Global Warming, or not

[ExpertNovice]

I'm surprised this had not already been posted. We need to keep working, as the United States has done since the 70's to reduce pollution. It would be nice if China and other countries would voluntarily help. Of course, we were lucky that the Senate, under Clinton, voted 95-0 to reject the Kyoto and we were lucky that Bush was President and was able to kill it completely.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Almost a thousand Scientists reject Gore's extremist position. To be fair, Gore has many social scientists that do agree with him and he does acknowledge that only pseudo-scientists pretend there is any debate on global warming.

There?s really not a debate. The debate is over. The scientific community has reached as strong a consensus as you will ever find in science. There are a few oil companies and coal companies that spend millions of dollars a year to put these pseudo-scientists out there pretending there is a debate

 

[blackllotus]

Well, to be honest, a thousand scientists against Gore doesn't really mean much of anything, since he has a lot more that support him. All that article does to address this support is to dismiss the supporters as "unqualified" without presenting any statistics on what those who are qualified believe.

Furthermore, that article picks and chooses its facts. It doesn't address the increase in global surface temperature, and is wrong about issues such as rising sea level and meting ice caps. The article claims that sea level will only rise by "0.03 mm/year" even though the sea level has already risen 4-8 inches of over the past century (EPA), and the ice caps have decreased in mass even though the article tries to claim otherwise.

The article cites one of Tim Patterson's claims that

On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?

This view is clearly biased because the increase in CO2 levels has not been small and the warming that has occur over the last century was disturbingly large, not "modest".

Patterson also claims

there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

And this is also false. Last century's rate of warming does not follow any climate pattern in the past.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Well, to be honest, a thousand scientists against Gore doesn't really mean much of anything, since he has a lot more that support him. All that article does to address this support is to dismiss the supporters as "unqualified" without presenting any statistics on what those who are qualified believe.

Furthermore, that article picks and chooses its facts. It doesn't address the increase in global surface temperature, and is wrong about issues such as rising sea level and meting ice caps. The article claims that sea level will only rise by "0.03 mm/year" even though the sea level has already risen 4-8 inches of over the past century (EPA), and the ice caps have decreased in mass even though the article tries to claim otherwise.

The article cites one of Tim Patterson's claims that

On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?

This view is clearly biased because the increase in CO2 levels has not been small and the warming that has occur over the last century was disturbingly large, not "modest".

You took that comment completely out of context. When he declares a relatively small increase in CO2 he is not talking in terms of the last century... He's talking in terms of the last 450 million years when, on many occasions, atmospheric CO2 levels were many times what they are today. Taken in proper context his comments are absolutely correct.

Patterson also claims

there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

And this is also false. Last century's rate of warming does not follow any climate pattern in the past.

Again, taken out of context. Over the last 450 million years, if you look at atmospheric CO2 levels you'll see that there is no specific pattern to correlate CO2 with global mean temperature. So he's questioning, why, based on this evidence, we would now all in a sudden assume that CO2 is the reason for the recent increase global temperatures. He goes on to say that global temperatures do correlate to solar patterns and that that evidence carries more weight than CO2.

And in a nutshell, there you have the modern scientific debate on Global Warming. Anybody who gives evidence contrary to the Oh NOeS Global warming!!! crowd is shouted down or has their words taken out of context. That is not science. Science is an open exchange of ideas backed by research and evidence. One half of the debate has not only not been invited to the party, seurity has been informed to be on the look out for them just in case they try to show up.

Good article OP.

 

[desy]

I have a PHD climatologist 4 offices down from mine who used to work for NOAA and now us.
He was unconvinced of climate change til about 4 months ago when an article came out in the economist which changed his opinion.
Something to do with the way they measure tempature in the upper atomospere was not showing an increase in temp although ground based temp was. Turns out it was not being correctly reported or analyzed? and also has been increasing in tempature all along.

Was enough to change his mind

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: desy
I have a PHD climatologist 4 offices down from mine who used to work for NOAA and now us.
He was unconvinced of climate change til about 4 months ago when an article came out in the economist which changed his opinion.
Something to do with the way they measure tempature in the upper atomospere was not showing an increase in temp although ground based temp was. Turns out it was not being correctly reported or analyzed? and also has been increasing in tempature all along.

Was enough to change his mind

Out of litterally tens of thousands of papers written on the subject one article in a magazine changed his mind?

 

[Looney]

I think Gore is a little too extreme as well... but i think that's partly because you need to be extreme to get any attention these days. And if you shoot for the extreme, you won't get it, but you'll make the 'middle-ground' where people will meet you is more to the position that you wanted.

Here's the way i see it... if he's completely wrong, what do we lose? Nothing really, but better environmental practices, and the oil, coal, manufcturing companies that abuse it currently don't make as much money... maybe it'll put a little strain on the economy (if it does, it'll be short-term).

But if he's right?

 

[MonkeyK]

Guest Column
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris

.
.
.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.

agenda?


With Gore's movie out, if climatologists overwhelmingly disagree with his argument, we probaly won't need to hear about it from "public affairs and public policy" companies.

Come to think of it, if climatologists overwhelmingly disagreed that human activity can effect global climate change in general, we would be hearing about it overwhelmingly from sources other than "public affairs and public policy" companies.


(disclaimer: I have not seen "The Inconvenient Truth")

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Guest Column
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris

.
.
.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.

agenda?


With Gore's movie out, if climatologists overwhelmingly disagree with his argument, we probaly won't need to hear about it from "public affairs and public policy" companies.

Come to think of it, if climatologists overwhelmingly disagreed that human activity can effect global climate change in general, we would be hearing about it overwhelmingly from sources other than "public affairs and public policy" companies.


(disclaimer: I have not seen "The Inconvenient Truth")

I saw it, and he shows all kinds of evidence. For example, there is a part in the movie where they surveyed over 900+ scientific articles from scientific magazines and all of agreed that the planet is warming up at an alarming rate thru pollution and such. Now, when they surveyed "popular" magazines, they found out that 53% of the articles written were for the opposing viewpoint, which would explain why there is still doubt in some people today.

 

[daniel49]

Ode to Al

Captain Planet he's my hero,
gonna take pollution down to zero...
:music:

 

[desy]

And he's read all those 10's of thousands of papers and the one sticking point was and we have other climatologists who accpeted the climate change model long ago, this was this single sticking point for him.
He'd come back to it time and again as an 'incomplete' picture since that parameter has changed everything is lined up he is now assured that we are in accelerated climate change for 'whatever' reason. May or may not be CO2, but the climate is definately in change, at a rate unprecedented.

 

[Darthvoy]

over the last 400 million years the temperature of the earth has fluctuated naturally, but it never went over a certain level. Over the last 50 years, however, the temperature has gone up way and beyond past that point. Not to mention, the hottest years ever recorded have all been in the past few years.

 

[dmcowen674]

Gore and handful of Scientists that haven't been bought out Vs the Republican and Corporate machine.

Forget about it, the Republicans/Corporate whores win hands down.

 

[techs]

Pssst. Hey scientists, need a job?
If you publish against global warming there are billions of dollars in funds from the richest corporations on earth to fund you.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
I'm surprised this had not already been posted. We need to keep working, as the United States has done since the 70's to reduce pollution. It would be nice if China and other countries would voluntarily help. Of course, we were lucky that the Senate, under Clinton, voted 95-0 to reject the Kyoto and we were lucky that Bush was President and was able to kill it completely.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Almost a thousand Scientists reject Gore's extremist position. To be fair, Gore has many social scientists that do agree with him and he does acknowledge that only pseudo-scientists pretend there is any debate on global warming.

There?s really not a debate. The debate is over. The scientific community has reached as strong a consensus as you will ever find in science. There are a few oil companies and coal companies that spend millions of dollars a year to put these pseudo-scientists out there pretending there is a debate

did you think for a second to question that source of yours?

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Out of litterally tens of thousands of papers written on the subject one article in a magazine changed his mind?

The fact that the satellite basedd measurments of the atmosphere did not agree with predictions was a major problem for everyone trying to model the climate. However, as it turns out the analysis of the data was not correct. The new analysis is in much better agreement with predictions. It is important to note that the different results have nothing to do with climate-modelling, the difference comes from different ways of modelling the sensor onboard on the satellite, basically the old results were wrong because of bad sensor-calibration.

See e.g.
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0305/warming.html

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: techs
Pssst. Hey scientists, need a job?
If you publish against global warming there are billions of dollars in funds from the richest corporations on earth to fund you.

Not really.

The only time a corporation is going to employ a scientist for environmental research is when they need a favorable environmental impact study to help them get a new project underway. And that is usually going to involve a biologist or geologist. Oil companies employ tons of geologists and biologists to look for new deposits and evaluate the impact of drilling on the local wildlife.

Global climatology is hardly a topic that is going to interfere with the general course of business. Thus, there are not billions being dangled out there by corporations to disprove human-caused global warming.

But there are billions being handed out in the form of government grants to scientists who claim alarm. That's where the real money is. Grant money is the life-blood to a research scientist. And nobody hands out money if there isn't a problem.

Link... This article states a belief that most scientists who present evidence counter to the current GW hysteria are shunned, not published and *shock* are denied government research grants.

Obviously, if only one side of the debate is funded, the presentation of information will be skewed. It's bad science to ignore some facts and emphasize others just to back up your own contentions. Yet the GW debate is rife with this kind of bahavior.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Gore and handful of Scientists that haven't been bought out Vs the Republican and Corporate machine.

Forget about it, the Republicans/Corporate whores win hands down.

If memory serves me VP Cheney worked for Haliburton who Clinton liked so much he ignored the law to use them as the no-bid contract company and they have been rated quite highly by the various environmental groups.

Occidental oil which pays Al and the Gore family has been cited many times for polluting including on Al's property.

So, while I agree with your "corporate whores" position you have it wrong when you falsely claim that is is only the Republicans. I can only assume that you care more about "winning" than the environment or that you only listen to the "mainstream" media and other such propaganda.

Originally posted by: Looney
I think Gore is a little too extreme as well... but i think that's partly because you need to be extreme to get any attention these days. And if you shoot for the extreme, you won't get it, but you'll make the 'middle-ground' where people will meet you is more to the position that you wanted.

Here's the way i see it... if he's completely wrong, what do we lose? Nothing really, but better environmental practices, and the oil, coal, manufcturing companies that abuse it currently don't make as much money... maybe it'll put a little strain on the economy (if it does, it'll be short-term).

But if he's right?

You start off agreeing with me. That extreme positions are not appropriate but then you support one of the most extremist positions there is. A position that the messenger doesn't believe is appropriate for himself!

Since you feel so strongly I assume you no longer drive a car. That is one of the "better environmental practices" that Al Gore wants to have happen by 2017. I also disagree that no cars means "a little strain" on the economy.

 

[desy]

"He frequently speaks out against the IPCC position that significant global warming is caused by humans (see global warming) although he accepts that the warming has occurred, saying global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago [2]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
You start off agreeing with me. That extreme positions are not appropriate but then you support one of the most extremist positions there is. A position that the messenger doesn't believe is appropriate for himself!

Since you feel so strongly I assume you no longer drive a car. That is one of the "better environmental practices" that Al Gore wants to have happen by 2017. I also disagree that no cars means "a little strain" on the economy.

First off, i never agreed with you. You're a moron. I just happen to have an opinion that coincides with yours.

Second, nice way of arguing. Taking something that is so extreme that even the extremists aren't proposing, and using that as a stance to argue against. Gore is pretty far extreme, but nowhere have i heard or read that he wants all cars removed from society. If you have a source of this that i'm not aware of, share it.

This type of thinking is typical to the psychotic. No wonder you can't be reason with or reach a middle-ground, you take a simple comment and blow it completely out of proportion.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
He goes on to say that global temperatures do correlate to solar patterns and that that evidence carries more weight than CO2.

Yes, and this is correct. Whats your point? The current temperatures don't correlate to any solar patterns that we know of, so it really is irrelevant whether past temperature rises did or didn't.

 

[sMiLeYz]

This is a very simple argument to solve, since most conservatives don't believe the "libruhl" media anyway. Goto a university or library, and search for one of the gazillion peer reviewed scientific journals about global warming.
Politicians and the media mislead and lie all the time, scientists are fact seekers and they're peer reviewed by fellow scientists. Theres is no agenda but the truth.

I personally won't listen to anyone other than a climatologist, and from what i've read in numerous scientific publications they support Al Gore's position.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
He goes on to say that global temperatures do correlate to solar patterns and that that evidence carries more weight than CO2.

Yes, and this is correct. Whats your point? The current temperatures don't correlate to any solar patterns that we know of, so it really is irrelevant whether past temperature rises did or didn't.

Go back and read my whole post again.
The person I quoted was taking statements out of context. I was correcting him.

The scientist's opinion is that if you are going to use the correlation=causation logic fallacy then CO2 doesn't work. Solar patterns do.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
This is a very simple argument to solve, since most conservatives don't believe the "libruhl" media anyway. Goto a university or library, and search for one of the gazillion peer reviewed scientific journals about global warming.
Politicians and the media mislead and lie all the time.

I personally won't listen to anyone other than a climatologist, and from what i've read in numerous scientific publications they support Al Gore's position.

That doesn't prove anything as most papers submitting evidence that contradicts the current GW hysteria are rejected for publication and peer review. Few if any research grants are issued to look into the subject as well.

It's a very one sided argument right now.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The consensus on SOME threat from global warming is not really debatable at all. The argument is about the magnitude. But even in those circles there' a strong consensus that even small changes probably aren't a good idea considering we have no way of knowing exactly what the consequences will be over time.

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm more concerned about the treatment of scientists than global warming. It seems that legitimate scientists are being treated as if they are Hitler's children. We are returning to an age of persecution against scientists, like Galileo. Scientific thought shouldn't be suppressed, especially by politicians and their fanboys on both sides of the issue.

If global warming is happening because of humans, pollution will need to be reduced. If global warming isn't happening because of humans, pollution will still need to be reduced. People can argue any way, but the actions that must be taken will be the same. However, people will argue on how to achieve that outcome.