Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[catmac]

Nothing like a good scaremongering scam to get your grubby paws on other peoples' money, is there JR?

Just a couple of items from today's BBC website -

"£4m climate change study launched

A five-year programme to study the impact of climate change in Wales on land, sea and atmosphere is under way.

Nearly 200 experts at Cardiff Aberystwyth, Bangor, and Swansea universities will be members of the £4m Climate Change Consortium or C3W."

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8381744.stm

"UK and France propose climate fund for poor

Mr Sarkozy is the first French leader to attend a Commonwealth summit

UK PM Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have proposed a multi-billion-dollar fund to help developing nations deal with climate change."

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8382014.stm

[RickBradford]

JR,

You are a true poster child for the Global Warming Scammers.

You pose as the beacon of science in a sea of ignorance. But you are so ill-informed you think that aphelion and perihelion cause the seasons...

Read and learn:

"When Earth is at perihelion, it is about 147 million km (91 million miles) from the Sun. When it is at aphelion, it is 152 million km (almost 95 million miles) from the Sun. Earth is about 5 million km (more than 3 million miles) further from the Sun at aphelion than at perihelion!

"Some people think that this is why we have seasons, but they are wrong. Earth reaches perihelion, its closest approach to the Sun and when you might think it should be warmest, in January - the middle of winter in the Northern Hemisphere! The difference in distance is not the cause of our seasons. Instead, seasons are caused by the tilt of Earth's axis."

Yes, you are a true GWS groupie. You know no science, but pretend you do in order to push your uninformed political agenda.

I left out critical information about the axis tilting.

Just like the "climate scientists" have a habit of doing.....

[JR Texas]

As stated, I left out the critical information about the earth's axis tilting........just a stupid omission.....careless writing.

Interesting, though, that it took an outsider (ballpoint) to catch the mistake.

Of course, aphelion and perihelion are not primary drivers of the seasons now......they do, however, play a small role.

Before you go on and on........you might want to read about Milankovitch cycles and the earth's orbit around the sun over geological time.

[ballpoint]

You are right........it is nice to know somebody reading this thread knows something about science........I left out critical information about the axis tilting.

But note that the earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical.......the earth is not the same distance from the sun all year.......you have the perihelion and aphelion.

Now, what is the subject of this thread........I almost forgot: Will the Gulf of Thailand Rise with Global Warming?

You think the water has been rising for thousands of years, so "no problem."

You know that the earth has undergone massive changes over long periods of time........at one time many of the places that are not currently under water were beneath the ocean (lots of marine fossils prove that).

At one time it was hotter than it is now. At another time is was colder.

The point that keeps getting lost if the pace of change.

In this case, the sea level rise could be rapid (in terms of geological time), particularly if both poles melt.

You can show an association between ice cream cones and global warming............fine. But how many scientists believe that ice cream cones cause global warming.........let me guess: NONE.

I've been reading this thread since its inception, but that was my first post on it. Some good links from both sides, a lot of head butting and conjecture, still, after 37 pages, I haven't seen anything that makes me change my views, so this will likely be my last. Unless some questions are raised by this post.

My point about the temperature vs icecreams was that you can plot any cause and effect mechanism and show a relationship - speed vs accelerator position, knotted hankies in the UK vs temperature, flared trousers vs hippies, temperature vs CO2..., the clever part is establishing which is the cause and which is the effect. Statistics and charts can be manipulated by anyone. Only by knowing the full picture can you make any real conclusion. How many scientists believe increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming? Many. How many scientists believe increased temperature causes increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Many. Chicken or egg? Given that the historical data seems to show around an 800 year lag between changes in temperature with changes in CO2, it appears that temperature change has been the cause, CO2 change the effect. Of course no one is going to take the temperature vs icecream data seriously, but I guarantee that you could show similar figures relating temperature with a less known effect to the general public and cause a deal of concern. Tell the average man in the street that there is a direct relationship between human consumption of Dihydrogenmonoxide and temperature, so we need to see it banned, and I'll bet there'll be takers. Yes, I'm taking a leaf out of Penn and Teller's book, although they didn't try and correlate it with global warming when they managed to get dozens of signatures banning water at a green conference, but that's not the point. The point is that data can be readily manipulated to make the uninformed come to the wrong conclusion. And like it or not, TV is not a scientific community.

So back to the thread topic. Will global warming cause the Gulf of Thailand to rise? No, only an earthquake or other cataclysmic event will do that. In fact, the northern reaches of the Gulf are actually subsiding. Will man made global warming cause the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand to rise is a better question. What are the possible answers?

1. No, because there's no such thing as man made global warming.

2. No, because we're too near the equator.

3. Yes, because if the sea level rises any where it will rise everywhere, although maybe not to the same extent.

4. Damned if I know, I'll say whatever neverdie says.

As I hoped to show by describing the subsea river channel; temperature change, and the corresponding melting or freezing of ice, have indeed caused the sea level in the Gulf to change in the past, so no doubt will do so again. If that's all this thread is about then it may be closed now. The causes of the warming are still open to debate, though personally, I swing to the natural causes myself. I'm funny that way.

[xminator]

I'm leaning on natural causes myself, but it sure aint helping that humans are filling the natural buffers against rapid changes. That a vulcano erruption would make things complete chaos is not an excuse to keep poluting and creating a smaller chaos...

I'm also a firm believer in using technology to "save the planet", or at least making sure our footprint is as small as possible. Recycling, use of renevable energy sources etc etc. Its sure as hel_l too late to go back living with nature, would be a environmental disaster if 6 billion people tried to do that...

[JR Texas]

You are right........it is nice to know somebody reading this thread knows something about science........I left out critical information about the axis tilting.

But note that the earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical.......the earth is not the same distance from the sun all year.......you have the perihelion and aphelion.

Now, what is the subject of this thread........I almost forgot: Will the Gulf of Thailand Rise with Global Warming?

You think the water has been rising for thousands of years, so "no problem."

You know that the earth has undergone massive changes over long periods of time........at one time many of the places that are not currently under water were beneath the ocean (lots of marine fossils prove that).

At one time it was hotter than it is now. At another time is was colder.

The point that keeps getting lost if the pace of change.

In this case, the sea level rise could be rapid (in terms of geological time), particularly if both poles melt.

You can show an association between ice cream cones and global warming............fine. But how many scientists believe that ice cream cones cause global warming.........let me guess: NONE.

I've been reading this thread since its inception, but that was my first post on it. Some good links from both sides, a lot of head butting and conjecture, still, after 37 pages, I haven't seen anything that makes me change my views, so this will likely be my last. Unless some questions are raised by this post.

My point about the temperature vs icecreams was that you can plot any cause and effect mechanism and show a relationship - speed vs accelerator position, knotted hankies in the UK vs temperature, flared trousers vs hippies, temperature vs CO2..., the clever part is establishing which is the cause and which is the effect. Statistics and charts can be manipulated by anyone. Only by knowing the full picture can you make any real conclusion. How many scientists believe increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming? Many. How many scientists believe increased temperature causes increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Many. Chicken or egg? Given that the historical data seems to show around an 800 year lag between changes in temperature with changes in CO2, it appears that temperature change has been the cause, CO2 change the effect. Of course no one is going to take the temperature vs icecream data seriously, but I guarantee that you could show similar figures relating temperature with a less known effect to the general public and cause a deal of concern. Tell the average man in the street that there is a direct relationship between human consumption of Dihydrogenmonoxide and temperature, so we need to see it banned, and I'll bet there'll be takers. Yes, I'm taking a leaf out of Penn and Teller's book, although they didn't try and correlate it with global warming when they managed to get dozens of signatures banning water at a green conference, but that's not the point. The point is that data can be readily manipulated to make the uninformed come to the wrong conclusion. And like it or not, TV is not a scientific community.

So back to the thread topic. Will global warming cause the Gulf of Thailand to rise? No, only an earthquake or other cataclysmic event will do that. In fact, the northern reaches of the Gulf are actually subsiding. Will man made global warming cause the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand to rise is a better question. What are the possible answers?

1. No, because there's no such thing as man made global warming.

2. No, because we're too near the equator.

3. Yes, because if the sea level rises any where it will rise everywhere, although maybe not to the same extent.

4. Damned if I know, I'll say whatever neverdie says.

As I hoped to show by describing the subsea river channel; temperature change, and the corresponding melting or freezing of ice, have indeed caused the sea level in the Gulf to change in the past, so no doubt will do so again. If that's all this thread is about then it may be closed now. The causes of the warming are still open to debate, though personally, I swing to the natural causes myself. I'm funny that way.

You said, "statistics and charts can be manipulated by anyone." I agree.......they can. But the data on climate change has been gleaned from responsible scientists who are publishing in peer review journals.

I can tell you with certainty that articles that are peer reviewed are, in almost all cases, not fraudulent. The reviewers (often the best people in a particular field of study) catch that........they reject the article or ask for a revision.

The "chicken and egg/temp. and CO2 thing.......we have gone over that numerous times already. Over geological time, it does appear that temperature goes up and then CO2 goes up.......but that is part of the natural cycle.

What we are witnessing now is CO2 levels rising very abruptly with no huge temperature rise coming before it.........it does not make sense unless you consider human beings as the "problem." We have created a cycle that is not natural. That is one way to look at it.

With all of the scientists and scientific institutions presenting evidence that "man-made global warming" is real, how can you claim it is not?

We are too close to the equator, so sea levels will not rise here. That has also been discussed (thankfully, given that it is the actual topic). The Thai scientist in question did not state (and I know because I took the time to read his article and not quotes in newspapers) that the sea level would not rise under any and all conditions.

He did point out that the equatorial region is a bit different.......for various reasons (some of which I did not understand........you need to be an oceanographer, I think to fully grasp it). And he wasn't talking about worse case scenarios. He addressed your point #3 above.

Again, I think he would agree that if both poles melt the sea level will rise significantly.

[RickBradford]

I left out the critical information about the earth's axis tilting........just a stupid omission.....careless writing.

No, that won't do at all.

During that time, the earth gets close to the sun (we call that summer) and its heat increases.

That is arrant nonsense, a fourth-grade fail, and you should acknowledge you know nothing about planetary science, while seeming to feel you have the right to criticize everyone else for "pseudo-science."

Your attempt to weasel away your ignorance is eerily similar to that of your "responsible scientists and politicians" who refuse to question their own righteousness and who believe equally fatuous and incorrect notions.

[dman961]

Who cares... like he said, Thailand will be fine...

[chuckd]

It may surprise you, but the earth is not flat. It is round. It orbits the sun. Tthe sun does not orbit the earth. It takes 365 days for the earth to make a complete orbit around the sun.

During that time, the earth gets close to the sun (we call that summer) and its heat increases.

It also gets distant from the earth (we call that winter) and its heat decreases. Up and down......decline, increase...........this is natural.

Following along with your theory that the earth is not flat , does it not stand to reason that if you stand on the highest mountain on that earth it would be incredibly hot?

If the nearest to the sun is hottest, why is Mt. Everest covered in snow year around?

The top of the mountain is closer to the sun than the valleys beneath it.

You are always entertaining, Big Tex.

[JR Texas]

I'm leaning on natural causes myself, but it sure aint helping that humans are filling the natural buffers against rapid changes. That a vulcano erruption would make things complete chaos is not an excuse to keep poluting and creating a smaller chaos...

I'm also a firm believer in using technology to "save the planet", or at least making sure our footprint is as small as possible. Recycling, use of renevable energy sources etc etc. Its sure as hel_l too late to go back living with nature, would be a environmental disaster if 6 billion people tried to do that...

Why lean on natural causes when the data clearly show human environmentally unsound economic activities are causing climate change?

A volcanic eruption would make things much worse, as it has done in the past.

Yes, using technology is probably our best bet.

I think we need to embrace a totally new energy system. To get us past our current problems, it must be decentralized, environmentally sound and inexpensive.

We already have over 6 billion people on the planet........with more to come. All of them want to live like Americans.

If we try to improve their quality of life using Stone Age Technology, it will not work......it will be an environmental disaster worse than what we are witnessing now.

Too many people engaged in environmentally unsound economic activities.........it is a real disaster in the making. The only way to make it work is to promote population reduction and introduce a novel system of energy that will allow economic activity to continue without massive damage to the environment.

Nobody is talking about going back to nature in the sense of reducing our quality of life.........that might, however, happen if we continue to embrace the ideas BIG OIL wants us to embrace.

No, the only way to keep economic growth and development on track is to pursue a novel energy platform. Scientists and responsible politicians are talking about it. For now, however, there is too much talk and not enough action.

Some physicists are working on it. But we need to be more outspoken about it and demand it from our politicians......it should be priority #1....it should be our most important security issue.

I know we can develop an energy system that is appropriate for the 21st century. We simply have to take collective action.

[teatree]

So Teabag is not able to answer the questions I posed......figures.

"1) Why do you think BIG OIL does not exist?"

BO exists, but it isn't the overlord of world power that you make it out to be and doesn't fund EVERY scientist who doubts AGW.

"2) Why do you think BIG GOVERNMENT does not exist?"

BG exists and with the help of AGW it has the opportunity to get MUCH bigger.

"3) What evidence do you have that the variables I have touched on are not related? Do you have alternative explanations? Entertain us with them."

CO2 levels are rising, so too is world population, but this has little to do with temperature. CO2 does not and has never driven climate. Under your logic temperature should be rising exponentially in response to rising CO2. Instead the world is entering a cooling period driven largely by changes in solar activity.

"4) Why do you think BIG OIL has nothing to gain by stopping positive change on the energy front?"

I didn't say it has nothing to gain.

"5) Why do you think developing a decentralized, inexpensive, environmentally friendly energy system is a bad thing?"

What you described sounds great, where is it? When is it coming? You talk about decentralisation but fully embrace a movement towards greater centralisation with carbon taxation and carbon rationing.

"6) Why do you insist that we continue using Stone Age Technology?"

The stone age is where we will have to return to if CO2 levels are to return to the levels thought necessary by the IPCC.

[teatree]

In spite of the almost complete blackout in the mainstream media regarding 'ClimateGate' I think it has the potential to deliver a knockout blow to the 'warmers' agenda.

Even AGW supporting IPCC scientists (see below) are saying that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process, due to them not being credible anymore. (JR. your beloved 'realclimate', the one you are constantly telling us to go to for the REAL science, that is Michael Mann's website. Crying out BIG OIL isn't going to work this time)

Eduardo Zorita's statement - http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process

Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a layer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the 'hockey stick graph' or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

Edited November 28, 2009 by teatree

[JR Texas]

Here is something that is relevant to the topic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm

The Gulf of Thailand will not escape a significant rise in sea level if the glaciers melt, the ice packs melt, and the oceans continue to expand via thermal expansion.

The good news is that responsible scientists and politicians, as I write this, are trying to find solutions.

[teatree]

IPCC expert reviewer Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along'

Nothing about the revelations surprises me. I have maintained email correspondence with most of these scientists for many years, and I know several personally. I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise.

When you enter into a debate with any of them, they always stop cold when you ask an awkward question. This applies even when you write to a government department or a member of Parliament. I and many of my friends have grown accustomed to our failure to publish and to lecture, and to the rejection of our comments submitted prior to every IPCC report.

But only recently did I realize that I had evidence of their fraud in my possession almost from the birth of my interest in the subject.

I had copies of these two papers in 1990:

Jones, P. D., P. Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W. C. Wang & T. R. Karl 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172.

Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380.

The first paper has been the major evidence presented by Jones in all of the IPCC reports to dismiss the influence of urban change on the temperature measurements, and also has been used as an excuse for the failure to mention most of the unequivocal evidence that such urban effects exist. The paper was even dragged out again for the 2007 IPCC report.

The second paper, which shared authors Wang and Karl from the first paper, used the very same data from China which the first paper used to demonstrate the absence of urban influence — yet instead concluded that same data to be proof of the existence of urban influence.

In 2007, the following paper exposed the whole business:

Keenan, D.”The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyug Wang. Energy and Environment, 18, 985-995.

The author Keenan obtained the original Chinese data and found the claim that the data referred to a continuous series was unfounded. He accused Wang of fraud — and it is interesting to read that Tom Wigley (of the CRU emails) agrees with him.

Wigley fails to say, however, that his colleagues Jones and Karl are guilty of much worse than Wang — as they continued to use their fraudulent paper to boost their constant and sometimes daily assertion that recent global temperatures are unprecedented.

Wang was cleared of fraud by his university. But what about Jones and Karl?

In 1999, I had a stroke of luck. I asked one of the IPCC officials for the data from which one of their maps was compiled, and I received it. I wrote a paper analyzing the results and submitted it to Geophysical Research Letters. They just sat on it. I instead published it on John Daly’s website. Today, it is still the only paper recognized by Google on “Regional Temperature Change.”

I now know my paper was not critical enough, since we have proof that the basic data and its processing is far more dubious than I had envisaged.

I tried to update my paper and resubmit it. Nothing doing. Since the small group — revealed within the CRU emails — control most of the peer reviewers, very few peer reviewed papers which criticize that group are allowed to appear in the most prominent published literature which dominates the academic establishment.

I have only been able to find a place to release my criticisms on the internet, now the only realm where unfettered scientific discussion is possible.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-...-pjm-exclusive/

[RickBradford]

And luckily, people are now actively pursuing these charlatans.

Around 30,000 scientists now plan to sue Al Gore for fraud, including the guy who founded the Weather Channel.

It's taken a while, but the global warming scammers are a busted flush, and their sheep-like followers will have to find some new "scare" on which to focus their dim-bulb attention.

[JR Texas]

Is it possible that a few irresponsible scientists have distorted data? Yes.

Is it possible that all of the scientists are "fudging data?"

Anything is possible, but this is so unlikely as to almost make it impossible.

The reason is simple: The peer review process is designed to catch blatant misrepresentations of "fact." A scientist/scholar has too much to lose to engage in deception.......they stand to lose their jobs......careers......status, etc.

It has happened in the past, but it is rare.

Have scientists studied the UHIE on temperature? Yes, and they found that its impact was negligible.

Even if true, it does not explain, for example, ice core data that goes back long before the UHIE even surfaced as a possible factor.

For more, follow this link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...an-heat-island/

[brahmburgers]

So back to the thread topic. Will global warming cause the Gulf of Thailand to rise? No, only an earthquake or other cataclysmic event will do that.

Earthquake or tsunami caused by other natural phenomena (volcano, giant landslide, typhoon) coupled with high tides - could cause serious problems for Bangkok and other low lying inhabited areas.

It could bode ill for any of the (at least) four nuclear reactors that Thailand's EGAT is determined to build along Thailand's coasts.

For those reasons and others, I don't agree with Ballpoint, that only an earthquake or other cataclysmic event will cause the Gulf of Thailand to rise.

Off the Netherlands, for example, sea levels rose by some 20cm in the last 100 years. But the country's national Delta Commission predicts they will increase by up to 1.3m by 2100 and by as much as 4m by 2200.

excerpt from BBC article which JR Texas recommended

People in places like the Netherlands know how to take accurate measurements, and have been doing so for decades. People in places like Bangkok and Maputo and Dacca and Shanghai are not as adept, but sea waters there (and countless other low-lying cities) could be rising at least as much as Rotterdam.

I suggest any folks who reside near a portion of Thailand's coastline set up their own scientific posts to measure the rise of fall of the sea water levels. Those of us who are concerned, can sit back and rely upon Thai scientists to so do, but they're the same bunch who had no inkling that a tsunami could affect Thailand, so how reliable are they? The same bunch who, if asked to tell the time (if the big hand was at 11 and the small hand near six) would tell you it's six o'clock. The same bunch who can't figure out how to change the battery in a buoy out at sea.

Edited November 29, 2009 by brahmburgers

[JR Texas]

Thanks for the post.......I have, however, met some good scientists at Chulalongkorn University.......they are not all bad.

Still, they are not the same types of scholars you find at top universities in the West.........I certainly get your point.

I think it would be a good idea to get Thai students involved in this.....measuring changes in sea level. Somebody needs to push the idea.

I just found a good movie........the BOLs like to post movies, so here is one for the other side:

Also a very good link to useful information: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/

[ballpoint]

So back to the thread topic. Will global warming cause the Gulf of Thailand to rise? No, only an earthquake or other cataclysmic event will do that.

Earthquake or tsunami caused by other natural phenomena (volcano, giant landslide, typhoon) coupled with high tides - could cause serious problems for Bangkok and other low lying inhabited areas.

It could bode ill for any of the (at least) four nuclear reactors that Thailand's EGAT is determined to build along Thailand's coasts.

For those reasons and others, I don't agree with Ballpoint, that only an earthquake or other cataclysmic event will cause the Gulf of Thailand to rise.

My point was a pedantic one, but is really the only answer to the thread title. The Gulf of Thailand is a geographical entity, determined by the shape of the land surrounding it. You might as well ask will Koh Samui rise with global warming? No, any change in sea level will make it bigger or smaller, and its relative height above sea level will change, but it won't have risen or fallen. You'd be perfectly correct to ask would the Pacific Ocean, or the South China Sea rise with global warming, because then you'd be talking about a body of water. However, gulf, bay, inlet, bight, cove, etc etc are defined by the surrounding land mass, and you need to add the qualifier "waters in the..." to refer to the liquid part. But, if you had included the remainder of my post in your quote you would have seen that. Pedantic I know. I really should stop staying up all night watching rugby.

(By the way, if volcanoes, tsunamis, giant landslides and typhoons aren't cataclysmic events then what are?)

Edited November 29, 2009 by ballpoint

[ballzafire]

And luckily, people are now actively pursuing these charlatans. Around 30,000 scientists now plan to sue Al Gore for fraud, including the guy who founded the Weather Channel. It's taken a while, but the global warming scammers are a busted flush, and their sheep-like followers will have to find some new "scare" on which to focus their dim-bulb attention.

Yeah. Like the new "threat" of global COOLING... LOL.

[JR Texas]

And luckily, people are now actively pursuing these charlatans. Around 30,000 scientists now plan to sue Al Gore for fraud, including the guy who founded the Weather Channel. It's taken a while, but the global warming scammers are a busted flush, and their sheep-like followers will have to find some new "scare" on which to focus their dim-bulb attention.

Yeah. Like the new "threat" of global COOLING... LOL.

Wow.......you are all connected like some machine......same propaganda line at the same time. Borg Hive?

The "over 30,000 scientists sue Al Gore for fraud" is a hoot. This type of crap just sprouted all over the internet.

It is truly amazing that people will just swallow whatever BIG OIL wants them to swallow.

The consensus on global warming is, in fact, increasing. It is real, human induced and causing climate change.

You would think that would be obvious to any person examining photographs of glaciers over time.......but nooooooooo.

The scary part is that the BOLs (BIL OIL LOBBYISTS) don't seem to want to solve problems......only magnify them.

It is interesting that you are projecting on to the other camp your own views.

Here is something interesting: http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersN

It shows how desperate the BOLs have become........the are afraid we might actually move away from our current Stone Age Fossil Fuel Energy System.

Of course, that is the last thing BIG OIL wants.

[RickBradford]

The consensus on global warming is, in fact, increasing. It is real, human induced and causing climate change.

You would think that would be obvious to any person examining photographs of glaciers over time.......but nooooooooo.

Coming from somebody who thinks that summer happens because the earth gets closer to the sun, I don't think I'll buy into your Jill & John "science" on glaciers.

Edited November 29, 2009 by RickBradford

[JR Texas]

Please tell us why the glaciers are melting?

[PhilHarries]

We are too close to the equator, so sea levels will not rise here. That has also been discussed (thankfully, given that it is the actual topic). The Thai scientist in question did not state (and I know because I took the time to read his article and not quotes in newspapers) that the sea level would not rise under any and all conditions.

He did point out that the equatorial region is a bit different.......for various reasons (some of which I did not understand........you need to be an oceanographer, I think to fully grasp it). And he wasn't talking about worse case scenarios. He addressed your point #3 above.

Again, I think he would agree that if both poles melt the sea level will rise significantly.

The Gulf of Thailand will not escape a significant rise in sea level if the glaciers melt, the ice packs melt, and the oceans continue to expand via thermal expansion.

The good news is that responsible scientists and politicians, as I write this, are trying to find solutions.

A week is a long time in politics and 24 hours is too long for JR to remember diddly squat.

You sir, are a fraud, a snake oil salesman and you can't even get your own b*llsh*t in order.

That sums up all these scientific scammers and exposes them for what they are. Liars and merchants of panic for their own financial gain.

You and your like have been publicly defrocked and now have your ar5es out the window.

[JR Texas]

So, you agree or disagree with what I said about the topic?

Are you saying sea level will rise?

[brahmburgers]

Are we assuming all the comparison photos re; glaciers are falsified? To who's advantage is that?

On the one hand, I can fathom scientists and pseudo scientists jumping on the 'golbal warming' bandwagon - particularly when they see lucrative funding opportunities. I can also acknowledge off-kilter schemes which try to benefit. For example, I'm not convinced the carbon bartering schemes are smart.

For those who steadfastly argue that GW and particularly human exacerbated GW are giant hoaxes, my question is: What, if anything, would it take to show them that GW is real?

For example, if the Arctic and/or the NW passage over Canada went ice-free during the summer months, would that suffice?

Or, if a series of major cities and/or ocean islands became permanently flooded - would that tip their opinions? Or is the anti-GW fixation so indelible (among some), that nothing whatsoever could cause a change of outlook?

I like to think I'm open minded enough that, if the evidence shows proof, I could adjust my outlook. In other words, if temperatures stay in a somewhat normal range and/or glaciers return to and maintain their historic ranges and/or the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic don't lose additional %'s of their ice cover, then I'll go along with believing GW is out the window. I'm also open the possibility of global cooling, though current data appears to indicate an overall warming trend.

[teatree]

Are we assuming all the comparison photos re; glaciers are falsified? To who's advantage is that?

On the one hand, I can fathom scientists and pseudo scientists jumping on the 'golbal warming' bandwagon - particularly when they see lucrative funding opportunities. I can also acknowledge off-kilter schemes which try to benefit. For example, I'm not convinced the carbon bartering schemes are smart.

For those who steadfastly argue that GW and particularly human exacerbated GW are giant hoaxes, my question is: What, if anything, would it take to show them that GW is real?

For example, if the Arctic and/or the NW passage over Canada went ice-free during the summer months, would that suffice?

Or, if a series of major cities and/or ocean islands became permanently flooded - would that tip their opinions? Or is the anti-GW fixation so indelible (among some), that nothing whatsoever could cause a change of outlook?

I like to think I'm open minded enough that, if the evidence shows proof, I could adjust my outlook. In other words, if temperatures stay in a somewhat normal range and/or glaciers return to and maintain their historic ranges and/or the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic don't lose additional %'s of their ice cover, then I'll go along with believing GW is out the window. I'm also open the possibility of global cooling, though current data appears to indicate an overall warming trend.

Nobody is denying that the Earth went through a warming period. The skeptics just think its entirely natural and the kind of increase has happened many times before as can be seen in the ice core records.

[rabcbroon]

Global warming is a scam. The truth is out so let not be bullied by the shills and liberal nutters anymore

[nisakiman]

And luckily, people are now actively pursuing these charlatans. Around 30,000 scientists now plan to sue Al Gore for fraud, including the guy who founded the Weather Channel. It's taken a while, but the global warming scammers are a busted flush, and their sheep-like followers will have to find some new "scare" on which to focus their dim-bulb attention.

Yeah. Like the new "threat" of global COOLING... LOL.

It shows how desperate the BOLs have become........the are afraid we might actually move away from our current Stone Age Fossil Fuel Energy System.

Of course, that is the last thing BIG OIL wants.

JR, I've repeated ad nauseum that your much castigated BIG OIL in fact invests massive amounts of money in research into alternative energy sources, but because that doesn't fit in with your pet theory, you have totally ignored what I pointed out. So perhaps you should have a look at this, and this and this.

Not that it will change your mind, I'm sure. You seem unable to absorb any information that contradicts your total commitment to the religion of AGW.

[JR Texas]

Not that it will change your mind, I'm sure. You seem unable to absorb any information that contradicts your total commitment to the religion of AGW.

Alternative sources of energy that exist today are things that can be used as we make the transition to a decentralized, clean, inexpensive system appropriate for the 21st century.

My concern is that BIG OIL will only push for centralized systems that they can control for BIG PROFITS.........note: I am calling for a decentralized system that will liberate humanity from dependency on BIG OIL.

Again, you are projecting on to the opposition your own position that is mired in emotion/religion. There is no religion of global warming/climate change. The findings are based on science and reason, not emotion and religion.

What we desperately need today are new leaders who can generate real change on the energy front.

Leadership is important. History teaches us that, if nothing else. Hitler, for all his faults, was a master at manipulating information. He actually managed to convince a large segment of the German population at that time to hate the Jews.

Kennedy, on the other hand, was also a master at manipulating information. He managed to convince a large segment of the American population that we could and should go to the moon.........and we did it.

So, information and leadership are critical. In some cases, information and leadership can cause us to do horrible things. In other cases, it information and leadership can cause us to do amazing things.

Now, we are using the scientific consensus on global warming/climate change to create a political structure that will solve the problem.

The last thing we need in terms of a solution is one that BIG OIL can control.

You seem to be saying that you think BIG OIL is doing what it can to move us beyond fossil fuel energy sources. I disagree totally. I think BIG OIL is doing everything in its power to prevent positive change on the energy front.

That is, in fact, why they are funding a massive propaganda campaign to make the public believe that the entire scientific community is corrupt to the core and that all the data is being manipulated to create BIG GOVERNMENT.

That is why they are funding a massive propaganda campaign that is designed to discredit Al Gore. I imagine they have a group of people following him around and recording everything he says, just waiting for one misstatement so that they can take it out of context and post it on the internet and claim "fraud" or "idiot" or whatever.

When you can't dispute scientific facts you are left with few options........one of them is to attack the messenger. In the case of the BOLs, they are intent on attacking any messenger on the other side of the fence.

But it will not work. It is not working. You can attack the messenger all you want, but that does nothing to alter scientific facts. And the scientific facts appear crystal clear: Environmentally unsound human economic activities are causing global warming/climate change. Population growth is exacerbating the problem.

As stated many times before, the good news is that responsible scientists and politicians are focusing on solutions (right now).

I just hope that the solution will involve a decentralized energy system that BIG OIL cannot control. I also hope the solution will involve a true commitment to radically reduce the size of the human population via family planning.