The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...
- Thread starter Wildalaska
- Start date
- Status
And what happened there? Data was analyzed by independent researches and shown to be a crock of bull. I can pretty much guarantee you that those who put their names to reports that claimed tobacco is not harmful to one's health didn't have much luck finding employment afterwards.
If you want a comparison then take a look at the funding sources from the small minority of scientists going against the consensus on climate change. Certainly not all of them are being dishonest but I wouldn't be surprised if a few are. Yet it's far less likely that hundreds to thousands are all in cahoots to make off with taxpayer dollars than a mere few dozen are getting fat checks from oil companies.
Yes, there most certainly is. The IPCC's report and the statements made by a couple dozen organizations (yes it's a wikipedia link but all sources are verified, just click the links to each organization's statement).
Lindzen is among a small minority. When there is a single digit percentage of scientists disagreeing with the majority opinion it's quite safe to call it a consensus.
Hundreds did not dissent.
Coleman is no researcher. Being a good businessman and knowing how to start a tv network does not make one an authority on climatology. The American Meteorological Society, the organization that certified him to be a legitimate weatherman, disagrees with him. His opinion isn't really worth jack. It's like suggesting that the founder of HBO denying the age of the universe has any validity whatsoever.
In case you're wondering, a scientific consensus does not require agreement from every single scientist. It requires agreement from the vast, overwhelming majority.
And that's what we have.
good lord, more misunderstanding of the buzz words
Global warming can lead to an ice age.
Wait wait, so if your client asked you to knowingly violate the law, fudge his taxes, help him embezzle and otherwise steal money from investors you'd do it because it's what he wanted?
I would hope that you wouldn't do so because you have an ethical standard to follow, not just because it's against the law.
I live 3 minutes from the Ocean. The pavilion at the beach has been there for the 30+ years I have gone there. It's distance from the Ocean is the same as I remember it 30+ years ago and see it in pictures from then.
There is a large lighthouse commissioned by George Washington an hour from me on a bluff. The bluff has experiences significant erosion but the height of the lighthouse to the sea is unchanged.
This is the right on the Atlantic Ocean. It is not some protected harbor. Dive in and swim straight to Europe. Where is the rise in sea levels?
If Gore is so certain the sea is going to rise and engulf us why did he take the call for his Nobel Prize at his beach front home in CA?
As I stated before:
The bottom line is those predicting catastrophic climate changes caused by man continually fail to make consistent and accurate predictions. It is like watching John Edwards read a crowd and talk to their dead relatives...
"I see a hurricane... a big one... some time in the next decade... IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!"
The main issue with sea level rise is that it could very likely be much, much more drastic in the coming years if the currents trends continue.
And stop bringing Al Gore into this. No one gives a damn what he has to say. He is not a scientist, he is not a researcher. Just because he fooled the population into buying into his movie does not mean he and his actions have ANY bearing on the facts of the matter.
The difference is that the reliability of predictability has drastically increased in the last couple of decades as more satellites are put into orbit, better weather recording technology is employed and - most importantly - much better computers are being used to analyze this data.
And no, "they" haven't continually failed to make consistent and accurate predictions. Some of these predictions have existed for decades but were largely ignored because there wasn't the technology to gather and analyze the research to properly support them.
BoringAccountant
New member
No, not at all...the point is simply this, I can fully stay within my standards and the standards of the profession and do something that while not on the same lines as scientific experiments, can be done by a completely different person and get a completely different answer. Goes back to the old saying, you can have 100 accountants prepare your taxes and get 101 different returns, the extra one being the one you actually file.
Back to the topic a little bit more though...
How do you give credit and reliance on something that they are claiming they have been studying for more than a century? I mean, I know we are a lot further along with instruments, our abilities, etc. in the scientific community, why could you not come to the conclusion that the readings they got 100's of years ago were just wrong or inaccurate? (See your chart of sea level rising, thats what I am referring to about data from centuries ago)
Because even 100 years ago the scientific method worked. It took a lot longer and required a lot more effort but it was still used and still worked. The instruments may not have been as reliable but that doesn't mean they were wholly unreliable. There's a greater margin of error in data the farther back you go but such margins are always taken into account.
Besides, it's not just instruments. Often the records are geologic and are being examined with today's technology. The earth makes a great recording tool.
Besides, it's not just instruments. Often the records are geologic and are being examined with today's technology. The earth makes a great recording tool.
BoringAccountant
New member
Well I am out of this post, I have neither the knowledge firsthand or through research to know anything about global warming than what has been said in the MSM or on here, things that are probably not that reliable 
I'll leave the debates up to the geeky scientists.
I'll leave the debates up to the geeky scientists.
I was swayed by the arguments about the rise in temperature in recent years, but then I read an interesting article about the alleged global warming.
The New American - Analyzing Global-warming Science
redworm...my article has got a lot more cool graphs than you have.
According to this article, the consensus questioning the validity of the global-warming theory is anything but small.
One point of the article is that the UN scientists are looking at a relatively short period of history and assuming that it is caused by man. History, according to the scientists in this article, has shown that there have been hot periods in earth's history and this is without the influence of carbon emissions from man as we have today.
It also correlates the sun's solar flair activities to the trend of warming and cooling of the earth's atmosphere. I find this graph especially interesting.
This definitely got me off the "sky is falling" wagon. A huge issue here is that if the earth's temperature falls due to normal fluctuations, and it happens to correlate with Al Gore and his cronies reduction in emissions, then guess who is going to get the credit, funding, and most importantly power?
This warrants much more study than the short sighted, panicked information that the general public is going by.
With that said, I would still like to see the U.S. come up with alternate fuel sources so we would be able to say bye-bye to the middle east. I guess that fits into the "P" of "P & L".
Fly
The New American - Analyzing Global-warming Science
redworm...my article has got a lot more cool graphs than you have.
redworm said:
According to this article, the consensus questioning the validity of the global-warming theory is anything but small.
One point of the article is that the UN scientists are looking at a relatively short period of history and assuming that it is caused by man. History, according to the scientists in this article, has shown that there have been hot periods in earth's history and this is without the influence of carbon emissions from man as we have today.
It also correlates the sun's solar flair activities to the trend of warming and cooling of the earth's atmosphere. I find this graph especially interesting.
This definitely got me off the "sky is falling" wagon. A huge issue here is that if the earth's temperature falls due to normal fluctuations, and it happens to correlate with Al Gore and his cronies reduction in emissions, then guess who is going to get the credit, funding, and most importantly power?
This warrants much more study than the short sighted, panicked information that the general public is going by.
With that said, I would still like to see the U.S. come up with alternate fuel sources so we would be able to say bye-bye to the middle east. I guess that fits into the "P" of "P & L".
Fly
grey_pilgrim
New member
It also bears mentioning that simply because the earth has warmed in the past does not necessarily mean that the warming we are seeing now is necessarily caused by the same factors. Thats what science is about, not just reporting "this is what happens" but also trying to get under the hood of what goes on.
To use a gun example:
THe problem that antigunners make oftentimes is that they apply preconcieved notions to the data, a la "crime went up when people had guns, therefore guns must cause crime". In fact, it may be spurious. Are climatologists doing this? Well, looking at alot of the popular "OMG TEH CLIMATE IZ GONNA KILL US!!! OH NOEZZ!!" stuff that you see in the media, yes, you hear "co2 concentrations went up, temp went up, therefore co2 conecntrations are the cause." However, read into the literature and you'll see that there are mechanisms that link between stuff like CO2 and climate warming.
You can do the math for yourself and see. . . if it wasn't for global warming, it would be really really cold. The link between CO2 and a warming effect is not disputed. The question is, how much warming is due to the CO2 that we've put into the atmosphere, and are there any indirect effects, and (as I said before), what happens in the next 100 or so years.
About the "we can't predict the weather, how can we predict the climate" - there's some validity to this statement, of all "climate change" issues, i think its certainly not crazy to challenge those models. But this doesn't mean that we can't know anything about the atmosphere, or about what causes different stuff to occur. Much of our understanding of the atmosphere does have its basis in concrete equations, believe it or not. . . but the applicaton is difficult in a complex system, with variables that might not be anticipated. I'm pretty sure there are some engineers at nasa who would argue that engineering is not straightforward in a complex and changing system, either.
Honestly, scientists are not in the game to make money. . . its just not a good return on the investment. Five to six years of making 25,000 dollars a year, and then maybe an entry level position at a university, and six years later, if you are lucky, you might get tenure, and if you work your butt off, at the end of the job, you'll be making about as much as the guy who went straight from undergrad to working for a "green energy company" was making 15 years ago.
I think there's a lot of people who believe in global warming mostly because it confirms their values about "saving the environment". ANd this turns other people off. And it seems like this anti-global-warming attitude has caused many in the scientific community to be suspicious of anyone who argues against global warming, and then the unfortunate cycle occurs where you have the pro global warming people who allow no room for argument or the complete skeptics, who call anyone who believes a "joiner" , "liberal" or "hippy".
Last comment - what someone else said here is exactly true: we shouldn't forget the forest for the tree of global warming. There are more important things out there than just atmospheric CO2, both in terms of caring for the earth, and in terms of caring for other humans.
IN 50 years, i know i'll look back and laugh at how dumb I was, either for believing in the crock that was global warming, or for not believing it enough to buy that beach chalet in on baffin island.
To use a gun example:
THe problem that antigunners make oftentimes is that they apply preconcieved notions to the data, a la "crime went up when people had guns, therefore guns must cause crime". In fact, it may be spurious. Are climatologists doing this? Well, looking at alot of the popular "OMG TEH CLIMATE IZ GONNA KILL US!!! OH NOEZZ!!" stuff that you see in the media, yes, you hear "co2 concentrations went up, temp went up, therefore co2 conecntrations are the cause." However, read into the literature and you'll see that there are mechanisms that link between stuff like CO2 and climate warming.
You can do the math for yourself and see. . . if it wasn't for global warming, it would be really really cold. The link between CO2 and a warming effect is not disputed. The question is, how much warming is due to the CO2 that we've put into the atmosphere, and are there any indirect effects, and (as I said before), what happens in the next 100 or so years.
About the "we can't predict the weather, how can we predict the climate" - there's some validity to this statement, of all "climate change" issues, i think its certainly not crazy to challenge those models. But this doesn't mean that we can't know anything about the atmosphere, or about what causes different stuff to occur. Much of our understanding of the atmosphere does have its basis in concrete equations, believe it or not. . . but the applicaton is difficult in a complex system, with variables that might not be anticipated. I'm pretty sure there are some engineers at nasa who would argue that engineering is not straightforward in a complex and changing system, either.
Honestly, scientists are not in the game to make money. . . its just not a good return on the investment. Five to six years of making 25,000 dollars a year, and then maybe an entry level position at a university, and six years later, if you are lucky, you might get tenure, and if you work your butt off, at the end of the job, you'll be making about as much as the guy who went straight from undergrad to working for a "green energy company" was making 15 years ago.
I think there's a lot of people who believe in global warming mostly because it confirms their values about "saving the environment". ANd this turns other people off. And it seems like this anti-global-warming attitude has caused many in the scientific community to be suspicious of anyone who argues against global warming, and then the unfortunate cycle occurs where you have the pro global warming people who allow no room for argument or the complete skeptics, who call anyone who believes a "joiner" , "liberal" or "hippy".
Last comment - what someone else said here is exactly true: we shouldn't forget the forest for the tree of global warming. There are more important things out there than just atmospheric CO2, both in terms of caring for the earth, and in terms of caring for other humans.
IN 50 years, i know i'll look back and laugh at how dumb I was, either for believing in the crock that was global warming, or for not believing it enough to buy that beach chalet in on baffin island.
That petition was written up no later than 2001, long before the 4th assessment report was released.
oh and the guy's an evolution skeptic. that takes a massive chunk out of the his credibility
No one is arguing that. The argument is that this level of change coincides precisely with the amount of stuff we put into the atmosphere so well that the chances of it being mere chance are infinitesimally small.
The sun's influence, while naturally important, is not shown to be the primary cause. It's activity is not correlating with the temperature changes as it should be.
I completely agree. It warrants a lot more study, much more than is being done today.
The general public is certainly being duped but those that deny the evidence because of politics are also being duped.
grey_pilgrim
New member
Just saw what OntheFly posted:
Redworm: Robinson re-released his paper earlier this year and mailed a copy to lots of physical scientists around the world, urging them to sign the petition. OntheFly's article is relevant to the discussion.
A scientist friend showed me robinson's paper, which I read. I remain unconvinced. A couple of issues: the way he analyzes the data appears to be "cherry picking", he only looks at certain areas that would seem to support his thesis eg: not looking at the datasets that take into account the majority of the world, not using mutiple paleoclimate statistics, etc. Furthermore, the paper spent a considerable bit at the end ranting about how we shouldn't destroy our economy for a lie. A valid issue, especially if the radical views of global warming are wrong, but not relevant to the paper.
ETA: Redworm, where's that graph from?
ETA2: oh nm, i see
Redworm: Robinson re-released his paper earlier this year and mailed a copy to lots of physical scientists around the world, urging them to sign the petition. OntheFly's article is relevant to the discussion.
A scientist friend showed me robinson's paper, which I read. I remain unconvinced. A couple of issues: the way he analyzes the data appears to be "cherry picking", he only looks at certain areas that would seem to support his thesis eg: not looking at the datasets that take into account the majority of the world, not using mutiple paleoclimate statistics, etc. Furthermore, the paper spent a considerable bit at the end ranting about how we shouldn't destroy our economy for a lie. A valid issue, especially if the radical views of global warming are wrong, but not relevant to the paper.
ETA: Redworm, where's that graph from?
ETA2: oh nm, i see
oh I didn't realize he'd updated it 
I thought it was the same Oregon Petition that's been making the rounds like a bad email chain letter
Although I do agree with the idea that we shouldn't destroy the economy over hysteria. However I don't think investing into cleaner technologies and environmental research is going to destroy the economy any more than it's already been destroyed. I surely don't want to strangle developing nations but as (one of) the richest countries in the world we should be at the forefront of alternative energies, not just for the environment but because reliance on fossil fuels is quite obviously a severe risk for both the economy and our national security.
I thought it was the same Oregon Petition that's been making the rounds like a bad email chain letter Although I do agree with the idea that we shouldn't destroy the economy over hysteria. However I don't think investing into cleaner technologies and environmental research is going to destroy the economy any more than it's already been destroyed. I surely don't want to strangle developing nations but as (one of) the richest countries in the world we should be at the forefront of alternative energies, not just for the environment but because reliance on fossil fuels is quite obviously a severe risk for both the economy and our national security.
wncchester
New member
"If it can't be measured, it does not exist." Basically true and it accounts for many of the Chicken Little alarms of the past few decades. Advances in electonics allows the Chickens to find more and more tiny amounts of trace elements to be alarmed about with little real justificaton; radon, second-hand smoke, asbestos, cholestrol, etc, etc. There are plenty of idle "scientists" clammoring for tax grants to study all of them, usually leading to applications for more grants for further study. That's why we hear so often that previous alarms were, in fact, wrong. It's a sort of group hysteria fed by a desire for grant money for more research for people who really don't want to have to take a productive job in the real world.
Global warming? A whole degree in the last hundred years? Yes, just how accurate does any logical person think that measurement is? And so what, who is whinning that, "Gee, 75 years ago on this day it was 84 degrees, now it's 85 and I'm dying of the heat, Al Gore, come SAVE US!"
And who is to say what the "average" world temp really should be anyway? And if men did everything possible to reduce the warming, just how much would it affect the attainment of a given temp, maybe delay it a couple of months over the next centry? Or even a whole year? And for that we are expected to destroy the way of life and health (food) that has taken all of human history to attain?
The whole fear thing is a farce politicians wish to use to control us, only for the good of the world of course. But don't expect THEM to live as they would have us to live, especially Al Gore. Anyone really think HE would actually give up his extensive travel, air conditioning, heat, etc.? He wouldn't because it knows it's a crock.
Global warming? A whole degree in the last hundred years? Yes, just how accurate does any logical person think that measurement is? And so what, who is whinning that, "Gee, 75 years ago on this day it was 84 degrees, now it's 85 and I'm dying of the heat, Al Gore, come SAVE US!"
And who is to say what the "average" world temp really should be anyway? And if men did everything possible to reduce the warming, just how much would it affect the attainment of a given temp, maybe delay it a couple of months over the next centry? Or even a whole year? And for that we are expected to destroy the way of life and health (food) that has taken all of human history to attain?
The whole fear thing is a farce politicians wish to use to control us, only for the good of the world of course. But don't expect THEM to live as they would have us to live, especially Al Gore. Anyone really think HE would actually give up his extensive travel, air conditioning, heat, etc.? He wouldn't because it knows it's a crock.
- Status