[yor_on]

Okay, you're not denying anything.
You're just invalidating it. And thereby you can always say that there isn't enough 'data'. Well, I'm not satisfied either. Looking at Country's as Canada who uses only one weather station NOAA Weather Station Scandal.

And others.

---Quote-

Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

---End of quote--

So i agree, but from the other end I think we're doing as good as possible. But I would like more weather stations too, and ocean stations, measuring. But looking at how IPCC is funded and research money is alloted it's seems mostly political decisions from diverse country's.

==Quote.

Much of the reason why “data are vexatious” is because this research has been starved for instrument resources.

A prime example: ICESat, now offline for gathering more cryo data due to the failure of its last working laser of the three units onboard, an anticipated failure that came as no surprise. We knew that a replacement spacecraft was imminently necessary with the last laser failure in 2008, we know that polar observations are very important to narrowing uncertainties w/regard to climate change. Despite this, we had no spacecraft ready for launch; a replacement will not be launched until 2014.

One could argue that failure to plan and construct a replacement (and what would be wrong with simply an identical satellite, if budget was an issue) was down to poor oversight of the mission but one would be wrong. One could say that other, more important Earth observation missions took priority over an ICESat replacement but one would again be wrong. No, this feckless gap in our data will most likely be revealed as political in nature once historians produce a definitive account; the particular inclinations of the administration in charge during the period of interest are a hint but we’ll see about that.

Fortunately ESA has launched a replacement for CryoSatNow since they had a slightly more urgent attitude about climate change and quickly produced a replacement for the spacecraft lost on their first launch attempt. Meanwhile NASA is doing gap-filling via other means to make up for the loss of ICESat. But thanks to crappy management we’re now faced with a data splicing nightmare, a pointless challenge for investigators which also naturally will provide fodder for Dark Ages personalities determined to throw sand in the wheels of public policy.

There are other examples. Ocean heat content is tough to fathom (hah!) in part because the ocean is not as richly instrumented as necessary. This is a great intellectual challenge for researchers but at the end of the day, the fact we can’t account for missing energy (Trenberth?) is a serious problem when it comes to public policy; the heat we can’t measure is made into a subject of debate which again retards policy response.

The amount of money we’re talking about in all cases here is paltry compared to what we spend on other things. Compared w/a $60 trillion global economy the gap between proper resources and poor resources is invisible.

This parsimonious approach to instrumentation is one of the reason I laugh when I hear rejectionists muttering about all those rich scientists and their giant AGW gravy train. Innumeracy strikes again.

== by Doug Bostrom.

I quite agree with him. We really need better observations there. The largest carbon sink is our oceans. About 70 percent is oceans, and the average depth is around three thousand three hundred feet (1000 meters). Only two percent of the water is freshwater, the rest is our oceans. And December 2009 was the second warmest ocean temperature on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, based on records going back to 1880. The temperature anomaly was 0.97 degree F above the 20th century average of 60.4 degrees F.

That means that the waters waves are moving faster now than it did a hundred years ago as there are more kinetic energy stored in it, due to its heat uptake. Also that it breaths out more humidity, creating worse storms, from category three to category five. We will see more of category five every decade now. "it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes." from Global Warming and Hurricanes

---Quote----

Most scientific opinion agrees that between 1961 and 2003 ocean temperature has increased by 0.1 degree Celsius from the surface to a depth of 700 metres. This temperature increase is based upon many millions of historical measurements. It seems therefore that the oceans are gradually warming but that it's not conclusive, it is persuasive.

---End of Quote--

And it also means that the oceans are acidifying. A new model, capable of assessing the rate at which the oceans are acidifying, suggests that changes in the carbonate chemistry of the deep ocean may exceed anything seen in the past 65 million years. accidification. What it means is that the water is fastly becoming unusable (unbreathable) for most of the fish we eat although some species seems to thrive in it, like jellyfish. Google on 'jellyfish invasion' and see what you find. And I'm not talking about over-fishing now.

--Quote--

Iron and the Carbon Pump by William G. Sunda

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has risen by ~38% since the start of the industrial era as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes; if current trends continue, it is projected to increase further by at least a factor of 2 by 2100. About a quarter of the CO2 emitted through human activities has been absorbed by the ocean. On page 676 of this issue, Shi et al. show that the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters may decrease the biological availability of iron, which could in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2.

Beaufort Laboratory, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA

--End of quote--- Science magazine 5 February 2010

And our oceans are loosing some of their appetite for CO2 too, meaning that they don't take up as much CO2 as they used too earlier. " The oceans near Antarctica are thought to have one of the healthiest appetites for greenhouse gases. Their surface waters can guzzle around 15 percent of all the carbon dioxide produced by people, which comes mostly from industry and automobile emissions. The new study found the oceans are mopping up only about 10 percent of carbon- oxide, requiring projections for future levels of greenhouse gases to be bumped up accordingly. "  Antarctic Oceans Absorbing Less CO2 from 2007.

For an estimate over how much the oceans already have taken up from us you can look at National Geographic News 2004 The sources ain't that new and I don't expect the facts to have become any better since those research was done.

"Sabine and researchers from the United States, Europe, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and other nations have now completed the most comprehensive survey of ocean carbon chemistry.... In the new study, however, researchers collected direct samples on dissolved carbon dioxide levels in oceans around the world throughout the 1990s. Data were collected at some 9,600 sites around the world on 95 separate research voyages. Their results suggest that the oceans have taken up 48 percent of all carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture (a major source of the gas) between 1800 and 1994. "

So our greatest heat sinks seems to be getting saturated, as for the heat distribution in the oceans there are a lot of dispute going on, but considering the few probes we use as compared to the volumes of water we're speaking about here (around 326 million trillion gallons or 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters) being in a constant cycle, evaporating from the oceans raising as humidity and raining down, to then flow back into the ocean, we can't really say for sure how this trend will end.

And the methane in the tundra is already getting released, there are this 'crazy' Soviet researcher Sergei Zimov who built an observation post on the tundra to document it. stanford magazine 2008. That discussion about if the last two hundred and fifty years mean something I had just recently with Frethack. If you want you can go here to view that, with graphs..

You have to understand that I do recognize the importance of what we can see before, but, you as well, need to see what differ those earlier eras with our current, counting two hundred and fifty years back, and continuing. Both are important, but the one we can see recently is actually the true description of what we have now. Those earlier periods didn't have us there polluting and to try to compare medieval farmsteads to our industrialized society seems rather awkward to me.
===


And as if that phreaking 'Methanebomb' wasn't enough
As the tundra thaws. 

[norcalclimber]

Okay, you're not denying anything.
You're just invalidating it. And thereby you can always say that there isn't enough 'data'. Well, I'm not satisfied either. Looking at Country's as Canada who uses only one weather station NOAA Weather Station Scandal.

And others.

---Quote-

Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

---End of quote--

So i agree, but from the other end I think we're doing as good as possible. But I would like more weather stations too, and ocean stations, measuring. But looking at how IPCC is funded and research money is alloted it's seems mostly political decisions from diverse country's.

==Quote.

Much of the reason why “data are vexatious” is because this research has been starved for instrument resources.

A prime example: ICESat, now offline for gathering more cryo data due to the failure of its last working laser of the three units onboard, an anticipated failure that came as no surprise. We knew that a replacement spacecraft was imminently necessary with the last laser failure in 2008, we know that polar observations are very important to narrowing uncertainties w/regard to climate change. Despite this, we had no spacecraft ready for launch; a replacement will not be launched until 2014.

One could argue that failure to plan and construct a replacement (and what would be wrong with simply an identical satellite, if budget was an issue) was down to poor oversight of the mission but one would be wrong. One could say that other, more important Earth observation missions took priority over an ICESat replacement but one would again be wrong. No, this feckless gap in our data will most likely be revealed as political in nature once historians produce a definitive account; the particular inclinations of the administration in charge during the period of interest are a hint but we’ll see about that.

Fortunately ESA has launched a replacement for CryoSatNow since they had a slightly more urgent attitude about climate change and quickly produced a replacement for the spacecraft lost on their first launch attempt. Meanwhile NASA is doing gap-filling via other means to make up for the loss of ICESat. But thanks to crappy management we’re now faced with a data splicing nightmare, a pointless challenge for investigators which also naturally will provide fodder for Dark Ages personalities determined to throw sand in the wheels of public policy.

There are other examples. Ocean heat content is tough to fathom (hah!) in part because the ocean is not as richly instrumented as necessary. This is a great intellectual challenge for researchers but at the end of the day, the fact we can’t account for missing energy (Trenberth?) is a serious problem when it comes to public policy; the heat we can’t measure is made into a subject of debate which again retards policy response.

The amount of money we’re talking about in all cases here is paltry compared to what we spend on other things. Compared w/a $60 trillion global economy the gap between proper resources and poor resources is invisible.

This parsimonious approach to instrumentation is one of the reason I laugh when I hear rejectionists muttering about all those rich scientists and their giant AGW gravy train. Innumeracy strikes again.

== by Doug Bostrom.

I quite agree with him. We really need better observations there. The largest carbon sink is our oceans. About 70 percent is oceans, and the average depth is around three thousand three hundred feet (1000 meters). Only two percent of the water is freshwater, the rest is our oceans. And December 2009 was the second warmest ocean temperature on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, based on records going back to 1880. The temperature anomaly was 0.97 degree F above the 20th century average of 60.4 degrees F.

That means that the waters waves are moving faster now than it did a hundred years ago as there are more kinetic energy stored in it, due to its heat uptake. Also that it breaths out more humidity, creating worse storms, from category three to category five. We will see more of category five every decade now. "it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes." from Global Warming and Hurricanes

---Quote----

Most scientific opinion agrees that between 1961 and 2003 ocean temperature has increased by 0.1 degree Celsius from the surface to a depth of 700 metres. This temperature increase is based upon many millions of historical measurements. It seems therefore that the oceans are gradually warming but that it's not conclusive, it is persuasive.

---End of Quote--

And it also means that the oceans are acidifying. A new model, capable of assessing the rate at which the oceans are acidifying, suggests that changes in the carbonate chemistry of the deep ocean may exceed anything seen in the past 65 million years. accidification. What it means is that the water is fastly becoming unusable (unbreathable) for most of the fish we eat although some species seems to thrive in it, like jellyfish. Google on 'jellyfish invasion' and see what you find. And I'm not talking about over-fishing now.

--Quote--

Iron and the Carbon Pump by William G. Sunda

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has risen by ~38% since the start of the industrial era as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes; if current trends continue, it is projected to increase further by at least a factor of 2 by 2100. About a quarter of the CO2 emitted through human activities has been absorbed by the ocean. On page 676 of this issue, Shi et al. show that the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters may decrease the biological availability of iron, which could in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2.

Beaufort Laboratory, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA

--End of quote--- Science magazine 5 February 2010

And our oceans are loosing some of their appetite for CO2 too, meaning that they don't take up as much CO2 as they used too earlier. " The oceans near Antarctica are thought to have one of the healthiest appetites for greenhouse gases. Their surface waters can guzzle around 15 percent of all the carbon dioxide produced by people, which comes mostly from industry and automobile emissions. The new study found the oceans are mopping up only about 10 percent of carbon- oxide, requiring projections for future levels of greenhouse gases to be bumped up accordingly. "  Antarctic Oceans Absorbing Less CO2 from 2007.

For an estimate over how much the oceans already have taken up from us you can look at National Geographic News 2004 The sources ain't that new and I don't expect the facts to have become any better since those research was done.

"Sabine and researchers from the United States, Europe, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and other nations have now completed the most comprehensive survey of ocean carbon chemistry.... In the new study, however, researchers collected direct samples on dissolved carbon dioxide levels in oceans around the world throughout the 1990s. Data were collected at some 9,600 sites around the world on 95 separate research voyages. Their results suggest that the oceans have taken up 48 percent of all carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture (a major source of the gas) between 1800 and 1994. "

So our greatest heat sinks seems to be getting saturated, as for the heat distribution in the oceans there are a lot of dispute going on, but considering the few probes we use as compared to the volumes of water we're speaking about here (around 326 million trillion gallons or 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters) being in a constant cycle, evaporating from the oceans raising as humidity and raining down, to then flow back into the ocean, we can't really say for sure how this trend will end.

And the methane in the tundra is already getting released, there are this 'crazy' Soviet researcher Sergei Zimov who built an observation post on the tundra to document it. stanford magazine 2008. That discussion about if the last two hundred and fifty years mean something I had just recently with Frethack. If you want you can go here to view that, with graphs..

You have to understand that I do recognize the importance of what we can see before, but, you as well, need to see what differ those earlier eras with our current, counting two hundred and fifty years back, and continuing. Both are important, but the one we can see recently is actually the true description of what we have now. Those earlier periods didn't have us there polluting and to try to compare medieval farmsteads to our industrialized society seems rather awkward to me.
===


And as if that phreaking 'Methanebomb' wasn't enough
As the tundra thaws. 

Yes, you could always say there isn't enough data.... but in this instance, there really isn't even remotely close to enough data.

Tell me please, how could you possibly take 100 year old data which could be off be several degrees in either direction, and make it accurate to a tenth of a degree?

You can't. Period.

The data we have is lousy, and if that wasn't enough, we only have data on a couple of the millions of variables which go into our climate.  We can't simply state that any climate change which happens now is as a result of industrialization, that is a completely ridiculous idea.  Humans, even with all that we do, are only a tiny fraction of what goes into the environment.  We only produce ~3% of the total greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, and in our arrogance we think we can change the weather.  When you think about it, doesn't it feel a little silly to blame every climate event on AGW?  Were there never droughts before us? 

The fact that AGW proponents like Al Gore need to flat out lie in order to propagate their agenda, along with huge political pressures to suppress any questioning of the science at all.... what does that tell us?

AGW theory has lousy data behind it, lousy understanding behind it, yet somehow it is "proven"..... seriously?  Why does AGW not have to abide by any of the rules the rest of science has to abide by?

Follow the money, and look at the politics.... there is no consensus supporting AGW, that is a flat out lie put forth by the U.N. to continue to try their power grab.  Read Agenda 21, familiarize yourself with the real history of AGW theory, and then look at whether the science really shows us anything other than a naturally changing climate.

IMHO, AGW has been perverted from what started as legitimate science into a religion, and if we really want to learn about our climate we need to kick all the politicians and lawyers out of it and actually try to learn something about the incredibly dynamic complex system we call our climate.  We need to stop legislating a gas necessary for life on Earth, and just stick to what is obviously the right thing to do. 

I think that AGW being touted as proven has also lessened the credibility of the entire scientific community, and given fodder to creationists, and others who have an agenda against science.  We have worked hard the past 200 years to gain a foothold against religion, and now it is being destroyed by politicians and lawyers.  Our credibility is being lost, all to line the pockets of some already very rich people.

 Do you think Big Oil is hurt by the AGW movement?  They aren't.  The movement has caused taxpayers to pay for the research which will allow Big Oil to stay in business for longer, make more money, and guarantee that no small business will enter the market.  Big Oil loves it, because there is no such thing as renewable energy, it all requires fossil fuels, and if the public pays to develop more efficient uses of it then the Oil company doesn't have to spend that money on R&D.

[yor_on]

Creationists
Al Gore?

Don't know what to say here, it's an All American view you have there, not many else on this planet take that view too seriously I think But it's okay, To me it doesn't really disturb. We're all entitled to our own view as you say.

And yours is that the data shown is, at best, foolish, right? and that those climate scientists and those other scientists, all over the Earth, involved are, at best, 'misguided' perhaps? Ah well, I gave you a lot of good data as I see it. Maybe you are right, they're all, ah, ?? Pushing for something that just ain't true. And the data I've taken up in my threads are all bad too of course.

But you're wrong
They can be better, but the data shown is correct.

[norcalclimber]

Creationists
Al Gore?

Don't know what to say here, it's an All American view you have there, not many else on this planet take that view too seriously I think But it's okay, To me it doesn't really disturb. We're all entitled to our own view as you say.

And yours is that the data shown is, at best, foolish, right? and that those climate scientists and those other scientists, all over the Earth, involved are, at best, 'misguided' perhaps? Ah well, I gave you a lot of good data as I see it. Maybe you are right, they're all, ah, ?? Pushing for something that just ain't true. And the data I've taken up in my threads are all bad too of course.

But you're wrong
They can be better, but the data shown is correct.

Perhaps you are correct, but there are quite a few distinguished scientists who share my feelings:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

[yor_on]

Maybe you have that link in another format?
As for the amount of deniers

They're shrinking, daily, and changing their views constantly.
I seem to remember an poll made one year ago?
With around 10 000 scientists involved in climate issues?

Asking if they thought we were the reason to the Global Warming we see today.
And I think they said a resounding yes They can all be misinformed naturally, but somehow I doubt it.

[norcalclimber]

Maybe you have that link in another format?
As for the amount of deniers

They're shrinking, daily, and changing their views constantly.
I seem to remember an poll made one year ago?
With around 10 000 scientists involved in climate issues?

Asking if they thought we were the reason to the Global Warming we see today.
And I think they said a resounding yes They can all be misinformed naturally, but somehow I doubt it.

Actually, the reverse is true... the number of alarmists is decreasing daily.  I don't know of a poll of 10,000 scientists supporting global warming, but I do know there is a petition with over 31,000 scientists dissenting.  I believe it is being done by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

And I know several recent polls have shown that support for the alarmist's agenda is waning due to lack of science supporting it. 

You have still failed to answer my questions, instead insisting that you are right.  You have been unable to explain how bad data can be made good, instead you continue to insist the data is good.  This was exactly my point when I said this debate would go nowhere... you can't answer the problems, but because you have decided it's proven nothing can shake your devotion.  That's fine, you have that right, but I don't feel very motivated to lay out the truth for you, because I know from experience that nothing can shake the faith of a devout alarmist.

[yor_on]

I believe that I'm the one delivering data here?

The link you gave me was one I couldn't read due to its format, as well as the one to a 'pay per view' site. If you have alternative's ready? I really would like to read both Too see what base you have for your claims. And how can I disprove anything, as long as you decide that those scientists, ah, 'alarm' you for nothing? As well as you choose to invalidate the data they convey to us?

But I do expect them to do as good as they can and, to me, it seems you have choosen the other side of that variable, expecting them to have some hidden agenda, and therefore 'falsify' data to suit their needs?

Don't think so

[norcalclimber]

I believe that I'm the one delivering data here?

The link you gave me was one I couldn't read due to its format, as well as the one to a 'pay per view' site. If you have alternative's ready? I really would like to read both Too see what base you have for your claims. And how can I disprove anything, as long as you decide that those scientists, ah, 'alarm' you for nothing? As well as you choose to invalidate the data they convey to us?

But I do expect them to do as good as they can and, to me, it seems you have choosen the other side of that variable, expecting them to have some hidden agenda, and therefore 'falsify' data to suit their needs?

Don't think so

I have provided links to the GHCN, the NCDC and NOAA to back up my claims.  The format you can't view... it's a pdf file, download Adobe Acrobat reader(it's free), I'm not sure how you manage to browse much on the internet if you can't look at pdf files.

I don't choose to invalidate any data... the data invalidates itself.  I cannot change the fact that the data is poor, neither can anyone else.  If you have managed to come up with a way to make data which has 10% error range and make it accurate to .001%, please share?

[ericcarter13]

Shanmugaraj acknowledged the efforts taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) in replanting mangroves under the National Mangrove Replanting Programme after the tsunami.

The exercise covered the whole of Malaysia and even the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM) has been enlisted to find new ways to plant the mangrove trees in places that are hard to grow.

Shanmugaraj told Bernama, several non-governmental organisations including MNS are also actively involved in rolling out educational programmes for local communities and children, stressing on the importance of mangroves.

"We get funding from MNRE through the Forestry Department. It is a yearly funding to educate people on the importance of mangroves and MNS currently has two centers for these ongoing educational programmes," he said, adding that the two centers, one at KSNP and at the other MNS Eco Care Project, in Kerteh.

As for MNS Eco Care Project in Kerteh, the project involves three villages, namely Kampung Gelugor, Kampung Telaga Papan and Kampung Tengah as they are located in the mangrove belt along Sungai Kerteh.

With funds from the Optimal Group of Companies (a 10-year commitment up to 2020), MNS will be setting up an education center at a site of about a hectare, formerly a mangrove forest area near Kampung Gelugor, to be gazetted by the state government as the "Nature Education Centre".

According to Shanmugaraj, the Kerteh Centre will become a focus point in educating on the importance of biodiversity including the mangroves.

SOME FAILURES

Nevertheless, there were some mangrove replanting programmes at several places hit by the 2004 tsunami that did not work out due to the strong currents that washed away the mangrove saplings.

"MNS worked on a place in the Kuala Muda area in Kedah, that was badly hit by the tsunami. We brought school children and planted over 2,000 saplings but all were wiped out because of the strong current. The place has now turned into a mudflat.

"It will take a few more years for the mangrove trees to grow back naturally," said Shanmugaraj who has been with MNS for the last 16 years.

Over the years he has witnessed the destruction of the mangrove forests.

"It is sad to see our forests disappearing especially the mangrove forests and beaches. Whatever people throw upstream is all ending up on the public beach. It is even difficult to go for a swim in these beaches. One good example is Port Dickson.

"We are actually destroying our own future. I don't know whether the future generation can still swim in clear, crystal water or can they see corals anymore?

"Even now when we bring the urban kids for our environment programmes and they see the mangrove trees, the crabs, the prawns and the fish. Some of them are seeing them for the first time in their natural habitat," he added.

[yor_on]

That was weird, rereading you norcalclimber I tried the link again, and this time it downloaded? But the last time I tried it didn't? Don't know why it didn't that last time?

I read your pdf from 2008-9 and states that "Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations." But you're not asserting that NOAA back up your claims there above, are you? I'm sure there are various scientists dissenting, but I sincerely doubt that NOAA and its 'National Climatic Data Center' NCDC does it? Same as I would doubt anyone proposing that NASA is a 'denier site'. And that I expect to be true for the Global Historical Climatology Network too. Those guys seems to labor with their own data interpretation taken from NCDC, which I found rather cool in fact as they do it on a 'hobbyist basis' as I understands it, reading them. The Blackboard.

Anyway , as I tried to find info on it I came across this little pearl from 2008.  Eight out of ten; by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University.

At the same time I found a petition stating that 31 000 'scientists' now denied global warming? You know, I've been watching it getting worse and worse, but disinformation really must pay off? I tried to find scientists supporting it on Google using : scientists supporting global warming petition : finding that the only thing it threw up was the exact opposite All about this new petition denying Global Warming, okay, so I set it in a citation instead, forcing Google too search for the exact wording : "scientists supporting global warming" petition : but still finding it being this 'deniers petition' that popped up as a first choice? Now I started to get a headache :)Normally I'm pretty good at mining information but?

Not that I doubted Google, well I do, but I'm also a little lazy So out of curiosity, as my next step, I wrote : does Google show a bias for climate deniers when searching : Now came the next surprise The first thing that popped up was this. 'Google Takes on Climate Change Skeptics with New Technology Effort.' 2011

So? How the he* could I get the opposite result from what I typed in? If there had been a bias in a any direction it should be to 'my side', sort of Right? So how do Google weight the sites it presents? How much can you 'buy' there? That will probably be my next step. Well, it's kind of late here, and I have other things to do too, like get some sleep So I guess it can wait for now. But I know one thing. When the surveys/studys coming in, tells you one thing but people want to believe another, surveying and scientific studies lose as proven, on and on again, throughout history.

Now, I don't really care any more, history have its own way of proving who is right and I'm sure it will this time too. But Global warming is a mighty uncomfortable thing to postpone, until history throws it in your face. Because the longer you postpone it and when you finally has to face it you will already have signed away the possibility of making a difference. And even though you might find your own years comparatively comfortable, I expect the third world to view it differently. And the 'war on terrorism' will see a raise as disenchanted third worlders look at our, still relatively prosperous, society's. It will always be those poorest that pays the highest price when change comes and they will, at the very least, be just as easy to convince of their 'rights', as those denying what we see happening now.

As for the 'way' to make Global Warming firstly a 'political issue' I don't even want to comment, but I will anyway. That has to be rock bottom, or just possibly that special place where the rock bottom falls out Still, political beliefs and choices has a way of coming back to bite you in the a**, also proven by history. But it is very smart to make it such an 'issue', because we all have a view on 'politics' don't we? And when it is only 'politics' we can debate it, and the idea of a conspiracy gains credibility too. No longer 'scientists' but shady white-clad men and women, sneaking about, political conspirators for personal gain.

Sh*

Almost in the same vein as eh, Nazi propaganda maybe? With climatologists as our new scapegoats?
Long beards too maybe Got to admit that I always thought the Internet a 'educator', at least I wanted to think so, but seeing this new trend make me wonder.

But I'm sure I'll dig some more. I've gotten too curious to just let it be here.
==

If you want to see some more discouraging news about dismantling climate science you can read This..NASA. I will make a prognostication here In some years, as the coverage of our globe gets really bad, the deniers, although I expect the global climate to have gotten warmer, still will find ample opportunity's complaining over 'biased' and 'deficient' scientific studies, lacking scientific 'rigor', neglecting that it's their own contributions to common attitudes and unwillingness to support those studies that made them, just so.

Action and reaction as some might express it.
And now I really need to get some sleep

[norcalclimber]

Wow, it has been a long time since I posted anything.... It's hard to know where to begin, but I think the simplest way is just to say that the last time I participated in this forum, my understanding of science was atrocious.

My journey began on this forum though.  Reading the other posters, I realized that I didn't know enough about science.  But I didn't know yet at that point how much I truly had left to learn, lol.  With my new smart phone I had access to podcasts all of a sudden though and an ex-girlfriend had showed me Skeptoid, so that seemed a good place to start.  Skeptoid led me to The Skeptics Guide to the Universe...and the rest is history.  Since June of last year I have managed to listen to every SGU episode, as well as start in on others like Skeptically Speaking and Astronomycast.  Thanks to those great people my life has completely changed and I have been freed from some seriously ridiculous beliefs as well as developing far better critical thinking skills.  The more I have learned though, the more I realize I don't know, as is often the case  []

Now to the actual topic at hand....

When it comes to global warming I am no longer a denier, I am however still somewhat skeptical of the urgency of change.  I don't see strong evidence that Europe is about to flood or that America will become a desert.  That of course is a fringe claim, and not one you are making. My stance is that we should definitely invest in efficiency and clean energy, but that the only realistic way for clean energy to be a reality is for it to be an economically sustainable solution and not just an environmentally sustainable solution.

As far as your points to my old argument...

The "31,000 scientists dissent" or whatever was referring to The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition Project.  If you google that you will find it.  It is not however compelling in any way as far as refuting global warming though.  It is nothing more than an argument from false authority on their part, since the "scientists" don't need to be and mostly aren't climate scientists.  On top of that, a petition doesn't really say anything about the science.  By using it as part of my argument I was making their same fallacy as well.

I do feel there are problems with the amount of evidence in favor of global warming though.  So far, it seems all of the evidence in favor of global warming only seems to qualify as a small preliminary study when you consider the magnitude and scale and variables involved in predicting global climate patterns.  The time span is a major problem as well, with our best data not covering anywhere near a long enough time span considering the topic. 

I don't mean this to imply that I think nothing is happening, just that I don't think we should fully leap into action without considering the full ramifications, and I don't think the need is urgent enough that we need to demolish the first world countries economies.

What do you think would be worse for the third world countries....the economic collapse of the first world and the cessation of all foreign aid, or a few degrees of global warming?

I don't think those are our only options though.  I think we can find a way to provide clean energy and limit global warming, as long as we focus on the best science as well as realistic global economics.  We need to find a solution that is both environmentally sustainable and economically sustainable.

Unfortunately I suspect the recent events in Japan will seriously hurt the nuclear program, which is currently our best and cheapest source of clean base load power.

[yor_on]

Yes, nuclear power might be a answer. If alternative energy sources can't satisfy our need then we need to look at it. But there you have the waste problem to consider too. Still, it's the best source we have when it comes to a lot of 'energy' quickly and relatively deliverable.

But if we are going to use it we have to make sure we don't just try to 'hide' our nuclear wastes. We need to have them under observation, we are not a species built for long time solutions, that's very easy to see. We might become at some later point but not yet. And it was nice reading you.
==

You're started on a 'spiritual journey' then norcalclimber, as a shaman might call it
Very cool, I wish you all luck, and your girlfriend sounds cool too.


As for the urgency? I don't know, I think we'll react when we react.
Hopefully soon? But it's like you say, one first need to decide if it's a problem or not.
And to do that in a meaningful way one need to discuss, and think by oneself.
Like you're doing.

Good on you both

[norcalclimber]

Thanks yor_on, although I think I would call it an anti-spiritual journey, or a journey of truth rather than spiritual  []

The girlfriend who showed me Skeptoid is now an ex-girlfriend, I'm trying to convert my current girlfriend to skepticism  []

As far as alternative energy being able to satisfy our need, I think it is safe to say that there is really nothing on the horizon which can come even close to satisfy our needs other than nuclear.  Home energy is the minority of the energy used, the rest is industrial/commercial. For that we need a large amount of power which is available on demand, which none of the other energy sources like wind and solar can produce.  Nuclear is extremely clean energy all things considered, especially compared to the only other reliable source....coal  []

I think calling the spent fuel from nuclear reactors "waste" is somewhat of a misnomer.  The leftover fuel is still mostly fissable material once it is run through a breeder reactor.  It's just cheaper to use what is currently plentiful natural uranium.  We should definitely store the material where we can access it, since in future generations or future reactors it may be highly cost effective to use the "waste" as primary fuel.

I believe I heard something about Thorium reactors being able to use "waste" from other reactors?? Not sure about that though.

[yor_on]

Norcalclimber

Oops, okay, she's still cool in my book, even though relations may change slightly and good luck with your new GF. 'Adversity is the first path to truth', as they say, just as 'necessity is the mother of invention'. ahem, couldn't stop myself there.. It's cool to argue, as long as one doesn't find oneself constantly dug in, in the trenches.

Anyway. I don't doubt that we at some time will develop strategies that works for taking care of nuclear waste, but until then there are two thing we should do.

1. Stop thinking 'long term solutions'. They don't exist, anywhere. And haven't existed since we first started to produce this waste 1954 at the USSR's Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant.

2. Nuclear safety. That is a must, the more people we become, the more it will be like in Japan where you have ? 18- ? who knows?? maybe 20-30 million people at a 220 km radius from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. That's way too many.. No infrastructure can take care of them if there's a panic, or a real radiation leak, or both. No logistics exist for that type of scenario, only the very worst wars has had anything similar to that kind of mass migrations. So many would die.

But there is some existing designs that seems better than others, like this one maybe? Pebble bed reactor. 

Not that it can take care of the wastes, but in that, if it break down, it might regulate itself. When it comes to radioactivity, parts of the nuclear waste 'half time' life is millions of years, if you by that mean that they should come down to the natural background radiation we have on Earth, and that seem a reasonable approach (60 millions I think?) and that's a extremely long period of time.

So we need to keep the waste where we can't succeed in 'forgetting it'. Because that's what we really want when we speak of 'long time storage'. We want someone to assure us that it 'will be okay' and then turn our backs on it and forget that it ever existed. Let the 'experts' deal with it sort of. But we can't afford that kind of solution, or rather, your kids can't.

So use better designs and let the waste be where we can see it, and do something about it before it starts to leak as in the German Salt mines. And we need to stop keeping spent fuel rods in the nuclear facility, They should be at those waste facility's where we can monitor waste on a daily basis. At least for now. The real problem in Fukushima is that there might be as many as 600 000 spent fuel rods, worst case scenario that is, in those pools. That's just not acceptable. And placing them a bit away from the reactors as in USA isn't any better, well, maybe a little, but they shouldn't be there at all in a best case scenario, if you ask me that is