Ozone Holes Notice

[Necratoid]

---

There's no difference between old growth forest and new growth, kids. None at all.

---

Well in the case of extremely long lived trees like redwoods Id disagree. Otherwise minus the size of trees and the whole political talking point issue and the number of random species that managed to live only there, in some cases (this can be real or imagined.). As I mentioned before... its a perception thing. Like you know using fear to get people to believe a certain group has the one answer to saving their life from the wrath of Nature/God/Man.
I know you guys (Dark Rev and friends) have probably forgotten, but I made a statement of intention in my first post. This thread was made to do two things discuss the Ozone holes and discuss how the MGW movement ate the political movement that was the Ozone Holes lobby of terror. In order to establish that such a thing was happened I needed to establish a few things as a background.
The first was that the Ozone Holes were doing things that got ignored, in this case continuing to enlarge. This I did in my first post. Next I needed to establish that the MGW movement had enough power to steamroll the Ozone Hole movement, which is what Ive been doing in this thread for a while now. Basically, Ive been using Dark Rev and Co to demonstrate that. I know full well that it is basically pointless to argue with them (online this is more true) as they wont believe me unless I manage to get video tape of the movement heads laughing about what they got their minions to believe this time and that is iffy.
So Ive been dropping random lines to set off the macros of their politics. That is the whole thing with the CFC replacement on the shuttles (note the statement I dropped it in doesnt require it being mentioned). I tested it on the MGW thread then reused it here. Most recently I invoked two names that they have strong attachments to: Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. You can see the results for yourself.
The fun thing about Rush is that so many in the media Loath him. This means they obsessively track whatever he says looking for a weak point, which makes for excellent error checking. If he says anything close to wrong the media will jump all over it. Though theyll go after random angels on the story or use it as a jumping point for a related story. Also, he drives left leaning people into fits, as seen above.
I used the caller (wish she dropped a city/school name myself) as a jump point, because it let me invoke Al Gores latest science fiction movie. Now I fully realize that that isnt a Dark Rev friendly term however much people want to call it a documentary, its been poked full of holes by qualified people (though it took a while to hit the mainstream media). I only need one point of issue for my purposes, so lets go with the 20 foot rise in sea levels.
This 20 foot rise is something that has been disputed in Congress when Gore testified there as a MGW expert. This 20 sea level rise comes from a discredited UN report one that a redo of the study dropped the sea level rise based on predictions down to 23 inches that is a 10x modifier of distortion. Using a figure that distorted things by that much is my simple discrediting of An Inconvenient Truth. Also it fits nicely into my point about both demonstrating apocalyptic fear mongering and MGW eating the funding for high profile funding being diverted.
Looking at the counter of my description of Al Gore I note a few fun and convenient things. First, when I talk about the Kayak Photo-op story I got a retort article, from Rollingstone. Now I mentioned that was the best article I could find on the story, because it contained news of the photo-op (it was a bit hard to get a search that worked at all for that story.). I know you guys want it to be about the cash value of the water, but for me its not. Rollingstone uses the line, "Nobody from the Gore campaign asked for the water to be released.." Of course this means no one on the campaign staff, not any kind of group associated with Gore (we call these 527s now). He still managed to get the time table altered for his staged photo-op. However, the article also lays out the case that Gore lost the election because of negative media coverage... which is why I stopped believing in that source was neutral and unbiased. In order for the argument to work Bush has to have gotten positive coverage from the same groups... Which if you believe you must be avoiding the press entirely, for near a decade now.
Dark Rev countered my bit on the 2000 election, specifically the bit on what the Supreme court decision by hurling insults and denying what I said was true, by helpfully proving a link the decision. What I said works from the prospective of the time out and the lawsuit specifics. So he didnt actually counter my comment. I should note here the recount was eventually done in a hoard of ways by a hoard different types of people from all across the political spectrum Gore never won a recount regardless of method as far as I know I could get into the machines and chads, but its not useful here.
So I guess that gets us to the connection between Captain Planet and Al Gores scifi movies. Yes, movies plural. I do remember the tragically comic environmental horror movie called, The Day After Tomorrow. When it was declared a trainwreck, we hit a lull, then 'An Inconvenient Truth'.... which is contrary to your statement, not excepted as the truth by scientists in general... several have poked major holes in it. Which I know Rev and Co'll comment with some 'majority rules' comments with a fancy, incorrect title (we covered that issue earlier in the thread). Lots of scientists disagree with several parts of it, but they don't matter as they aren't in your favored group.

---

Actually, you were told that if you couldn't find backing by a reputable and unbiased group of scientists, your opinion is worth jack because you don't know what you're talking about.

---

---

I'm not certain why you compared a cartoon of an ecological theme to a documentary that is supported by scientific evidence. I think it is perhaps because you, personally, are a cartoon.

---

Purpose. That is the connection. Both are designed to scare people into following the environmentalist agenda. The cartoon aspect is a matter of target age group. If your defense is you can't see the point, because one is animated and aimed at kids and the other is designed to influence adults, then you have a blind spot. I remember the tragic, unintentional comedy called, 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Which was an attempt to scare people by showing them the repercussions of defiling nature, as an action movie... by showing them the edge of possible to outright stupidly wrong/impossible effects of the Earth ridding itself of global warming. This was previous Al Gore endorsed, global warming movie.
As for the issue of Al Gore and the magic name changing indulgences I can't even understand how you managed to get so far off track without it being intentional. I never said anything about him advertising it for industry (that was Kyoto Protocols), he does it on a personal level. He pays for the pollution he personally creates through his lifestyle. He buys indulgences for what his house and personal lifestyle do to create pollution... he testified in front of Congress as a global Warming expert... and when asked if he would live like he was insisting everyone else should he said he Live a carbon neutral lifestyle. With is environmentalist tenchobabble for he buys pollution indulgences... to offset his lifestyle by spending cash. He doesn't actually stop what he is doing at all... he just pays for indulgences.

---

Tell me, Necratoid - do YOU think you could build a rocketship better than a degreed engineer who's worked on them at NASA can? If so, why exactly? If not, why do you feel you're qualified to argue with thousands of similarly experienced and qualified scientists about climate change?

---

Um no... I believe that if its my job to maintain the US's spaceships, then I would maintain the shuttles I'm sick of seeing, 'The shuttle blew up because we didn't do routine maintenance X' every few years. Its not a matter of design flaws that get shuttles, it them not doing required maintenance on them. Which there own reports keep saying after every resent shuttle explosion. They do a great job of keeping up with the latest on the Ozone Layer. But are doing less well on the shuttle maintenance.
So that is a good chunk of the explanation (with helpful demonstrations of the kind of people involved in the movement). I think Ive proven the MGW group has the drive and momentum (till the next eco-crisis fad, remember the save the rainforest movement that went away?) to take away politically motivated funding from the Ozone Hole movement.. This apparently made things more manageable and less panic driven into Ozone Holes research. So it is not really a bad thing, but can anyone, excluding the MGW cult people think of any gaps they wish filled in this?

[Rev Dark]

Lets enlighten Necratoid. It is a fun game. Anyone can do it; well except Necratoid.

---

Gore never won a recount regardless of method as far as I know I could get into the machines and chads, but its not useful here.

---

Sure it is - it demonstrates your unwillingness to do even the most rudimentary research. The most comprehensive review of the ballot in the disputed Florida election was done by the National Opinion Research Center (University of Chicago). In a statewide recount it was determined that under all four operational review standards, Gore would have carried the vote. If you have even begun to explore the irregularities around that election then this report immediately comes up. The only way you will not have seen it (or seen reference to it) is if you have not look.
Another doozy

---

Um no... I believe that if its my job to maintain the US's spaceships, then I would maintain the shuttles I'm sick of seeing, 'The shuttle blew up because we didn't do routine maintenance X' every few years. Its not a matter of design flaws that get shuttles, it them not doing required maintenance on them. Which there own reports keep saying after every resent shuttle explosion. They do a great job of keeping up with the latest on the Ozone Layer. But are doing less well on the shuttle maintenance.

---

So youve gone from evil non-PCP based foam bringing shuttles down to alternatives for the sake of alternatives to maintenance issues? One of your flaccid arguments gets shot down and another one rises like a phoenix (or rather a butterball turkey with a bad leg and a cough - they do not so much rise as plummet). Wouldnt it be nice if the answer was so easy? Far better than the 48 recommendations issued in the latest CRC report to congress; which you obviously didnt read.
Now, onto the meat of the matter, your oft returned to mission statement. This thread was made to do two things discuss the Ozone holes and discuss how the MGW movement ate the political movement that was the Ozone Holes lobby of terror.
First and foremost your premise is deeply flawed in its very conception; which is then further compromised by your inability to realize the difference between the media perception of how science works and how science actually works.
Science is not a democratic process. You cannot hold a vote over the sex of a rabbit and then expect your democratic outcome to determine the sex of the rabbit. Science is driven on reproducible evidence that draws conclusions that can be used for prediction. Just like you can always find 10 people to join your cult, you can always find 10 scientists to come out against a theory some of them might even be connected to the apropos scientific field, but that is usually not the case. The Steve Project is the best example extant of this among scientists.
Having said that any theory is subject to revision or outright dismissal if a better theory comes along one that does a better job of explaining things produces more accurate predictions all the while holding up the requirements of the scientific method. In most cases the modification are minor; but occasionally something like Darwins theory of evolution through natural selection a theory which has undergone significant clarification since it was originally published as our fundamental understanding of the natural world increases DNA being a prime example of As Crick said to the barkeep, pour me a double Felix wait a sec Hell, you can even fool some of the people some of the time (cloning in Korea leaps to mind) but in the end the peer review mechanism of science is going to catch the mistake or the outright lie.
Now, just because you havent been hearing about ozone depletion/restoration does not mean that research isnt being done, published, reviewed and communicated within the appropriate journals. It means that you are not paying attention. Youre not alone. I dont follow it terribly closely myself, my interests lie more in evolutionary biology; which is where I spend the lions share of my time on recreational science reading. Global Warming research and publication has been going on for a great deal of time before it surfaced like a breaching whale in your sight. You just were not paying attention.
Now, getting your science news from the mass media is a pretty piss poor exercise. Trying to filter science through a medium that does not particularly understand it is not good. You are far more likely to appreciate fine ale if you get it from the source (the keg) rather than after it has been filtered through a third party (some guy at a urinal). If science is your beverage of choice you have to hit the peer reviewed journals; not the news media. There are some notable exceptions here, including the series produced by Sagan, Dawkins, Burke, etc; but they are unfortunately few and far between.
By the way, I do like the phrase 'ozone hole lobby of terror'. Although you would not know yours from a hole in the ground.
Shayne

[Fidoohki]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gore never won a recount regardless of method as far as I know I could get into the machines and chads, but its not useful here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure it is - it demonstrates your unwillingness to do even the most rudimentary research. The most comprehensive review of the ballot in the disputed Florida election was done by the National Opinion Research Center (University of Chicago). In a statewide recount it was determined that under all four operational review standards, Gore would have carried the vote. If you have even begun to explore the irregularities around that election then this report immediately comes up. The only way you will not have seen it (or seen reference to it) is if you have not look.

((Umm how? it would have taken a total state vote recount
to do it and Al 'wooden boy' Gore never called for that. He
only asked for those 4 counties in dispute. As for the
irregularities apparently the majority of people in Florida
figured out how to use the machines correctly. I do concede
that someone should have done a much better job at
explaining how they were to be used but that isn't grounds for a total recount. I edited this after researching. It is based on an article from Fairness.com by Ford fresserman.))

[Rev Dark]

The National Opinion Research Center review was of all votes cast in Florida. It is also clear in the review of the four counties disputed originally, Bush would have carried the vote. Hence I was very specific to not that it was in the statewide recount.
Shayne

[Fidoohki]

Yes but I think you are missing my point. The full recount would have never happened reguardless so it is moot. It's a good arguement but you are confusing hindsight with the
facts at the time.

[jpub]

A lovely counterpoint to the climate change debate - this is cited as the specific counteragument to 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
www.channel4.com/science/...g_swindle/
--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[Ayiekie]

"Our scientists"
"Scientists say"
A quick glance at that shows that is said, oh, about three thousand times or so.
Funny how those scientists are all nameless and thus cannot have their credentials or numbers questioned (I suppose somebody learned something from the Steve Project). The one name they seem prepared to give out is John F B Mitchell, whom they dishonestly state "is a lead author in the IPCC" (he was a convening lead author for the first and third reports and lead author for the second from Working Group I but does not appear to be associated with them now, a bit of info you can only find if you dig past their misleading blurb on him). What were the reports in question?
Well, quoting from Wikipedia, the Working Group I's third report (ie, 2001) key conclusions were:
--
1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century)
3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [8].)
4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios.
--
These reports were published by unanimous agreement of the scientists involved (like all IPCC reports), which would certainly include Professor John F B Mitchell.
There's no indication as to why he's suddenly done an aboutface on over 10 years of being in the IPCC, nor why he apparently is willing to support a site that insinuates those reports that he lent his expertise, credibility, research and support to were a "swindle". Perhaps that will be one of the "questions" we're promised he, the only named expert on their site (and indeed is referred to singularly as "our expert", and as an "independant expert"), will answer "soon".
But somehow I rather don't think so.

[jpub]

1) That's under debate, as the data, depending on how it's interpreted, can lso show the temperature has DROPPED.
2) Greenhouse gasses, as released by humans are a drop in a very large bucket. We don't even come close, by orders to magnitude, to what nature is doing by itself.
3) These same models can't accurately predict weather a week from now, and their ability to predict even a year ahead is usually not discernable from chance guesses. It is generally accepted by climatologists that even now, the models are woefully inadequate. You expect me to believe they can predict 10, 20, 50, or even 100 years from now?
4) No, there isn't. There is a lot of stats that people choose to interpret that way. There's just as much evidence that the sun's activity caused any possible warming.
5) Prove that that will have a noticable affect over anything else - like volcanoes or the sun, for instance.
6) The IPCC is a sham. More than half the members at the last meeting had no scientific credentials at all - and heck, just GOING to the IPCC means that you are somehow signing on to anything they report. An increasing number of scientists BOYCOTT the IPCC meetings because they're a political entity, not a scientific one.

HOWEVER, please don't take this to mean I don't support initiatives to reduce pollution and energy use and to improve our society's energy efficiency. In fact, I'm a strong and vocal supporter of them.
I just question anything that claims we've had a bigger effect on the climate than the natural processes that have been shaping it for the last several billion years, and claims to show a trend based on the eyeblink of data we have.--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[Ayiekie]

---

1) That's under debate

---

Not by the vast majority of the people who actually are qualified to talk about it.
Which also applies to the rest of your unsupported objections.
Your dismissal of the IPCC - the only body accepted as authoritative by virtually everyone, notice how your own "interesting" website dishonestly tries to draw legitimacy from it - as a sham simply shows that you are not actually interested in the truth, but only interested in whatever supports your predetermined point of view.
It's funny how the many and various qualified scientific groups that who have unequivocally supported the science of man-made global warming do not lie about the credentials of their members to seem more respectable. Perhaps that is because their membership includes the vast majority of qualified scientists working in the relevent areas on this planet.

[jpub]

---

Perhaps that is because their membership includes the vast majority of qualified scientists working in the relevent areas on this planet.

---

But you see, it doesn't. The IPCC is a sham, and has been for the past several years, and this is becoming more and more evident.
How can you take any 'panel' seriously when they counted *the media* in their membership numbers at the last meeting? When more than 50% of the 'signees' on the last report had no relevant scientific qualifications? When attendees who had issues and didn't agree with the conclusions presented were listed as signees anyway?
How can I *not* dismiss them when they're clearly a *political* entity, and not a *scientific* one? --
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[Ayiekie]

---

But you see, it doesn't. The IPCC is a sham, and has been for the past several years, and this is becoming more and more evident.

---

Funny how you hear that in so many places, and from so many people, who don't already have a vested interest in the matter.
Except you don't.
Do you wonder why it is your "interesting" page lied about the credentials of its "resident expert"? Do you wonder why they don't bother linking to any peer-reviewed papers that support their many and various claims, instead merely going for the "state it as a self-evident fact and people assume you know what you're talking about" strategy?
I wonder how it is that you can so freely ignore the fact that 'your side' has all the intellectual honesty of creationists.

[jpub]

Oh really? They lied did they? So none of this:

---

Professor John F B Mitchell OBE FRS is Met Office Director of Climate Science. He gained a BSc honours degree in applied mathematics in 1970 and a PhD in theoretical physics in 1973, both from Queen's University, Belfast.
He joined the dynamical climatology branch of the British Meteorological Office in 1973. In 1978, he took charge of the climate change group in what is now the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Change. He is a leading expert in climatic effects of increases in greenhouse gases and related pollutants.
He was a lead author in the first three IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. He is currently chairman of the WMO JSC/CLIVAR Working Group on Climate Modelling. In 1997 and 1998 he shared the Norbert Gerbier-Mumm Prize and in 2004 received the Hans Oeschger medal from the European Geophysical Union.
He is a Fellow of the Royal Society. He is also a visiting professor at the School of Mathematics, Meteorology and Physics in the University of Reading, and an honorary professor of environmental science at the University of East Anglia.

---

Is true? Hmm. Very interesting that, seeing as I managed to verify it all with a couple quick web searches.

Considering 'your side' does the following:
1) Makes claims of scientific credentials that don't exist.
2) Actively sabotage the research efforts of anyone who doesn't support their claims.
3) Makes personal attacks on the motives of those same people.
4) Requires said people to *prove* that they're not some shill of the energy companies if they *do* actually get published.
Isn't it a bit silly to talk about 'my side' and intellectual honesty?

Ayiekie, you seem to have this belief that I'm against the environmentalist movement. I'm not. What I *am* is pro critical thinking, and pro skepticism.
If I can get something that is supportable, *good* science, I'll happily agree with everything the climate change crowd propose. But they don't. If any other scientist tried to sell a theory with the same weak evidence these guys have, they'd be laughed out of their field.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable in that.
--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[rmthorn]

---

2) Greenhouse gasses, as released by humans are a drop in a very large bucket. We don't even come close, by orders to magnitude, to what nature is doing by itself.

---

Do you have any links to confirm this? Everything I could find seems to indicate the opposite (e.g. Methane sources link). In fact, the only sources I could see that supported your claim came from the media and similar, which aren't exactly reliable sources.

---

3) These same models can't accurately predict weather a week from now, and their ability to predict even a year ahead is usually not discernable from chance guesses. It is generally accepted by climatologists that even now, the models are woefully inadequate. You expect me to believe they can predict 10, 20, 50, or even 100 years from now?

---

Weather and climate are two different things, albeit related. For example, Australian scientists are currently reporting that we are about to enter another La Nina cycle (which means no more drought! ^_^), but they are unable to tell exactly when it will happen or how many inches of rain we will get when it does.

[Ayiekie]

---

Oh really? They lied did they?

---

Yes, they did.

---

Met Office Director of Climate Science, Professor Mitchell has spent over 30 years working in this field. He is a lead author in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and a world expert in the effects of greenhouse gases and related pollutants.

---

Professor Mitchell is not a lead author in the IPCC. He was. That was back when he lent his professional credentials to supporting the IPCC's unanimous conclusions that man-made global warming is factual. He no longer is, and could not be, since he's calling it "a swindle". The site does not mention this, of course, because they are leeching off the IPCC's credibility, despite presenting an argument that is directly opposing the IPCC's conclusions. If they had any intellectual honesty at all, they would clearly and directly state that they oppose the IPCC's conclusions, instead of using their well-respected name to land credence to the assertions of their "independant expert".
Your site lied. Your side lies. It lies all the time. It twists and distorts evidence and blatently lies about the scientific consensus on the topic - which, whether you like it or not, is overwhelmingly in favour of global warming being both real and largely caused by human activity.
I would suggest that if your side had a scientific leg to stand on, it would not need to resort to bullshit like this.
If you're pro-critical thinking, kindly go back and start rebutting where I posted links to the statements of the Joint Science Academies, the American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, and the Geological Society of America, all of which explicitly and firmly supported that man-made global warming is a fact.
If you're pro-critical thinking, kindly explain why there was not a single published scientific abstract between 1993 and 2003 that disputed the scientific consensus on global warming.
If you're pro-criticial thinking, start by admitting that the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly against your position instead of pretending it isn't because that makes you look like you're wrong.

[jpub]

Okay, I give.
You're clearly putting a lot more...effort, I would say, than I am into this, and I don't have the tools to argue my position as effectively as you do yours.
I'll bow out of this argument, my apologies for bothering you.

(Rewritten several times, to remove snarkiness. If I failed, again, my apologies.)--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[Morganite]

When I've seen that argument being made before, carbon dioxide is usually the major gas of interest. Obviously, there are a lot of sources of CO2 out there.
On that page you linked to... there's some interesting information there, but certain aspects of the presentation worry me.
Here's a couple of quotes:

---

Table 1 U.S. Methane Emissions by Source (TgCO2 Equivalents)

---

---

Although much uncertainty remains as to the actual contributions of these natural sources, available information indicates that global methane emissions from natural sources are around 190 Tg per year.

---

Natural methane is being measured in teragrams in all cases in that section. The section on human-related sources and pages with further details that I've looked at use TgCO2 Equivalents, which includes another factor - the GWP (Global Warming Potential) of the gas in question.
web.archive.org/web/20020...l/gwp.html says the GWP of methane is 21 for a 100 year time horizion, but that page is a few years old. The wikipedia article on GWP has 23 for this number.
Now, there isn't an indication of the time horizon in use on the methan sources page. If they're using a 100 year horizon, and the use of Tg in the section on natural sources isn't just a persistent accidental omission of something that is included in the numbers, those 145 Tg of methane per year correspond to...
3045 to 3335 TgCO2 Equivalents. (Depending on which GWP number you use; the higher number from wikipedia is likely the more current one.)
It makes those totals from the U.S. seem less impressive.
Of course, there's some caveats here.
One, of course, is that those numbers *are* just for the U.S. To make useful comparisons to the numbers for global natural methane production, numbers for the entire world on human-caused methan production would be required.
Two, they could be using a longer time horizon than 100 years. In which case things become quite a bit less dramatic.
I haven't seen (and lack the time to continue looking for) anything to indicate that the "60% of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (IPCC, 2001c)" estimate is wrong. But the way this particular page is constructed makes me highly suspicious, because I see two possibilities which both bother me.
1. The numbers in the natural methane sources section are in TgCO2 Equivalents, but the notation is wrong by accident. This requires no malicious intent on anyone's part, but casts certain doubts on their professionalism. The page says it was last updated in October; if it was an error, I can't believe I'd be the first to notice it.
2. The numbers in the natural methane sources section are in Tg, with the proper notation used. In this case, I have a hard time believing that deception isn't intended. TgCO2 Equivalents and Tg cannot be directly compared, yet the design of the page sets you up to compare the numbers. I once had a class which covered ways various statistics could be used to deceive, and one of the major ones was inviting a comparision between two things that are in different measurements or on different scales. It's a great technique, because you can do it without technically lying. But that doesn't make it less a deception.
Now, could they have decided to use these different types of numbers without any deceptive intent? Yes. But it would be a pretty damn stupid thing to do. The point of GWP and TgCO2 Equivalents is to make reasonable comparisons between the effects of different gases. That's why it's used in places like the document on methane emissions from landfills - because that document also discusses N2O emissions. Reasonable comparisons are useful.
Given the commonality of use of TgCO2 equivalents, I have a much easier time believing malice in this case than I do stupidity. In either scenario, it makes me doubt the reliability of this page, and by extension the reliability of the organization that produced it.
-Morgan.
"Oh poor Lyner... you go out with so many underage girls you can't remember them all."
-Krusche

[rmthorn]

---

2. The numbers in the natural methane sources section are in Tg, with the proper notation used. In this case, I have a hard time believing that deception isn't intended. TgCO2 Equivalents and Tg cannot be directly compared, yet the design of the page sets you up to compare the numbers.

---

I had noticed that, but I don't have enough of a scientific background to know whether the two measurements were comparable or not. This is why I was asking jpub for his figures; they may have been clearer.
I'm not saying that this site is 100% accurate; I just find it odd that all of the sites which came up in my search result that gave the contrary viewpoint were from "less reputable" sources: media, people's geocities pages, etc.

[Morganite]

---

Professor Mitchell is not a lead author in the IPCC. He was.

---

I think you've hit on a critical point.
He was a lead author. He is no longer.
What caused him to change his mind?
Whatever it was, if it caused someone who was a significant person in the IPCC to denounce them, it must be something pretty impressive.
Wouldn't you like to know what it is?
-Morgan.

[jpub]

Morgan,
I'd like to thank you for your response. It was exactly the type of response I was looking for - one that attacked the SCIENCE, and not the PEOPLE, and most specifically, not ME.
I didn't see the discrepancies you pointed out until...well, you pointed them out to me. I'm going to re-examine that site with your observations in mind.
--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[rmthorn]

---

I didn't see the discrepancies you pointed out until...well, you pointed them out to me. I'm going to re-examine that site with your observations in mind.

---

Even so, do you have links to the figures that you were quoting? The ones that show that manmade contributions to global warming gases are far lower than natural contributions? That's what I was actually looking for when I found that other link.
EDIT: Something else I forgot to mention, but even if natural sources do dwarf human production, that still doesn't mean that human production isn't causing a problem. If the planet has been coping with the natural sources of GG emission for millennia and suddenly can't, then what has changed? Have the natural GG emissions suddenly increased? Have the natural GG sinks suddenly decreased, and if so, why? Or is it simply that the planet's natural GG sinks can't cope with the extra amount of GG that we are pumping into the atmosphere?

[Ayiekie]

---

Whatever it was, if it caused someone who was a significant person in the IPCC to denounce them, it must be something pretty impressive.

---

Why is it impressive, and the conclusions of the hundreds of other scientists that didn't denounce them not impressive?
For the record, when I brought up the IPCC, I pointed out a rather more prominent defector than Professor Mitchell.

---

Wouldn't you like to know what it is?

---

Actually, I specifically said in the initial response to the "interesting site" that I'd like to know why Professor Mitchell has attacked the exact same reports he helped produce and attached his professional credibility to.
It's nice to know you read my posts before making remarks on them.

[jpub]

Re: numbers
I actually found that first mentioned in a book by Bill Bryson, but I'll see if I can find it somewhere else.--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[Ayiekie]

---

I'd like to thank you for your response. It was exactly the type of response I was looking for - one that attacked the SCIENCE, and not the PEOPLE, and most specifically, not ME.

---

Neither you nor I are qualified to attack the science of anything here.
I attacked the credibility of a site that says "scientists say" everywhere, but names exactly one scientist, lies about his affiliation, and avoids the fact that the selfsame scientist was saying the exact opposite five years ago.

[Epsilon]

---

Have the natural GG emissions suddenly increased? Have the natural GG sinks suddenly decreased, and if so, why?

---

Think back to your high school biology classes. The ones that told you about carbon dioxide. Now, what process consumes carbon dioxide and produces oxygen? What primarly does this process?
Now... what have we human being been systematcailly destroying for decades?
That's right. Trees. Plants. Plankton. Yes, we human beings have been fucking up the environment right good. It's not just the fact that we're producing more greenhouse gas emissions then every before, its the fact that the planets ability to handle this is being compromised as well. Its the fact that the system is being broken on both ends, and is psiraling out of control.
This is why you can't just look at part of the science. You can't just find an article saying "Ah ha! This person says greenhouse gas emissions are lower than expected! I pwned you sceience!" The climate doens't work that way. As people on the other end keep insisting, it is a huge, dynamic and complex system. You have to be able to understand it all. You have to be able to put it all together. You have to be able to view these things in context.
It's like medicine. You don't just say "well, this patient has a growth on their kidney, we'll just rip apart the body to remove it" you have to carefully monitor the entire system. It all interlocks and supports itself with a frightening degree of complexity.
And like any complex machine, it is very easy to break.
I wouldn't presume to think I knew more about how to treat my illness than a doctor, so I don't see how people can presume that they know more about climatology than climate scientists.
-------------------
Epsilon

[rmthorn]

---

Think back to your high school biology classes. The ones that told you about carbon dioxide. Now, what process consumes carbon dioxide and produces oxygen? What primarly does this process?
Now... what have we human being been systematcailly destroying for decades?

---

Well, yes. I know that. Those questions were actually aimed more at the people on the other side of the argument, Epsilon. I knew you'd be able to answer them, at least in a general sense.
EDIT: I still would like to see estimates regarding how much of a factor each of these is. I don't doubt that scientists take these factors into account, but I haven't managed to find any figures yet.

---

And like any complex machine, it is very easy to break.

---

Yep. That was my point (albeit probably not a very well put one). There's more than one way to screw up the environment. You can't just point to a chart that says natural gas emissions are higher than human-made ones, and therefore it doesn't count. It's all about disturbing the balance that has kept the planet operating for eons.

---

I wouldn't presume to think I knew more about how to treat my illness than a doctor, so I don't see how people can presume that they know more about climatology than climate scientists.

---

I'm not about to tell experts that they are wrong. I've already pointed out in this thread that I'm not a scientist. The truth is, none of us here are qualified to do much more than provide links to other people's data.
Now that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see the evidence that the other side believes it has.