORE hurricanes, but that the hurricanes that do form will be STRONGER. The reason is simple, hurricanes get much of their energy from the ocean. If the ocean gets warmer (which it will if average temperatures increase) then the hurricanes get more energy. Rather simple, when you simplify it, that is.

Well I may be leaning towards you earth is warmer crowd.It's a warm 84 here again and looks like it will hold through the Thanksgiving weekend.I have to wear shorts when I golf, and the air conditioner in my car runs all day.Is it 80+ degrees (26 celsius?) in Sweden now also?

[SCYUKON 0]

You know, most of it made sense until this paragraph. I agree that Global Warming isn't 100% proved. The IPCC themselves also agree to this, since they say it's over 90% certain, which isn't 100%. Here is a nice article (with references ) on the subject.

I take it that you have read all of the new material I have posted recently. I would assume so, since you seem a level headed logical sort who is just looking for answers to tough questions (like me).So I did not see anywhere in my research where the IPCC could say with any confidence that they were 0% certain, let alone 90% certain, based on anything other than opinion. The research that I did into the IPCC stuff clearly stated that ONLY now are they coming up with methods to TRY and CALIBRATE their models. Uncalibrated models have 0 predictive capability that is of any use. Sorry but if they cannot backcast history and show that the explanatory variables in their model have any significance, they certainly cannot forecast the future.If the IPCC can ever show me a calibrated model (which I doubt they will) which successfully reproduces the earths temperature profile over a significant period, then I will start taking the output of their models seriously.Dp.s. Balloon Guy - I am on your side on this but that 84 degree jab even smacks me in the ballzzzz. You lucky guy you. It's 32 and sucks to be alive in Alberta at the moment.

[Johan 0]

Wow. I didn't have the patience to read the entire post, but man, the ignorance of some people in here is just unbelievable.Are you guys actually denying that global warming is happening?I can understand that the american politicians are afraid to admit it. Because that would mean they had to do something about it. That would cost a lot of money, and maybe damage your "great" economy. But that doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to open your eyes and figure out stuff on your own.It gets most of the world pretty upset when the US, the largest(or maybe the second largest, after China) polluter in the whole world simply denies that there is a problem.And claiming that the ice on the pole is getting bigger is ridiculous. There are passages open in the polar areas that are icefree at times when they _alway_ have been frozen shut before.And as for the effects at the current time, I guess you Americans should have realized that the hurricanes are getting more violent. And there have been massive heat waves in central europe that have killed hundreds of people.In Norway, where I live, we are usually covered in snow at this time of year, but over the past year the snow has come later and later, causing major problems for alot of skiing facilities.We even have a place called Stryn, where you can go skiing all year. Well, this year they had to close it, due to lack of snow. Not that this is a serious consequence, but it is caused by global warming.I'm guessing it's about time to wake up, face the reality and start doing something about it..And sorry if my english sucks.. And not to good with, eeh, making sentences(?) That sounded a bit weird to me, but I hope you get the picture.

[SCYUKON 0]

Wow. I didn't have the patience to read the entire post, but man, the ignorance of some people in here is just unbelievable.Are you guys actually denying that global warming is happening?I can understand that the american politicians are afraid to admit it. Because that would mean they had to do something about it. That would cost a lot of money, and maybe damage your "great" economy. But that doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to open your eyes and figure out stuff on your own.It gets most of the world pretty upset when the US, the largest(or maybe the second largest, after China) polluter in the whole world simply denies that there is a problem.And claiming that the ice on the pole is getting bigger is ridiculous. There are passages open in the polar areas that are icefree at times when they _alway_ have been frozen shut before.And as for the effects at the current time, I guess you Americans should have realized that the hurricanes are getting more violent. And there have been massive heat waves in central europe that have killed hundreds of people.In Norway, where I live, we are usually covered in snow at this time of year, but over the past year the snow has come later and later, causing major problems for alot of skiing facilities.We even have a place called Stryn, where you can go skiing all year. Well, this year they had to close it, due to lack of snow. Not that this is a serious consequence, but it is caused by global warming.I'm guessing it's about time to wake up, face the reality and start doing something about it..And sorry if my english sucks.. And not to good with, eeh, making sentences(?) That sounded a bit weird to me, but I hope you get the picture.

4 Things.1. Just by your name, I knew what side you were landing on, but that is not an issue, just an observation.2. I live in Canada, not the US. Don't think that everyone but US folks are buying this nonsense.3. We are not ignorant. You should read the entire post, or at least the last 3 pages, to get yourself up to speed before you start labelling folks. But then again, I labelled you based on your name. My bad.4. Us so called "deniers" are of the mindset that what is happening is part of a naturally occurring cycle (i.e. this was going to happen whether or not we were on earth), and that there has not been any plausible (i.e. proven cause and effect that man is causing this issue) evidence shown otherwise. In particular go back a few pages where I have quoted the IPCC reports where they state that just NOW they are trying to figure out how to calibrate predictive models. That's right, the models used to predict DOOM and GLOOM have not even been calibrated yet. In my mind, basing any forecasts of anything on an uncalibrated model, in other words relying on nothing stronger than OPINION at the point, is the definition of ignorance. As I have said many times in this post since actually researching this thing ad nauseum (that is an English phrase for lots and lots), including the latest and greatest documents from the IPCC website, I am now more convinced than ever that the folks crying that the sky if falling are acting very irresponsibly and not at all professionally.I would say the only good thing that has come from all this is 1000 hp biodiesel Hummers and Escalades that get 30 mpg. ZOMG H-line conversions.

[Zeatrix 0]

Well I may be leaning towards you earth is warmer crowd.It's a warm 84 here again and looks like it will hold through the Thanksgiving weekend.I have to wear shorts when I golf, and the air conditioner in my car runs all day.Is it 80+ degrees (26 celsius?) in Sweden now also?

We've got about 0-8 celsius right now. Still warm for November. I guess Christmas will be brown once again (Now I know why he wrote "I'm dreaming of a white christmas")

[Zeatrix 0]

3. We are not ignorant. You should read the entire post, or at least the last 3 pages, to get yourself up to speed before you start labelling folks. But then again, I labelled you based on your name. My bad.You aren't ignorant. But a lot of other people are ignorant. =) P.S On both sides...4. Us so called "deniers" are of the mindset that what is happening is part of a naturally occurring cycle (i.e. this was going to happen whether or not we were on earth), and that there has not been any plausible (i.e. proven cause and effect that man is causing this issue) evidence shown otherwise. In particular go back a few pages where I have quoted the IPCC reports where they state that just NOW they are trying to figure out how to calibrate predictive models. That's right, the models used to predict DOOM and GLOOM have not even been calibrated yet. In my mind, basing any forecasts of anything on an uncalibrated model, in other words relying on nothing stronger than OPINION at the point, is the definition of ignorance. As I have said many times in this post since actually researching this thing ad nauseum (that is an English phrase for lots and lots), including the latest and greatest documents from the IPCC website, I am now more convinced than ever that the folks crying that the sky if falling are acting very irresponsibly and not at all professionally.

Well, by now I know I can't convince you of anything. But, it's the internet and the urge to proclaim my beliefs is too hard to resist. I always see "deniers" (bad word but I sounds better for us "believers" than for example unconvinced) deny global warming by just saying "it's natural". So, what proof do you have that it indeed IS natural? All the respectable science on the subject is proof for man made global warming.If this indeed was natural, how do you explain that surface average temperature has climbed so steeply that it way beats any other recorded temperature increase in the last ~600k years (as far back as we can go on this). Has there been any serious work done on explaining it?So, do you have any proof or evidence that man has NOT pumped billions of gallons of oil out of the earths crust and burned it, therefore releasing an excess amount of CO2? Do you have any research to point to that releasing excess amounts of CO2 has no effect on the greenhouse effect?Anyways, I'm gonna assume what you say about the models is correct (sorry, but I haven't had the time or the patience to read it all). The first question that pops into my head is: Do we really need perfect models to be absolutely sure? You seem to think so, I seem to disagree. Modeling the earth correctly is extremely difficult, might even be impossible. The shear amount of data and complexity of the system may (I don't really know, I'm assuming some) make it impossible to create good enough models to be able to produce 100% correct results.Let's play a game. Let's assume that global warming is true as the IPCC presents it. Let's also assume that it's impossible to produce models that have any meaning. If this was the case, would the lack of models be a good reason not to do something about global warming? My point is, the conclusions drawn by the IPCC after collecting all the available research done in the world is not only based on computer simulations, it's also very dependent on other, empirical and repeatable research. So for me, having 100% (or even close to) is not a deal breaker. The IPCC obviously knows that the models aren't 100% correct and far from it but they still agree that global warming is a real threat and that something has to be done. For hundreds of scientist, which as a collective is very skeptical, to agree to something like this speaks loads to, at least, me.

[SCYUKON 0]

Well, by now I know I can't convince you of anything. But, it's the internet and the urge to proclaim my beliefs is too hard to resist. I don't agree with that. Show me some calibrated models and I would be quite happy to change my opinion.If this indeed was natural, how do you explain that surface average temperature has climbed so steeply that it way beats any other recorded temperature increase in the last ~600k years (as far back as we can go on this). Has there been any serious work done on explaining it?There is a simple explanation - we are not bigger than good old mother nature, and mother nature is going to do whatever the hell she wants to do. If she decides you will have a brown Christmas in Sweden, guess what, taking the bus isn't going to cause it to snow on December 25.So, do you have any proof or evidence that man has NOT pumped billions of gallons of oil out of the earths crust and burned it, therefore releasing an excess amount of CO2? Do you have any research to point to that releasing excess amounts of CO2 has no effect on the greenhouse effect?1/2 that question is easy to answer - of course plenty of oil has been pumped and used. The other 1/2 is what is up for debate, what is excess?Anyways, I'm gonna assume what you say about the models is correct (sorry, but I haven't had the time or the patience to read it all). The first question that pops into my head is: Do we really need perfect models to be absolutely sure? You seem to think so, I seem to disagree. Modeling the earth correctly is extremely difficult, might even be impossible. The shear amount of data and complexity of the system may (I don't really know, I'm assuming some) make it impossible to create good enough models to be able to produce 100% correct results.So tell me then, do you have any idea of the impact on the economies of the world that would be caused if every country in the world were to go all Kyoto crazy? And all of this based on nothing but theory? Let me ask you thing, to perhaps put things into some financial perspective: Would you give all of your life savings to an investment advisor to invest using a "fantastic" new way of investing that had never been done before (lets say he choose stocks based on rolls of a dice), but that had no historic proof of the method? I would assume not but yet you think it is ok to impact billions of folks financially based on uncalibrated speculation?Let's play a game. Let's assume that global warming is true as the IPCC presents it. Let's also assume that it's impossible to produce models that have any meaning. If this was the case, would the lack of models be a good reason not to do something about global warming? Hmmn - might it make more sense to consider that it is happening naturally and perhaps putting the research money into figuring out ways to deal with it. For example, take San Francisco, where that are plenty of earthquakes (are those man made???? like to see the proof on that one). At any rate, rather than telling people to walk with less impact on the cement lest they cause an earthquake, instead money and research are invested into making buildings safer in case of an earthquake. Makes a lot more sense to me to try and react to good old mother nature rather than being so arrogant as to think we can control her.My point is, the conclusions drawn by the IPCC after collecting all the available research done in the world is not only based on computer simulations, it's also very dependent on other, empirical and repeatable research. So for me, having 100% (or even close to) is not a deal breaker. The IPCC obviously knows that the models aren't 100% correct and far from it but they still agree that global warming is a real threat and that something has to be done. For hundreds of scientist, which as a collective is very skeptical, to agree to something like this speaks loads to, at least, me.Well as I said, reread the last 3 pages, and check out the deniers link I provided. It costs money buy you may be shocked to learn of the number of famous scientists who are deniers themselves. Further, there is a lot of doubt as to the credibility of the IPCC as well.

[SCYUKON 0]

Well Geez, the fellow writing the Deniers series still has not run out of leading skeptics. Although you won't have to worry about this particular gent though, as he passed on about 1 year ago at the age of 92. At any rate, Zeatrix, I am telling you, you really out to give these articles some study.The Deniers, Part XXXVIII: Climate change by Jupiter by Lawrence SolomonThe alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth. So explained Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University, a giant in science over much of the last century whose accomplishments are perhaps unsurpassed for their breadth, depth, and volume. This one man authored or co-authored 100 scientific books and more than 1,000 scientific papers, he edited the Benchmarks in Geology series (more than 90 volumes in print) and was general editor of the Encyclopaedias of the Earth Sciences. He edited eight major encyclopedias of specialized scientific papers in the atmospheric sciences and astrogeology; geomorphology; geochemistry and the earth sciences; geology, sedimentology, paleontology, oceanography and, not least, climatology. Changes in sunspots and other solar activity, scientists have realized for more than two centuries, correlate closely with the climate of Earth, explaining the ice ages and periods of great warming. But what, Dr. Fairbridge wondered, causes these changes in our sun? The answer, he discovered with the help of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, lies largely in the solar system's centre of gravity. At times, the sun is at the solar system's centre of gravity. Most often, this is not the case – the orbit of the planets will align planets to one side or another of the sun. Jupiter, the planet with by far the largest mass, most influences the solar system's centre of gravity. When Uranus, Neptune and especially Saturn – the next largest planet – join Jupiter on one side of the solar system, the solar system's centre of gravity shifts well beyond the sun. The sun's own orbit, he found, has eight characteristic patterns, all determined by Jupiter's position relative to Saturn, with the other planets playing much lesser roles. Some of these eight have orderly orbits, smooth and near-circular. During such orbits, solar activity is high and Earth heats up. Some of the eight orbits are chaotic, taking a loop-the-loop path. These orbits correspond to quiet times for the sun, and cool periods on Earth. Every 179 years or so, the sun embarks on a new cycle of orbits. One of the cooler periods in recent centuries was the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when the Thames River in London froze over each winter. The next cool period, if the pattern holds, began in 1996, with the effects to be felt starting in 2010. Some predict three decades of severe cold. Temperatures on Earth are but one consequence of these periodic and predictable celestial movements. Others, Dr. Fairbridge has shown, are seen everywhere on Earth: in the various and differing periodicities in rocks, glaciers, sand dunes and the circulation of the ocean; geomagnetic records; the records of the isotopes of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in tree rings, ice cores, air and water. They are the periodicities of climate change. Dr. Fairbridge's best-known periodicity, which he developed in the 1950s, hypothesized that sea levels had been rising for the last 16,000 years, during which there were periodic oscillations of rise and fall. The Fairbridge curve describing this period – so named in derision because it offended the conventional wisdom – is now widely accepted. It demonstrates that, even within the past 1,000 years, sea levels have several times changed by up to two metres, and suddenly – each of these large changes occurred in fewer than 40 years. Dr. Fairbridge's broader climate change claims – that celestial changes control Earth's temperatures – remain controversial, but less so than they were decades ago, when his was a relatively lone voice. Solar scientists with increasing regularity are publishing data establishing celestial origins to climate change on Earth. Dr. Fairbridge saw his Fairbridgecurve theories vindicated, but he won't his celestial claims. This most remarkable individual died a year ago this week, at age 92. Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute. BACKGROUND SOURCES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------CV OF A DENIERRhodes Fairbridge, an early expert on climate change, was a professor of geology at Columbia. He received an undergraduate degree from Queen's University in Ontario and a master's degree from the University of Oxford. He was awarded a doctorate of science by the University of Western Australia in 1944 at the age of 30, bypassing the usual PhD prerequisite. During the Second World War, Dr. Fairbridge also served with the Royal Australian Air Force in U.S. General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters as deputy director of intelligence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Related articles:Green hero slammed as climate hereticWhy melting of ice sheets 'is impossible'IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to saveYou still need your parka in AntarcticaThe hot trend is cool yachtsThe aerosol manFrom chaos, coherenceIn the eye of the storm over global warmingWhat global warming, Australian skeptic asksModels trump measurementsOpen mind sees climate clearlyForget warming – beware the new ice ageNASA chief silencedThey call this a consensus?Dire forecasts aren't newDiscounting logicSome restraint in RomeThe ice-core manGore's guru disagreedScience not politicsFighting climate 'fluff'Little Ice Age is still with usBitten by the IPCCUnsettled scienceThe heat's in the sunAllegre's second thoughtsClouded researchEnd the chillLimited role for CO2Look to Mars for the truth on global warmingThe limits of predictabilityWill the sun cool us?The sun moves climate changeThe original denier: into the coldPolar scientists on thin iceThe hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk scienceWarming is real – and has benefitsStatistics neededClimate change debate

[Zeatrix 0]

First of all, none of these articles or views seem to have been published in a scientific journal with any credibility. This is a very important part of the scientific process and disregarding it completely makes at least me, and probably many other "believers" suspicious. It doesn't help when he goes on talking about the "alignment of the planets", too much astrology for me.Also this quote from this article is what I'm getting at:"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

[Zeatrix 0]

There is a simple explanation - we are not bigger than good old mother nature, and mother nature is going to do whatever the hell she wants to do. If she decides you will have a brown Christmas in Sweden, guess what, taking the bus isn't going to cause it to snow on December 25.So you say, but my point STILL is, can you PROVE this? Scientists around the world are proving that we CAN affect mother nature.1/2 that question is easy to answer - of course plenty of oil has been pumped and used. The other 1/2 is what is up for debate, what is excess?Excess, I would define, as enough to make a noticeable change. The CO2 levels are noticeable higher AND temperatures are noticeably higher.So tell me then, do you have any idea of the impact on the economies of the world that would be caused if every country in the world were to go all Kyoto crazy? And all of this based on nothing but theory? Let me ask you thing, to perhaps put things into some financial perspective: Would you give all of your life savings to an investment advisor to invest using a "fantastic" new way of investing that had never been done before (lets say he choose stocks based on rolls of a dice), but that had no historic proof of the method? I would assume not but yet you think it is ok to impact billions of folks financially based on uncalibrated speculation?No, I wouldn't invest in such a thing of course. But on the other hand scientists and economists seem to agree that the best long term investment is to try to prevent global warming from getting worse. In other words, the investment now is lower than the investment later. On the other hand, do you know what these investments would be? I'm sure they are far lower than you think. All we have to do is to focus on cutting down on CO2 emissions.Hmmn - might it make more sense to consider that it is happening naturally and perhaps putting the research money into figuring out ways to deal with it. For example, take San Francisco, where that are plenty of earthquakes (are those man made???? like to see the proof on that one). At any rate, rather than telling people to walk with less impact on the cement lest they cause an earthquake, instead money and research are invested into making buildings safer in case of an earthquake. Makes a lot more sense to me to try and react to good old mother nature rather than being so arrogant as to think we can control her.The earthquake example is ridiculous and you know it. And trust me, we're ALSO going to have to deal with the consequences of global warming, not only preventive actions. You are also lucky to be living in a country which probably won't have any troubles with the climate change. I'm also living in such country. Still doesn't mean I think nothing should be done.

[SCYUKON 0]

Actually, I think the earthquake example is a great analogy, especially the part about us not stepping down so hard when we walk to avoid causing another earthquake. To use your logic from above, do you have an SCIENTIFIC PROOF that if we all walked with a lighter step, maybe there would not be so many earthquakes? "Excessive" step force (enough to make an impact, similar to your vaguely quantifiable statement above) may be triggering a shift in the tectonic plates. Can you say with 100% certainty that it isn't?Of course, we don't believe for a second that the way we walk will trigger earthquakes, instead we plan for the inevitable based on the lessons learned in the past (e.g.. stricter building codes which include stronger shear resistance to allow buildings to be able to resist some fairly violent events). As for the IPCC, here is another clip about what is going on to deal with those folks. Glad to hear it as well:The Deniers, Part XXXVI: IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save by Lawrence Solomon Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s. But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science. "The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming. "The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.'" Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years – he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone. But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process. "Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely. "Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning." Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it. "Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree – there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking. "Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose." Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition." Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------CV OF A DENIERVincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.' Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center. You know, I have read all of the IPCC information that you folks have brought forward. I challenge you to read all of this denier information, and note the number of heavily credentialed scientific folks speaking out against this (how is the head of NASA for a start? Dude only has 6 degrees or so). I spent a lot of my own time (not work time) researching this and you should too if you are to be taken seriously. Just because your new job does not allow for surfing during work time is no excuse to not keep educating and updating yourself if you are going to be spreading the gospel to so many people.