Asian pollution causing global cooling

[zinfamous]

From what source do man-made global warming proponents claim a scientific consensus? Can I get a link?

I provided several.

 

[zinfamous]

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (PDF)

Oh, the one where 1000 engineers and physicists chime in against the evidence supported by an overwhelming number of climatologists? Might as well support all the astrologers and physicists that support Intelligent Design and reject the mountains of evidence that support evolution.

Naomi Oreskes? Union of Concerned Scientists? Media Matters? John Cook? You've got to be kidding Zin to list this bunch of political clowns in a scientific discussion.

The link to the review in Science isn't good enough for you? :hmm:

sorry, I thought you had some experience with scientific journals. I suppose not. :\

 

[zinfamous]

I like how you post that people that doubt global warming have a distrust of all science. Are all liberals this idiotic? Or are all liberals hate mongers? Can you not see a correlation showing that funds are distributed to scientest and researches based on the results before the research is even done?

Where is the proof that what money is being spent will improve the environment? Why is it I believe that global warming will just make a few rich scientist and researchers?

Maybe we should knock all the buildings down in new york city, plant trees and give the land back to the original American Native People.

haha. there's the distrust, right there. What you assume to be true is not the entire reality, whatsoever.

 

[monovillage]

Oh, the one where 1000 engineers and physicists chime in against the evidence supported by an overwhelming number of climatologists? Might as well support all the astrologers and physicists that support Intelligent Design and reject the mountains of evidence that support evolution.




The link to the review in Science isn't good enough for you? :hmm:

sorry, I thought you had some experience with scientific journals. I suppose not. :\

I said science, not an author or a science historian like Naomi Oreskes, from wiki-

"Naomi Oreskes is an American science historian, and Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego. She has worked on studies of geophysics, environmental issues such as global warming, and the history of science. In 2010, Oreskes co-authored Merchants of Doubt which identified some parallels between the climate change debate and earlier public controversies."

Why not just add a link from Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore and get a perfect misinformation trifecta?

 

[Monster_Munch]

I would imagine there's much more money to be made as a scientist if you start publishing anti-climate change papers. The oil and coal industry spend a fair bit more money on lobbyists than the solar cell industry does.

 

[Munky]

I would guess that if you chart the percentage of people who deny climate change and generally distrust science, with their opinions on the scientific evidence that firmly supports the fact of evolution, you'd find a rather compelling and non-surprisng correlation.
:hmm:

are the two issues related? no--but it would tell you something about the value of an individual's opinion on science, and grasp of solid evidence and ability to form an informed argument on general scientific issues.

I'm not aware of a major push among natural history scientists to fabricate, manipulate and selectively bias their data to support their theory on evolution, nor have I heard of them colluding to silence, discredit, and backstab the dissenters, and last I checked, they don't receive government funding to "prove" evolution so that the others can make radical sweeping policy changes to fatten their wallets. As such, I have no qualms about evolution being real, but I'm nowhere near convinced about the veracity of the global warming scaremongers.

 

[woolfe9999]

I was aware of that debunked 97% figure. I was hoping the MMGW proponents had something more convincing.

Here is another from Stanford researchers, comes to similar conclusions though uses the methodology of ranking scientists by expertise, i.e. number of publications:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

 

[feralkid]

Everyone can go to hell and die.

Not to debate theology, but shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

tinfoilhats

 

[boomerang]

Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong

 

[Circlenaut]

LOL. As I've thought for a long time, we as a species are impacting the environment but in ways we cannot possibly quantify (despite trying). We have no idea how much we are warming or cooling the earth. Moreover, we don't even know if warming it is a bad thing (maybe it's not?). And this says the sh*t from chinese smoke stacks is countering CO2. Maybe it really is, maybe it isn't. The arrogance will continue, though, as people bring up impossibly specific (and inaccurate) charts predicting things that will never happen as predicted.

That's no reason to stop research. It's usually not the scientists sensationalizing the data but instead the media. Don't confuse arrogance with meticulous scientific endeavor. Would you rather live blindly and not know what COULD happen or would you rather have research that points to possibilities?

 

[monovillage]

You don't take into account that when skeptics of Global Warming here in this forum posted graphs and data from peer reviewed climate science papers that there was no statistically significant warming for over a decade that we we labeled as science haters, tools of big oil or the always favorite "deniers". Here's yet another paper that shows there has been no significant warming in over a decade and tries to lay the blame on China. Some of the Global Warming Alarmists here in the forum even use debunked and outdated links to support their continuing to fail assumptions. Here's a link to climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. We keep dropping 10s of billions of dollars into these failed Global Climate Models and the policy driven scientists that produced them, it's time to stop rewarding abject failure and begin putting the money into more productive and realistic scientists hands.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-of-members-of-the-climate-science-community/

"The confessions that are listed in this article are an implicit admission of the bankruptcy of the approach on climate assessments such as the 2007 IPCC WG1 report with its assumption that the multi-decadal climate model predictions are skillful."

 

[werepossum]

The funniest thing about this is that the same CAGW crowd has been insisting for the last decade that it was the hottest decade on record. Now they are admitting that the last decade hasn't been any hotter - but the reason is that they were even more correct than they thought so the inevitable warming is going to be even worse!

Climate modeling remains an excellent tool to explain things that have already happened. At least, with a little special sauce added.

EDIT:

That's no reason to stop research. It's usually not the scientists sensationalizing the data but instead the media. Don't confuse arrogance with meticulous scientific endeavor. Would you rather live blindly and not know what COULD happen or would you rather have research that points to possibilities?

This is true; research is almost always good. It's also not a reason to lower CO2 emissions and to investigate schema to remove CO2, as CO2 is highly stressful on some marine and some aquatic ecosystems. It is however a great reason to finally admit that the people driving this debate are not only clueless, but often fundamentally dishonest.

 

[hal2kilo]

I would imagine there's much more money to be made as a scientist if you start publishing anti-climate change papers. The oil and coal industry spend a fair bit more money on lobbyists than the solar cell industry does.

This. Fortunately real scientists have principles.

 

[BladeVenom]

It looks to me like the planet has been getting colder. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

 

[monovillage]

I would imagine there's much more money to be made as a scientist if you start publishing anti-climate change papers. The oil and coal industry spend a fair bit more money on lobbyists than the solar cell industry does.

It took the second post for me to react this. Are you guys really this naive and gullible? Big corporations like big money, there's big money in solar/wind power with all the government subsidies, so that's where the energy corporations go. Do you really think that British Petroleum says "we're only an oil company, we won't dirty our hands on any of that green money"

http://ezinearticles.com/?British-Petroleum---Solar-Products-Manufacture&id=234436

http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/solar/

http://www.sunedison.com/

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

I'm glad the Chinese have found a solution to our global warming problem :thumbsup:

Old news. The "umbrella" of particulate pollution over thr northern industrial belt is not "NEW" news. It just masks the true state of Man Made Global Warming while the poles melt.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It looks to me like the planet has been getting colder. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Right in there with the last ten years that are recorded as the warmest in 150 years?

 

[dainthomas]

Funny how the article title makes it sound like stopping global warming is a bad thing.

Haha, I noticed that too. I guess it has to be stopped the "right" way (by guilting rich white people into sending no-strings-attached piles of money to poor countries). Now after all that work they'll have to come up with another scam.

 

[OCGuy]

I would guess that if you chart the percentage of people who deny climate change and generally distrust science, with their opinions on the scientific evidence that firmly supports the fact of evolution, you'd find a rather compelling and non-surprisng correlation.
:hmm:

are the two issues related? no--but it would tell you something about the value of an individual's opinion on science, and grasp of solid evidence and ability to form an informed argument on general scientific issues.

Actually I think you have it backwards. I look at religion and the "climate change" garbage as almost the same thing.

Religion is there for one reason only: To pass that collection plate around

What are all these "Global warming/cooling/oops now its climate change so we are always right" people getting? Grants. Millions and millions in grants for "studies."

Both camps supress or attempt to discredit any contradictory evidence to their dogma.



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$