Need to know????

[Michael Larson]

1jason,
Here are a couple of new books you should read. They are written by Scientists.
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars.../dp/1840468157

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Gl.../dp/0742551172

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

1jason,
Here are a couple of new books you should read. They are written by Scientists.
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars.../dp/1840468157

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Gl.../dp/0742551172

Have you read them?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Have you read them?

No, They just became available.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

No, They just became available.

Then why would you recommend them? I don't recommend anything before first reading it myself, is that what you normally do?

Actually, that would explain alot of your views on this subject.

[Michael Larson]

1jason, I highly doubt if you would read anything I suggested.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

1jason, I highly doubt if you would read anything I suggested.

Not if you are making blind assumptions on its relevance.

I get the feeling you need to sit down and really study subjects before entering into debates about them. Using "Goggle" to search and post others ideas on a certain subject does not make them valid, there is a lot of crap out there.

I'll make you a deal Michael, when the new IPCC report comes out next week lets both take some time to READ it, and then I will happily enter into debate with you about it.

Meanwhile, if you have some obscure report that is backed by more then two or three scientists that are not funded by oil companies, then please bring it forward and I will happily take a look at it.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Not if you are making blind assumptions on its relevance.

The point was not all scientists agree with you and the IPCC.

Originally Posted by Jason1

I get the feeling you need to sit down and really study subjects before entering into debates about them. Using "Goggle" to search and post others ideas on a certain subject does not make them valid, there is a lot of crap out there.

And I'm absolutely sure you should. Try reading other points of view. I have and do regularly.

Originally Posted by Jason1

I'll make you a deal Michael, when the new IPCC report comes out next week lets both take some time to READ it, and then I will happily enter into debate with you about it.

Trust me I intend to.

Originally Posted by Jason1

Meanwhile, if you have some obscure report that is backed by more then two or three scientists that are not funded by oil companies, then please bring it forward and I will happily take a look at it.

So the source of research funding has something to do with any conclusions drawn?
Are you sure you want to go there? Do you really think anybody who has a different view than you is funded by the big bad oil companies?

[Michael Larson]

Here are some reasonalble questions for "Global Warming" supporters. This is from Hannity and Colmes last night.
From the author of: Unstoppable Global Warming
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLMES: Professor Singer, we are seeing the CO-2 levels, though, rise in conjunction with the industrial revolution. How you can you discount the amount of pollution that's gone into the atmosphere since around 1900, in conjunction with manufacturing and what we have done to the environment? How you can discount that?
SINGER: Well, CO-2, of course, is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. In fact, it's essential to life. It's what all plants use in order to grow. Without CO-2, there would be no life on Earth. So let's get that very clear: It is not a pollutant.
It has increased. And it is undoubtedly the case that the human activities have led to the increase. But that doesn't prove it's the cause of warming. You see, it's just a correlation. And, for example, during much of the last century, the climate was cooling, while CO-2 was rising, so how do you explain that?

Here is the transcript: http://newsbusters.org/node/10525

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

I do not know about others but I do enjoy both your posts and I feel it adds to my thoughts .
Please keep it up .
I am sure many others also improve their thoughts and knowledge.
Thanks
Roy Cooke

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rcooke

I do not know about others but I do enjoy both your posts and I feel it adds to my thoughts .
Please keep it up .
I am sure many others also improve their thoughts and knowledge.
Thanks
Roy Cooke

Hey, thanks Roy. I hope jason1 feels the same way. We will all have to live with the decisions our politicians make in the next few years. I just hope we can all get better informed. We can't pretend that our politicians will always do the best thing for all of us.
I see there are quite a few views of this thread.
I hope more will ask a question or two so we can interact.

[Jason1]

Well, the early reviews on the new IPCC report are in.

It doesn't sound good Michael.

[Jason1]

Here's a link to the summary for policy makers.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Well, the early reviews on the new IPCC report are in.

It doesn't sound good Michael.

It isn't the report jason1 , just the political summary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change: is the science really settled? - Today, the IPCC releases its latest report on the science of climate change. At least, that's what the headlines will say. In fact, this is the first stage of a staggered publication of the organisation's Fourth Assessment Report (FAR), which supersedes the third report, published in 2001. But this first tranche is not, as might be expected, the full weighty document, in which all available evidence is evaluated and carefully summarised. Instead this is the so-called Summary for Policymakers (SPM), a short (only 14 pages in draft) summary of the key points. This is the text which nearly everyone will be quoting from over the coming months and years.
Not only is it an unusual step to publish the summary of a document which has not yet been finalised and released into the public domain, but the summary itself is not necessarily quite what it seems. Rather than simply being an attempt to summarise the main points from the much longer report, the SPM is a political document, agreed line by line by the governments of the countries which are members of the IPCC. Only the release of the complete chapter will enable those with sufficient staying power and understanding of the science to compare this with today's document, but the experience from the Third Assessment report was that there were clear messages coming from the SPM which did not necessarily represent a balanced view of the science. In other words, there was spin.
Interestingly, after a ramping up of concerns as the previous three assessment reports were published, the TAR tones down some of the more extreme projections which have been headlined in the past. The report seems set to say that, if carbon dioxide levels reach (and are constrained to) 550ppm (effectively a doubling of the reported pre-industrial average of 280ppm) the ultimate average temperature rise is likely to be 2-4.5 degrees C, which is a narrower range with a reduced upper limit. By the last decade of the century, projected temperature rise is in the range 1.7-4 degrees C compared with the 1980s, for a range of emissions scenarios. Sea level rise is projected as 28 to 43 centimetres over the century, with two-thirds of that being due to thermal expansion. These figures are lower than previously suggested.
However, the headline news will not be these projections or the fact that they have been moderated, but the fact that the IPCC now says that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are 'very likely' to be the primary driver of recent climate change. 'Very likely' is defined as between 90 and 95% certain. But this 'certainty', which will be used constantly to discredit any dissenters, is based on the unproven assumption that the climate scientists and modellers have such a good understanding of natural climate processes that additional greenhouse gas emissions are the only possible cause of rising temperatures in recent years.
At present, we regard the link as a plausible but unproven hypothesis. While modellers claim to be able to reproduce the very variable trends of the twentieth century (by including allowances for aerosols, for example), this smacks of tinkering to get the right answer rather than a way of improving the realism and reliability of the models. Only time will tell whether the projections are anywhere near right but, in the meantime, we should remember that there has been no upward temperature trend in the last eight years.
We are quite prepared to have our scepticism proved wrong if new and convincing evidence emerges. We could be wrong. It will be progress indeed when the IPCC and scientific establishment says the same.
We are pleased to say that the Frazer Institute, a Canadian think tank, will be launching its own Independent Summary for Policymakers in London on 5th February. We hope that this will help to foster debate. (Scientific Alliance)

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

It isn't the report jason1 , just the political summary.

I believe that is what I said, and posted. The whole report will be out soon.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

I believe that is what I said, and posted. The whole report will be out soon.

I was posting while you posted the above.