Founder of Global Warming doubted it prior to his death.

[x-y-no]

It isn't so much that you abuse power. Obviously, you wield power on the site and that combined with your firmly entrenched belief of GW makes debating you impossilbe.
I get this; however, that doesn't make your position on GW correct.

This makes no sense. If you're not trying to imply that I'd abuse my power, what possible relevance does my position on this board have with debating me?

Lastly there is substantial evidence against man made global warming or at leat minimal and more and more scientists are coming out to say so, yet many are not due to fear. Why should they be afraid to speak their opinion? Why are their careers being threatened, why are they attacked? Ask yourself, who stands to loose significantly should lack of man made GW be exposed? Getting this right is hugely important to the worlds economies. Too much political and financial gain, I believe is skewing things.

It's simply not true that "there is substantial evidence against man made global warming." But to the extent anyone here thinks they have any such evidence, discussion of that is welcome here. But if I or someone else presents arguments refuting that evidence that's also part of the welcome discussion. Presenting refutations is not the same as suppressing evidence.

What is not allowed by the rules of this site is straying from direct discussion of facts and evidence to speculations or assertions about political motivations.

Lastly, I respect you X-Y-No and your opinion. It would be nice if GW'ers gave equal respect and tolerance for differing view points with out the hype, fear, intimidation and absolutist thinking to get to get to the actual science. people don't respond well to 5 alarm fire, sky is falling mentallity. History is chalked full of mistakes when people respond to this mentality.

Serious discussion of facts and evidence are worthy of respect and I maintain that they get it here. What is not worthy or respect is repetition of false and refuted claims.

[vbhoutex]

I am going to step in here and make a statement. The admins and the rest of the staff on this site keep a lot closer watch on postings than some may realize. If ANYONE-THIS INCLUDES OUR ENTIRE STAFF, does not follow the rules of engagement on this site they are subject to the same rules as anyone else. If any member feels that a staff member is abusing their position feel free to contact another staff person, preferably an admin, concerning it. DO NOT CONTINUE TO BRING THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION TO THE OPEN BOARD. This goes for both members and staff and I can guarantee you our staff knows all about these types of assertions whether they are made against staff or a member. We will and do act according to the rules of this site in any case that is brought to our attention. We do not and WILL NOT discuss any of the results or actions on the open board and ask the same of any involved.

[Sanibel]

You can only use amplitude to explain unusual low temperatures or conditions up to the point temperature averages drop. Then you are in a cooling trend you can't blame on amplitude.

If the science shows us a cooling trend then let's recognize it and let's recognize it fast. This would be fascinating because it would buck global warming predictions and would also be the only CO2 increase in recorded data where a significant CO2 spike was accompanied by a temperature drop.

One thing that can't be argued however is record temperatures in Australia don't conform to a cooling trend and do conform to gw. A subtle hint nature threw at us was a 69* high temperature in Melbourne a day or two later. That was 49f degrees below the 118 degree high in their equivalent of August! These drastic shifts of extremes are predicted symptoms of global warming. Neglecting this data is, to me, like letting "brush" build up.

[x-y-no]

You're quite right, David. I apologize for my part in extending this exchange and I'll end it right here.

[caneman]

It isn't so much that you abuse power. Obviously, you wield power on the site and that combined with your firmly entrenched belief of GW makes debating you impossilbe.
I get this; however, that doesn't make your position on GW correct.

This makes no sense. If you're not trying to imply that I'd abuse my power, what possible relevance does my position on this board have with debating me?

I imply that your power on this site makes you even more entrenched in your position. I'm not sure that would qualify as abusing power. PLease remember there are 2 sides to every coin.

Lastly there is substantial evidence against man made global warming or at leat minimal and more and more scientists are coming out to say so, yet many are not due to fear. Why should they be afraid to speak their opinion? Why are their careers being threatened, why are they attacked? Ask yourself, who stands to loose significantly should lack of man made GW be exposed? Getting this right is hugely important to the worlds economies. Too much political and financial gain, I believe is skewing things.

It's simply not true that "there is substantial evidence against man made global warming." But to the extent anyone here thinks they have any such evidence, discussion of that is welcome here. But if I or someone else presents arguments refuting that evidence that's also part of the welcome discussion. Presenting refutations is not the same as suppressing evidence.

Evidence has been brought forward repeatedly. You can refute it all you want. When a person is so firmly entrenched in an opinion they can refutiate anything but alas it doesn't make them right. I'm sure you get this.

What is not allowed by the rules of this site is straying from direct discussion of facts and evidence to speculations or assertions about political motivations.

Excuse me, I did not do this. Your original argument stated was that this subject bordered on the political thereby breaching board rules by taking it even close to that realm. Not to mention the fact and more importantly it is an attempt to neautralize someone bringing forth evidence that is available to the masses and in print. You see your assertion of the argument is merely opinion and this I'm afraid you don't get. How can anyone argue with you when an article is posted and simply is flipantly shot down as political, the guy is whacko, et.al.

Lastly, I respect you X-Y-No and your opinion. It would be nice if GW'ers gave equal respect and tolerance for differing view points with out the hype, fear, intimidation and absolutist thinking to get to get to the actual science. people don't respond well to 5 alarm fire, sky is falling mentallity. History is chalked full of mistakes when people respond to this mentality.

Serious discussion of facts and evidence are worthy of respect and I maintain that they get it here. What is not worthy or respect is repetition of false and refuted claims.

Every argument that has been forth against GW has been shot down by you as mad science. Who gave you the title to decide if something is correct or not? You can have an opinion. I have never ever seen you support any claim against man made GW. So, if you are telling me that you are 100% correct in your opinions/facts then you are up with with God.

And lastly, In order to stay in line with board rules and civility, I'm done with this. If you wish to respond to my posts in the future. Please do so. However, if you wish to discount an article or science please do so with evidence and opinion not absolutist thinking else you are saying you know more than the author/scientist and that my friend is hard to respect..

[caneman]

You can only use amplitude to explain unusual low temperatures or conditions up to the point temperature averages drop. Then you are in a cooling trend you can't blame on amplitude.

If the science shows us a cooling trend then let's recognize it and let's recognize it fast. This would be fascinating because it would buck global warming predictions and would also be the only CO2 increase in recorded data where a significant CO2 spike was accompanied by a temperature drop.

One thing that can't be argued however is record temperatures in Australia don't conform to a cooling trend and do conform to gw. A subtle hint nature threw at us was a 69* high temperature in Melbourne a day or two later. That was 49f degrees below the 118 degree high in their equivalent of August! These drastic shifts of extremes are predicted symptoms of global warming. Neglecting this data is, to me, like letting "brush" build up.

You make some valid point; however, please remember that the green policy in Australia didn't not allow for clearing back brush, trees. etc.. and many residents blame the government for this. Unfortunately, fire is in most cases, a naturally occuring way that nature uses to accomplish this.

[caneman]

I am going to step in here and make a statement. The admins and the rest of the staff on this site keep a lot closer watch on postings than some may realize. If ANYONE-THIS INCLUDES OUR ENTIRE STAFF, does not follow the rules of engagement on this site they are subject to the same rules as anyone else. If any member feels that a staff member is abusing their position feel free to contact another staff person, preferably an admin, concerning it. DO NOT CONTINUE TO BRING THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION TO THE OPEN BOARD. This goes for both members and staff and I can guarantee you our staff knows all about these types of assertions whether they are made against staff or a member. We will and do act according to the rules of this site in any case that is brought to our attention. We do not and WILL NOT discuss any of the results or actions on the open board and ask the same of any involved.

David,

I too am sorry. I would just like some leeway to present valid articles, links and scientific evidence without having to defend each one as I don't not have the time nor want to.. People who care enough can to do the research and decide for themselves. Thanks.

[x-y-no]

I always respond with evidence. Even in this thread, which presents no science whatsoever but is an attempted argument by authority, I responded factually. Specifically, by pointing out that:

1) A suggestion made in 1988 that we might need 10 years or even 20 years more evidence in order to be sure we need to act is not an argument for doing nothing in 2009 - 21 years after that suggestion was made. And

2) relating what my father, a close friend and colleague of Roger Revelle, personally told me about Revelle's reaction to the Singer article in Cosmos.

It seems to me that this quite abundantly fulfills your requirement.

[caneman]

I always respond with evidence. Even in this thread, which presents no science whatsoever but is an attempted argument by authority, I responded factually. Specifically, by pointing out that:

1) A suggestion made in 1988 that we might need 10 years or even 20 years more evidence in order to be sure we need to act is not an argument for doing nothing in 2009 - 21 years after that suggestion was made. And

2) relating what my father, a close friend and colleague of Roger Revelle, personally told me about Revelle's reaction to the Singer article in Cosmos.

It seems to me that this quite abundantly fulfills your requirement.

It acutally doesn't because this is simply your opinion of the subject. How you interpret the article is your opinion. All of these skewed and driven by our already pre-determined positions. I'm sure you get this.YOu still have not addressed my issue in this post or the other CNN weatherman post about about a practice of intimidation, smear, sky is falling, et. al by GW'ers. Your silence on this actaually is what speaks volumes. Why don't you come right out and condemn this action both in words and actions?

[x-y-no]

It acutally doesn't because this is simply your opinion of the subject. How you interpret the article is your opinion. All of these skewed and driven by our already pre-determined positions. I'm sure you get this.YOu still have not addressed my issue in this post or the other CNN weatherman post about about a practice of intimidation, smear, sky is falling, et. al by GW'ers. Your silence on this actaually is what speaks volumes. Why don't you come right out and condemn this action both in words and actions?

What?

That fact that 10 to 20 years is less than 21 years is "just my opinion?"

The fact that my father told me what Roger Revelle's reaction to the Singer article was is "just my opinion?"

I really don't get this argument. My alleged bias can't change time and certainly wouldn't have changed what my father said to me.

[caneman]

Ok. We'll start at the beginning. Since when is an article a political rant? As you stated below. Merely stating it doesn't make it so.This is your opinion.

Your quote:
That article is a political rant - very much on the borderline if not over it for posting n this board. I'll leave it for now in hopes that we can keep the politics out of it.


Another one of your quotes:
At any rate, there are numerous falsehoods in that article and numerous other misrepresentations and distortions. I'll not discuss most of them because they impinge on the political,

This too is your opinion.

The fact remains that he was a very influential person who started to have doubts and we really don't know where he would stand on it if he were alive today. This my friend is relevant information that should get out to the masses rather it disagrees with your opinion and whether you like it or not, I have a right to post it and any other valid information without you stomping on it and determining it to be borde line political. How about letting people decide for themselves?