No consensus on global warming

No consensus on global warming (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cyberdude611 -> No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 7:17:28 PM)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery. More at: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml Remember when Al Gore said there is consensus in the scientific world that global warming is man-made? Not anymore. Al Gore's activism has lead to a boom in research money and some of that money is going to scientists who are doing research and experiments that are starting to at least conflict with previous assumptions in the scientific community.

Owner59 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 7:24:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery. More at: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml Remember when Al Gore said there is consensus in the scientific world that global warming is man-made? Not anymore. Al Gore's activism has lead to a boom in research money and some of that money is going to scientists who are doing research and experiments that are starting to at least conflict with previous assumptions in the scientific community. Al Gore's activism has lead to a boom in research money and some of that money is going to scientists who are doing research and experiments that are starting to at least conflict with previous assumptions in the scientific community. That is a nothing but neo-con bull shit. You either know that,and are a liar,or you`ve been duped by the oil industrie`s new PR campaign. You may choose....

cyberdude611 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 7:31:22 PM)
What are you talking about? This isn't made up. There are at least 500 scientists now (some of which WERE believers in man-made global warming) publishing scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. And the only thing you can say is that they are all paid off by oil companies? Do you know what peer-review is? It means these scientists have published their works so that others can duplicate the research and verify the results. If their results is nothing but a crock, then the global warming alarmists should easily be able to debunk this research. But they can't! This is the process of discovering scientific truth. It takes more than an Al Gore movie (and Gore is also NOT a scientist) to prove something scientifically. Saying that global warming is caused by man is a theory. It is not proven scientific truth.

Owner59 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 7:33:46 PM)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549346_globewarm11.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86 http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

Zensee -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 7:37:29 PM)
I hear there is no consensus on the 6,000 year old earth either. http://www.creationmuseum.org/

CuriousLord -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 7:43:51 PM)
Yeah, global warming's just an idea in the scientific community. It's one of those things we're really not sure about and politicians are using to serve their ends, whatever they may be. In general, it's pretty much agreed that pollution probably isn't a good thing, so we should avoid it anyhow, and avoiding it to prevent global warming, incase it's real, is probably a good idea.

FirmhandKY -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 8:03:04 PM)
Hey! Men are indeed bad for the environment. Firm

Owner59 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 8:05:44 PM)
There is a move afoot,to poison the debate w/ bull shit, though. Just like the tobacco industry did,with their fake science,the energy industry is using underhanded weasel tactics,to say that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. Only now,are we finding out just how for back,the tobacco industry knew that tobacco was dangerous and cancer causing.The fake scientists were hired by the tobacco,to help them deny the real facts.Regular people didn`t know who to believe. The oil business has hired a bunch of "scientists" to muddy the waters,and confuse folks. And then there are the dopes who will repeat the bull shit,and repeat it,and so on...The oil insusty`s fake science,gives the dopes,"talking points".They know there`s a ready made audiance,hungry for Exon`s bull shit. Here`s a perfect example of fake,weasel tactics,used by these jerks. http://birddc.blogspot.com/2006/07/americans-for-american-energy-oil.html

cyberdude611 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 8:11:06 PM)
Its like what politicians are doing with stem-cell research. There is no evidence to claim this is the mother of all cures that liberals scream about. They claim people will walk again. That ALS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's will all be cured... And scientists are not saying that. They are saying that they want to research and find out what the posibilities are and see where it leads. What is possible in theory and what is possible in reality is two very different things. And there are many things about the brain that we don't understand yet. Neuroscience is a reletively new field right now. And it will take a long time before we have a good understanding on how our brains work. Now I favor such research, but I dont believe this is going to cure everything that many supporters are claiming. Its the same with global warming. Liberals are screaming about how we need to do this or that, turn our lives upside down, and we don't even have an understanding of how this planet works. We don't understand the climate cycles. I don't like the oil companies either, but man-made global warming is not a scientific fact. At least not yet. That's why we are doing research. We are running experiments. Leave the politics out of it for now.

asyouwish72 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 8:12:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 What are you talking about? This isn't made up. There are at least 500 scientists now (some of which WERE believers in man-made global warming) publishing scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. And the only thing you can say is that they are all paid off by oil companies? Do you know what peer-review is? It means these scientists have published their works so that others can duplicate the research and verify the results. If their results is nothing but a crock, then the global warming alarmists should easily be able to debunk this research. But they can't! This is the process of discovering scientific truth. It takes more than an Al Gore movie (and Gore is also NOT a scientist) to prove something scientifically. Saying that global warming is caused by man is a theory. It is not proven scientific truth. This is absolute tinfoil-hat right-wing nonsense. There is virtually no scientific debate regarding the existence of human-induced climate change, and as a person working in a paleoclimatology laboratory, I can personally assure you that there is NO evidence whatsoever that anything like the current warming trend exists in the record of recent (ie post-glacial) climate. The 1500 year number is apparently in reference to the "Medieval Warm Period", which was nearly as warm as the present climate in some locations (NOT globally). The greater issue is in regards to rate of change (a few degrees over millenia is not even noticable by human society; a few degrees in a decade or two is a serious problem). Also, the "variations in solar output argument" relates to Milankovitch cycles, which have periods on the order of tens of thousands of years, not of centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles The physics behind the action of greenhouse gases (principally CO2) is straightforward and not a matter of debate. These gases are permeable to shortwave energy (light and UV from the sun) but capture a portion of re-radiated longwave energy (infrared emissions from the ground surface that normally are lost back to space). The concentration of these gases therefore impacts the earth's radiative balance. A record of atmospheric CO2 over the last several glacial cycles appears here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png Note the vertical increase during the industrial revolution, at the edge of the graph. During the previous interglacial cycles, CO2 peaked at around 280 ppm in the atmosphere. In contrast, it bottomed around 200 ppm during glacial intervals. It is presently approaching 400ppm. Do you see where this is leading? That being said, the scientific community is much less alarmist about this than politicians perhaps are. The world is warming, and doing so rapidly compared to available historical information. Greenhouse gases are the only realistic driver for this. The question is, how do you make a cost-benefit analysis in regards to stopping this? A serious reduction in global CO2 output is not a trivial thing- an effort strong enough to do any good would involve some pretty wrenching economic upheavals. Therefore, the areas of debate in the scientific community center on the rate of warming (modelled, but largely unknown TBH) and the related economic costs. Those debates are pretty strenuous, and rightly so... but if you seriously ask anyone in this business about whether they doubt that we are experiencing anthropogenic impacts on climate, perpare to be laughed at. By the way, the Hudson Institute is founded and operated by the right-wing lunatic fringe. The director is named Herman Kahn, and is an unreconstructed RAND Corp kill-the-commies Doctor Stangelove. He's most famous for a book entitled "On Thermonuclear War". (Mine Fuerher, I can WALK!!)

Owner59 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 8:13:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Its like what politicians are doing with stem-cell research. There is no evidence to claim this is the mother of all cures that liberals scream about. They claim people will walk again. That ALS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's will all be cured... And scientists are not saying that. They are saying that they want to research and find out what the posibilities are and see where it leads. What is possible in theory and what is possible in reality is two very different things. And there are many things about the brain that we don't understand yet. Neuroscience is a reletively new field right now. And it will take a long time before we have a good understanding on how our brains work. Now I favor such research, but I dont believe this is going to cure everything that many supporters are claiming. Its the same with global warming. Liberals are screaming about how we need to do this or that, turn our lives upside down, and we don't even have an understanding of how this planet works. We don't understand the climate cycles. I don't like the oil companies either, but man-made global warming is not a scientific fact. At least not yet. That's why we are doing research. We are running experiments. Leave the politics out of it for now. I think your membership in the Flat Earth Society, needs renewing.....

Estring -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 8:16:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 There is a move afoot,to poison the debate w/ bull shit, though. Just like the tobacco industry did,with their fake science,the energy industry is using underhanded weasel tactics,to say that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. Only now,are we finding out just how for back,the tobacco industry knew that tobacco was dangerous and cancer causing.The scientists hired by the tobacco,to help them deny the real facts.Regular people didn`t know who to believe. The oil business has hired a bunch of "scientists" to muddy the waters,and confuse folks. And then there are the dopes who will repeat the bull shit,and repeat it,and so on...The oil insusty`s fake science,gives the dopes,"talking points".They know there`s a ready made audiance,hungry for Exon`s bull shit. Here`s a perfect example of fake,weasel tactics,used by these jerks. http://birddc.blogspot.com/2006/07/americans-for-american-energy-oil.html Actually, it is pretty easy to understand that inhaling smoke into your lungs is not a good idea. Do you need the tobacco industry to tell you that? I don't. And the fact is, that most smokers know that smoking is bad for them. They do it because they enjoy it. Regardless of the facts. And do you honestly think that there aren't scientists on the payroll of groups like Greenpeace? Please. Greenpeace and their ilk have their agendas to push as well as any oil company. Choose who you want to believe, but don't try to tell me that their is no manipulation on your side. And while we are at it, if you are so concerned about global warming, what are you doing to change your lifestyle? How about shutting off that pc and save some trees? I thought not.

firmobeisance -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 8:41:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: asyouwish72 but if you seriously ask anyone in this business about whether they doubt that we are experiencing anthropogenic impacts on climate, perpare to be laughed at. Thank you for your concise and definitive explanation. For the sake of argument, perhaps you could confirm that your paleoclimatology laboratory is not being funded by Greenpeace. Some of your terms, while precise, are perhaps a bit outside the vocabulary some of us here use. i took the liberty of checking the term "anthropogenic". Even Answers.com appears to be informed on the subject: quote: Caused by humans: anthropogenic degradation of the environment.

Owner59 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 8:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 There is a move afoot,to poison the debate w/ bull shit, though. Just like the tobacco industry did,with their fake science,the energy industry is using underhanded weasel tactics,to say that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. Only now,are we finding out just how for back,the tobacco industry knew that tobacco was dangerous and cancer causing.The scientists hired by the tobacco,to help them deny the real facts.Regular people didn`t know who to believe. The oil business has hired a bunch of "scientists" to muddy the waters,and confuse folks. And then there are the dopes who will repeat the bull shit,and repeat it,and so on...The oil insusty`s fake science,gives the dopes,"talking points".They know there`s a ready made audiance,hungry for Exon`s bull shit. Here`s a perfect example of fake,weasel tactics,used by these jerks. http://birddc.blogspot.com/2006/07/americans-for-american-energy-oil.html Actually, it is pretty easy to understand that inhaling smoke into your lungs is not a good idea. Do you need the tobacco industry to tell you that? I don't. And the fact is, that most smokers know that smoking is bad for them. They do it because they enjoy it. Regardless of the facts. And do you honestly think that there aren't scientists on the payroll of groups like Greenpeace? Please. Greenpeace and their ilk have their agendas to push as well as any oil company. Choose who you want to believe, but don't try to tell me that their is no manipulation on your side. And while we are at it, if you are so concerned about global warming, what are you doing to change your lifestyle? How about shutting off that pc and save some trees? I thought not. grow up,there`s a discussion going on.You`re welcome back,when that time comes. To say that the world wide scientific community, is on the payroll of GreenPeace,is just plain dopey.

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 9:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Do you know what peer-review is? It means these scientists have published their works so that others can duplicate the research and verify the results. If their results is nothing but a crock, then the global warming alarmists should easily be able to debunk this research. But they can't! Cyberdude, cyberdude... I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the irony in this latest head-in-the-sand post of yours. Yes, peer review. There's the rub! Now tell me dear, which peer-reviewed climatology-related journal was this review study itself published in? LOL. The Hudson Institute is a rightwing thinktank funded by Exxon and some other large corporations. They decided to do their own "review" of the literature and... surprise surprise, they found all kinds of studies that "cast doubt" on the elements of the solid consensus in the climatology community! I am shocked, just stunned. Tell you what. I'm going to start myself a Flat Earth Society thinktank tomorrow. And I'm going to do a careful meta-analysis of all the so-called research that's been done over the years by these kooky scientists who are claiming that the world is round. Starting with that fool Isaac Newton, including that leftwing shill Johannes Kepler and leading right up to MoveOn stooge Carl Sagan. And oh! Look-- I read some doubt there! Oh, and that finding there, it only has a 95% confidence on it. Not very sure of themselves are they, heh heh heh! Well, it looks like my careful review says we really don't know anything about the earth after all. I'll just put this up on the Flat Earth website where Rush and cyberdude can link to it, and we'll shut up those liberal scientist busybodies. No need to have real scientists go over my interpretations of the literature - after all, they're part of the conspiracy, right?

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 9:25:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Yeah, global warming's just an idea in the scientific community. Yeah. Like nucleotide-based inheritance of characteristics, mass law-governed orbital mechanics, and isotope decay-facilitated dating. Just ideas that scientists have. Why put any stock in the ideas of scientists? We don't need no stinking civilization. Ah kin see wit ma own ahhs everthing ah needs to no.

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 9:39:04 PM)
I'm glad you chimed in, asyouwish. I'm a fairly educated layperson on this subject, and have friends in fields related (more tangentially I suspect than yourself) to paleoclimate. What gets me the most about this "debate" is that there really hasn't been one in the scientific community for almost a decade, that we are contributing greatly to climate change. I don't know why it took the IPCC so long to come out formally on this. We have such a scientifically illiterate public here, and they are unfortunately so ripe for brainwashing by the petroleum industry and other political agents. And cyberdude, if you're still reading, please file the name "Fred Singer" away in your head. You will find his name on roughly 50% of the global warming denial stories that pop up on the web. His foundation actually does receive money from the oil industry. His previous claim to fame in serving the public's need for fearless scientific truth was in disputing the connection between smoking and cancer. He's pretty much a nutcase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Owner59 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 9:47:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 There is a move afoot,to poison the debate w/ bull shit, though. Just like the tobacco industry did,with their fake science,the energy industry is using underhanded weasel tactics,to say that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. Only now,are we finding out just how for back,the tobacco industry knew that tobacco was dangerous and cancer causing.The scientists hired by the tobacco,to help them deny the real facts.Regular people didn`t know who to believe. The oil business has hired a bunch of "scientists" to muddy the waters,and confuse folks. And then there are the dopes who will repeat the bull shit,and repeat it,and so on...The oil insusty`s fake science,gives the dopes,"talking points".They know there`s a ready made audiance,hungry for Exon`s bull shit. Here`s a perfect example of fake,weasel tactics,used by these jerks. http://birddc.blogspot.com/2006/07/americans-for-american-energy-oil.html Actually, it is pretty easy to understand that inhaling smoke into your lungs is not a good idea. Do you need the tobacco industry to tell you that? I don't. And the fact is, that most smokers know that smoking is bad for them. They do it because they enjoy it. Regardless of the facts. And do you honestly think that there aren't scientists on the payroll of groups like Greenpeace? Please. Greenpeace and their ilk have their agendas to push as well as any oil company. Choose who you want to believe, but don't try to tell me that their is no manipulation on your side. And while we are at it, if you are so concerned about global warming, what are you doing to change your lifestyle? How about shutting off that pc and save some trees? I thought not. for you http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

popeye1250 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 9:53:59 PM)
There is global warming but it's caused by increased solar activity . The thing that proves that is the fact that the other planets in our solar system are heating up at the same rate as Earth according to NASA scientists. Isn't Howard Dean real big on the flat earth society?

CuriousLord -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 10:02:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Yeah, global warming's just an idea in the scientific community. Yeah. Like nucleotide-based inheritance of characteristics, mass law-governed orbital mechanics, and isotope decay-facilitated dating. Just ideas that scientists have. Why put any stock in the ideas of scientists? We don't need no stinking civilization. Ah kin see wit ma own ahhs everthing ah needs to no. Heh. Smart ass. ;) Science makes theories, then tests 'em for accuracy to see if they make accurate predictions. It's the scientific method. Now, you see.. nucelotide-based inheritance of characteristics (you could've just said "genetics", you know), mass law-governed orbital mechanics (you really could've said "gravity"), and isotope decay-facilitated dating ("carbon dating" would've gotten the point across, though I'll give you that this one wasn't quite unnecessarily esoteric).. all of these things are readily observed and consistently conform to what we expect. This moves them to the "theory" part of the scientific method. Global warming, on the other hand? No, not quite yet. We're still getting the numbers together; interest groups have an interesting way of spinning them. But, whatever the case, please, don't tell me that my beloved science is so easy as to adopt ideas we scientists have before empiracle observation. Edit: Actually, I saw you tell someone else you're pretty educated, and I'll admit you seem to know your fair share. So I'd like to ask.. incase you know.. Do you know of an open-source "green house effect" model? The particulars of locations with their specific atmospheric composition functions aren't necessary, I'd just like the mathematical model.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875