Comments on: Best statistical, scientific talk on global warming

By: Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:28:49 +0000

Hi.

I’m trying to locate statistical process control (SPC) charts of temperature data from various sites around the world. I’m beginning to realize that this data hasn’t been compiled yet.

My thinking is that the use of CO2 data from ice cores is too indirect a way to confirm global warming. If we were to take a “population” of sites around the world, and plot SPC charts on reliable data, a better case about global warming could be made.

MIke

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:26:16 +0000

I really appreciate the skeptical attitude shown in the beginning; unfortunately the presentation degraded into a massive propoganda rather than actual scientific discussion. Many global warming indicators have been ignored. The truth on this subject will only become clear once the temperature does, or does not exceed either the magnitude or the rate recorded within an arbitrarily chosen period of time (whatever a specific scientist choses to prove his/her point). Regardless of that, telling me that there is no warming is ridiculous - I have my own eyes and see the changes over the past 30 years of my life that without a doubt point to warming of the climate in the Northern Europe and North America. Also, there is no question that the rate at which we are releasing fossilized CO2 into the atmosphere is high and increasing. This CO2 was sequestered during times with much, much higher temperatures. Computer models are useless - I agree there, but simple logic shows that one would expect some effect of that. Are there natural variations - you bet there are. Has it been warmer than now at some point in the past - everyone knows so - where are the news? It looks like in his displeasure with some questionable science surrounding many AGW promotion efforts Dr. Briggs misses the point of the discussion: how much we as humans can afford to destabilize the ecosysems on this planet before it shifts rapidly to the point that dramatically reduces it’s habitability? The simple answer is that we don’t know. Neither pro-Global warming, nor anti- GW flks have no idea. I will side with ones that urge caution. As my old mentor used to say, “don’t try to save the Earth, it will be fine. Worry about the people…”

By: TCO

TCO — Mon, 05 May 2008 03:25:09 +0000

At this point I’ve doine quite a bit of amateur reading of blogs AND of some papers over the last 3 years. I listened to Carter for the first 5 minutes and didn’t see much in terms of references. It seemed like PR, not like the aha of new ideas…or of a carefully layed out examination of what is known. I suspect that he uses the studies which help him the most, within that temp-time discussion.

By: Pooja Sethi

Pooja Sethi — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:06:12 +0000

You blog is really good….I have also a blog on global warming which give information about global warming effects, what is global warming, global warming causes, prevent global warming, global warming hoax, global warming articles, fight global warming, global warming news, stop global warming.

By: Briggs

Briggs — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:36:36 +0000

Louis,

Good point: there can never be data that shows human activity cannot cause dangerous global warming. But from that fact you cannot infer that humans are causing dangerous global warming.

Briggs

By: Louis C. Smith

Louis C. Smith — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:00:30 +0000

What is the data that says human activity cannot cause dangerous global warming?

By: Rich

Rich — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:35:20 +0000

Hi,

All the videos show “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available.”

By: Patti O'Riley

Patti O'Riley — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:04:12 +0000

In my estimation, the reason AGW proponents refuse to be sunk by the torpedoes Dr. Briggs outlines is because AGW proponents also believe the earth is entering a cooling period ? and they want to be able to claim credit for it. AGW proponents hope to confuse the public by claiming correlation as causation.

If the world economies continue business as usual and global cooling occurs, AGW proponents will have missed their window of opportunity to gain hegemonic control over the world?s economies. No global carbon tax scheme can be forced upon industrialized economies if AGW is proven false or insignificant.

So many disparate groups stand to gain financially from AGW and its momentum is so great that it might be unstoppable. Academics gain through endless government and private grants to study AGW affects; the UN gets control of $billions to redistribute around the world; environmentalists get to destroy capitalism; and the worlds largest financial trading centers and businesses stand to reap untold fortunes in fees while administering carbon trading schemes. Dr. Briggs?s torpedoes are hitting a ship protected by an impenetrable wall of money. Too many powerful groups stand to lose if AGW is proven false or insignificant.

AGW proponents understand they are in a desperate situation ? up against the clock ? and they must force their CO2 reducing schemes upon the world now, right now, or lose their chance to control.

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:06:15 +0000

What a blot on the world of Science this whole area is; no doubt, when the orthodoxy changes, the same unscientific scientists will again float to the top - a bit like the effortless morphing of leading Russian communists into leading Russian capitalists.

I guess that the saddest comment of all is that the word “skeptic” is now a pejorative term when applied to a scientist, instead of being a base-line, must-have quality. On such foundations are dark ages built. I wonder how witch-burning will be done in future - perhaps frying on a solar array?

By: coyote

coyote — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:42:45 +0000

Sorry, messed up link. here is the other video