2 largest liars/skeptics on climate change admit it's happening and human caused

Master you are over 200 years old. That is so cool.

We've lost about half of our topsoil in the last 50 years. That is not good for sustaining us and we cannot continue at this pace. So I agree that there must also be a great emphasis on what our actions are doing regarding our soil and water. It is all connected.

Human's DON'T cause global warming, we may contribute to it, but very little. Global warming and global cooling come in cycles, it's been that way since the earth was formed. The Earth has natural cycles in which it heats and cools, this happens on a small scale every 40 to 50 years, and on a large scale every 40,000 or so years. Humans do have a MINOR impact on this cycle, however that impact is negligible, at the same time, it still does not give us the right to trash and destroy our environment. Global Warming is no longer in effect, and YOU are a fool if you think so. I live in Los Angeles, its August here, normally we experience upwards of 100 degrees everyday in August, however not once has the thermometer hit 100 this month, and has been consistently be at the 85 degree range this whole Summer. VERY unusual for California this time of year. There have been snowstorms in the tropics of Brazil also this year, killing off many species and fauna that live there. I remind you that the rain forests of Brazil are normally very warm and humid areas, so this type pf weather is unprecedented to say the least. There has been a worldwide record low temperature for the summer months, yet we are expected to believe that global warming is still in effect, and everyone that does not conform to that thought is labeled "retarded" and "ignorant". People need to wake up, Global COOLING is what everyone should be worried about, the warming period is over. People like Al Gore are the biggest scam artists in history. Have you ever stopped to wonder on why he's so passionate about the things he says, and all the "alternative" sources of energy he points out? Well, it might come as a shock to you that Al Gore holds ENORMOUS amounts of stocks in "alternative" energy sources he loves to make references to in speeches and films. He is undoubtedly one of the best sales men in history. As a matter of fact, he sometimes GROSSLY exaggerates the "findings" that he has made, making global "warming" look much worse than it is, however if he were to pay more attention, he'd realize we were actually coming into a period of global cooling...

Don't believe me? Well, before you vote me down, do a little research on recent climate trends over the last couple of years, you'll notice that things are changing in a completely different direction than you'd expect.

Case in point. Why do you assume that everyone follows Al Gore? Guess what I follow? The science. I'm not a fucking sheeple that believes whatever some rich political asshole tells me. The only thing I know about Al Gore is that he tried to run for president once.

"Global warming and global cooling come in cycles, it's been that way since the earth was formed."

Yes, yes, haven't heard that one before.

"Human's DON'T cause global warming, we may contribute to it, but very little."

Very little? So you're suggesting that the massive amounts of greenhouse gases we've dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years or so have had a very small effect? If you think so, you clearly have a hard time putting things into perspective. However, say you do have some scientific evidence for this, I'd love to see it.

"However, say you do have some scientific evidence for this, I'd love to see it."

Now you went and did it. You scared them off.;-)

I'll look through some of them. However, I must say, it's interesting how a good 20% of those articles are from the same journal, Energy & Environment. Now, the first thing that comes to mind is to search for info regarding this journal to see if I can come up with a reason why it appeared so many times. I assumed initially that it wasn't going to be good; it wasn't.

I found this, regarding the International Journal of Energy & Environment:

"Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticized for allowing the publication of substandard papers. Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton."

"Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a trade journal, with coverage from 1995. It defines trade journals as "A serial publication covering and intended to reach a specific industry, trade or type of business." and "Usually a glossy magazine type of periodical with articles on topical subjects, many news items and advertisements that will appeal to those in the field. Trade Journals are seldom refereed and do not always have an editorial board. Abstracts are usually short or non-existent, and few or no references are given."

"Climate skeptics on the journal's editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Contributors considered as climate skeptics or contrarians have included Sallie Baliunas, Robert M. Carter, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Garth Paltridge, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen.

When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"

Does this say anything about the quality of those papers? Of course. Does this disprove their claims? No, but their claims are probably woo. I'd have to go and read some of them. Admittedly, I don't really have time to read 130+ journal articles at the moment, but I might read a few. It's also worth noting that these are the papers (of the 800) that make the strongest controversial claims about climate change.

Can you show me the paper that has you believing the greenhouse effect is bunk?

"Any chance of you answering the questions I've been asking for months now?"

They were answered many times, by many other posters as well as myself over many months. You can play games here all you want, but the facts are clear.

You post BS links to non peer reviewed junk science and half the time don't even post links. You don't even know how the greenhouse effect works, and dispute the most basic premise regarding CO2. I have no more time to waste going back and forth with you. You got your answers.

And since you support the tripe written by the likes of tobacco company hack Fred Singer and Exxon sponsored Richard Lindzen whose Leipzig Declaration among other attempts to fake signatures was already proven a hoax. we already know what you are.

Again JanForGore fails to answer a basic question. Not one single person has answered my questions, but that's to be expected. What's more important is that you haven't answered a single direct question, in your own words - because you can't! You expect me to join in with your religious fantasy on your say-so. You really need to wake up and see what's going on around you, old lady, and stop pedaling your unsubstantiated propaganda.
Talking of tripe, you need to look into a few of the sources you use - talk about BS!
Fact is you haven't got a leg to stand on. You rant on and on with outdated cherry-picked information which was trashed years ago and expect people to believe their world is on its last legs because of nasty old humans.
Are all the peer reviewed papers written by Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen? All of them? And what's this trash about me not always posting links? Am I not allowed to write from what I know, have seen with my own eyes, and from what I've been told, personally, from people who have actually got off their backsides and seen the things you write about? When did you last go somewhere in the world and see life with your own eyes?
Why do you always talk about the state of the Arctic in such negative ways? Been there recently, have you? Ever flown over a piece of ice which, according to 'scientists', isn't there?
No. You sit in your chair and hunt out articles that you can use to blame people for, the floods, the heatwaves, the snow, the rain, the drought, anything that is not 60F and a warm breeze is unprecedented weather caused by global warming.
I don't even know how the greenhouse effect works? That's rich! You still think it's a nice blanket that keeps the earth cosy. Again, keep up will you! That diagram in my last post comes from NASA, so tell me, did they just forget to add the back radiation? Go on, you explain it to me, in your own words.
The man-made global warming theory died years ago. No-one doubts that the climate changes, but you cannot have it all your own way and blame everything that happens on man. For example here's two facts: the world warmed up to about 0.8C above the century average for a short period. At around the same time Mars warmed about the same amount. Are you going to explain to me why the earth's warming was man-made and Mars was natural?
Then explain to me why parts of Russia had a heatwave while other parts endured cooler than average temperatures? What mechanism causes that? I know, do you? Maybe you think there was a pooling of this wonder gas, CO2, and it managed to warm Moscow by back radiation? Maybe the CO2 has moved away from the southern hemisphere for the time being, seeing as it's pretty chilly down there. And are you expecting a northern hemisphere winter to be warm this year?
Remember this one, "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. 20 March 2000 ... "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," Dr David Viner, and for the last three years we've been having more and more snow. You see, just another one of the lunatic predictions by so-called scientists that manage to be so far off the mark. Oh but, global warming causes more snow, doesn't it? And if there had been no snow since the year 2000? Of course, global warming would be to blame for that too. It's hilarious, and to sit and read your rubbish, clinging onto every word Gore mutters, is sad, to say the least.
Why did the Arctic fail to melt again? Where has global warming gone? Why are all the scaremonger's predictions falling down like a pack of cards? It's just not working out for you, but hey, don't let facts get in the way eh, keep on telling us the Arctic is melting away, someone will believe you... eventually. Why aren't you telling us about Antarctica? Could it be because it's pretty damn cold down there at the moment and there's more ice than ever? Are you going to wait until their winter when someone spots some ice falling into the sea - it happens every year - to tell us we're in danger again? I can't wait.

Of course if you hunt out biased sources to discredit peer reviewed work you'll find it. Read some of the papers then come back and tell me why they're wrong, maybe that'll give you more credibility. One side always tries to debunk the other but one thing cannot be disputed, and that's the fact that real-world evidence (and sound science) always manages to prove the scaremongers wrong.

Anyway, you say a good 20% of the articles come from a source you're not content with, that's fair enough. How about the other 80%? As I said, read them and then tell me, or preferably the authors, why they're wrong.

"I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"
"...a bit, anyway" So maybe she does have other reasons for the beliefs she holds, it doesn't appear to be all political, does it?
Seeing as you're throwing quotes around, here's just a couple for you.
“I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth.

No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006

The greenhouse effect - more correctly should be known as the atmosphere effect because, as you know, the greenhouse effect has little in common with what happens in a greenhouse, unless you know better?
Look at the NASA diagram I presented earlier. Tell me, seeing as JanforGore can't, where is the back radiation in that chart? I'm not saying the atmosphere is empty and has no effect on the earth's temperature and weather, but to say that adding CO2 will cause more warming due to back radiation is complete and utter rubbish.

You're right, we can throw quotes around all day, so lets end that here.

Back radiation isn't on the NASA diagram because that diagram was made to show energy balance. The Earth absorbs and reflects radiation. All the radiation that is incident on the Earth eventually leaves, as shown in the diagram. The diagram is not meant to show what happens in between, and thus, back radiation isn't on it. FTA: "The Earth is in equilibrium with its surroundings, which means that the budget has to balance: energy going into the system must equal the amount exiting it." All the radiation that CO2 reflects back towards the Earth will eventually leave into space, just like the diagram shows. The whole idea of the greenhouse effect is that it "holds on" to the radiation for a longer period of time, not indefinitely. Basing your argument on a picture I could probably find in a grade 8 science textbook isn't really doing it for me.

The name "greenhouse effect" is merely to suggest that the mechanism leads to warmer surroundings, and is in no way indicative of the science behind it. Anyway, what it's called is irrelevant.

"CO2 will cause more warming due to back radiation is complete and utter rubbish."

No, it isn't, and you STILL haven't provided me with a good reason why it would be. There are people who spend years learning earth/atmospheric science, and people like you for some reason think you know it better than they do because you've read a few crappy journal articles. I especially like this one:

"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner"

They probably searched for something like 3 years to find a journal dumb enough to publish this article. Contrary to what they suggest, there is actually no violation of the second law of thermodynamics at all. They're full of shit.

You're joking right? You think because they changed a diagram that back radiation doesn't exist? Back radiation isn't the only thing they removed from the diagram. Looks more to me like they just decided to simplify it. In any case, arguing about the existence of back radiation via a diagram is unbelievably stupid, so I'm not commenting any further on it.

"There are any amount of diagrams in papers and journal articles. If diagrams aren't good enough for you then that's your problem."

You've taken a diagram, completely out of context, and shown it to me and told me that because back radiation isn't on it anymore, back radiation doesn't exist. Your only defense being that NASA made it, which means jack shit to me. I don't really know what else to say.

"You really show your immaturity sometimes."

I show my immaturity? I'm just trying to get an actual scientific explanation from you why back radiation doesn't exist. Do you have one? No! Of course you don't, because you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about. You can go through journal articles all day looking at diagrams and believing their conclusions but unless you understand the science, your just wasting your time. Just because something was published in a journal article doesn't mean its true. Crappy journal articles are published all the time. In that particular one, the writing is incoherent, and they come to completely wrong conclusions. The paper claims that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics because heat flows from a cold source to a hot source. Stupid. When heat flows from an object in the form of radiation, the radiation is emitted in all directions from the source object to any other object that will absorb it (regardless of its temperature). NET heat flow is always from hot to cold but there can be heat flow in all directions. Take for example, the radiative heat flows in the frequencies that our atmosphere will absorb. Just one of the reasons why the claims in that article are bullshit. You can read about some more of the problems with the physics in the article here: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html It doesn't take a genius to see it was published in a third rate science journal. You'd think such a revolutionary paper would be published in one of the worlds most prominent science journals. I bet they tried and got laughed at. It's not the first time I've seen that particular paper.

Tell you what, since you seem to be pretty confident about the views that you can't support, how about you go to a website with some more academics on it. Try posting some of your arguments here http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5 and see what they say. There are quite a few people on that website with graduate degrees who can straighten you out. Actually search the forums. Many of the arguments you have tried to make have been refuted there. Read some, learn some. I apologize for being an asshole, its just your ignorance towards science is astonishing. Our converstaions are over.

"I apologize for being an asshole"
Hey, don't worry about it. I come across people like you from time to time, it helps pass the day. Again, your immaturity and ignorance shine through, not to mention your foul language so, as you say, our conversation is over.
If you're ever in my neck of the woods feel free to look me up. I'll take you on a trip into the Arctic with a few learned friends who will be interested in your views and, believe me, you will have your eyes opened.
Take care :)

you wanna get in on this too Jan, read the links above, since you think I lack evidence.

Al Gore is the biggest skam artist in modern history, the sooner you realize that, the better.

Did you know arctic phytoplankton absorb more CO2 than all plants combined? Did you know since the 80's 25% have been depleted due to high temperatures? oh.

It's the CFCs that fucked us. So yes, humans do cause it.

"I know I'm on the loosing side of this argument because the Global warming and Greenhouse theories have become so popular, people are too full of themselves to look at it from a different angle."

You (and I) are on the loosing side of the argument here - but only here. I get the impression most climate realists don't bother with this site as it's the last bastion of the extremist few who cling to their ancient beliefs no matter what. You can taste the desperation by the way they attempt to defend their cause. How many more times can I be accused of being linked to oil...? And now I get slated for presenting a diagram! That's why I don't put too much effort into my posts here.

The original story here is about two people who now believe global warming is man-made whereas previously they were sceptics. Note how they're referred to in the topic title, 'liars/skeptics'! If were to have posted stories about defections in the other direction there wouldn't be much room for anything else. Opinion is changing fast throughout the scientific community and the public alike.
What people here fail to understand is science moves forward and new theories are proffered on an almost daily basis. Some of them may be slightly off the mark. Some of them have been debunked only by the clever use of 'false accounting'.
But what we find more and more is as old theories are knocked down, they have to invent new problems, new catastrophes and new predictions to replace the old ones. One fact remains, what happens in the real world does not reflect the predictions or theories of the scaremongers.
As you say, they cling desperately to CO2 as the cause when CO2 correlation with climate has been disproven so many times.

Holding onto old theories is easy, it's a comfortable place for them to be. Their ability to attribute almost any weather, or other negative event, to climate change (remember, it used to be called global warming before they couldn't sustain that title any longer) is becoming boring. We get the impression that the climate was stable, and probably near-perfect for billions of years until someone built a factory. But that's the problem with these people, they're anti-human, anti-progress and anti-science. They fail to see that man is moving onwards, things are improving for man in general, maybe that's why people live on average 30 years longer now. Instead, all they can do is complain, grumble and be negative, and the only thing they can find to blame for all the ills is the climate, the 'wrong' climate, made wrong by man, of course.

Well done, for presenting these links here. Some people will read them and at least think about opening their minds just enough to allow a little scepticism in, and they just might begin to question some of the things they've held as gospel for the last few years. Others, though, will only attack and ridicule, (just wait for the replies) but that's ok, some people will always be left behind.