Dan Robinson
Has the link between CO2 and warming been scientifically explained, or is it still based entirely on the fact that the two data plots (temp VS CO2) are coincidentally similar?
After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.
I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.
For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.
From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.
Sincerely, Jeff D.
If any of you haven't see this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVw1PANUcdg
To others, I advise you all to read through the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. It's true that a 100% true link between human activities and global warming has NOT been made, but the signs show that it is (if I may quote the IPCC AR4) "very likely" that human activities have caused a change in the climate leading to warming.
To others, I advise you all to read through the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. It's true that a 100% true link between human activities and global warming has NOT been made, but the signs show that it is (if I may quote the IPCC AR4) "very likely" that human activities have caused a change in the climate leading to warming. Even if you choose not to believe that, however, look at some of the graphs regarding radiative forcing contributions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations over time. For the greenhouse gas concentrations you'll see a curve that resembles extreme exponential growth in the last 250 years. For radiative forcing contributions, you'll see that things like solar cycles contribute little compared to what C02 and other greenhouse gases are contributing.
As I stated, the ice (2008 = red line) is above the short term normal. See: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png .
Okay Mike, I'm calling foul on your source. You may not be aware of it, but Icecap is not a legitimate agency like NASA, NOAA, or USGS.
It's tied to the Frontiers of Freedom that is funded by Exxon and other oil companies.
---from sourcewatch.org
The Web site domain name for ICECAP was registered on October 20, 2006 by Joseph D'Aleo, who is listed among the personnel of the Science and Public Policy Institute, another organization that promotes the views of global warming skeptics that is backed by the Frontiers of Freedom[2].
&
--
Frontiers of Freedom receives money of tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco. According to the New York Times: "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documentsâ€.
George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times: “They've determined that we are effective at what we doâ€, He said Exxon essentially took the attitude, “We like to make it possible to do more of thatâ€.
--
Cherry picked propaganda sources funded by oil companies does not trump the scientific data. If that's how people are going to debate, I'm done here.