Global Warming Skeptics have bigger scientific backing than Global Warming Backers

66o66o

New Report from the US Senate Committee

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

ART6

66o66o wrote: »

New Report from the US Senate Committee

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Very interesting. Thanks for posting the link. However, we can't now withdraw from the global warming prevention methods we have adopted. Think of the loss of tax revenue in a time of constraint!!

66o66o

Exactly, just incase somebody doesn't get your sarcasm...

The poor government would lose out if they stopped taxing us on a non-existant issue, and the big evil person working for minimum wage might have enough money to pay for petrol to go to the shops to buy Food....
Those evil people always trying to screw the government

csm

few points:

the links to the 'Full Report' given on that blog lead, variously, to other blog entries by the same guy to a news report from a site called 'rightsidenews.com'.

every single one of the entries in that blog are skeptical about climate change. not saying you can't be but just demonstrating that it is not unbiased reporting.

there were over 1500 scientists involved in the IPCC 2007 report. not 52 as this marc morano guy claims. looking into his links further it seems they came from a single speech from a fellow skeptic, not any official report.

i followed a few of the links to try and find unbiased reporting but gave up after the first 3 or 4. it is not an official report from the US senate, it is a report, written in misleading language, saying that a report has been put together by a minority of the US senate.

i would love to see the actual document to see if it contains well-articulated views of credible skeptics (ie those that know what they are talking about). has the OP a link to it?

ChocolateSauce

As a scientist and former climate sceptic, I'd like to say that while there is a good deal of evidence which casts doubt on climate change, in particular human's effect on it, the doubt isn't in agreement (that is, some evidence says one thing isn't happen, other evidence says that thing is happening, but this thing isn't, etc). There is also a lot more evidence which suggests it is happening.

Better play it safe, IMO. Furthermore, even if the sun is responsible for 50% of it, this doesn't make our obligation go away. In fact, it means we have to go twice as far.

I do, however, think it is over-hyped, and the vast majority of people know fcukall about it.

hoser expat

Be very careful with this one....it is made to look like an official US government press release, but in fact it is a blog posting by James Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma. Inhofe is a Bush crony, evangelical Christian, and one of the most prominent climate change deniers around, but unfortunately he is a Senator so people listen. His was a prominent supporter of the discredited Oregon Petition. He is in the pocket of Big Oil, and he has no scientific background to be making these claims. This is a complete joke, and as the previous poster notes there were far more than 52 authors to the IPCC.

And yes, I come at this with some relevant background. I have a PhD in earth sciences, am a professor that has researched climate change, and my work has been quoted by the IPCC.

P. Breathnach

hoser expat wrote: »

And yes, I come at this with some relevant background. I have a PhD in earth sciences, am a professor that has researched climate change, and my work has been quoted by the IPCC.

How can we be sure of that? Credentials are worth nothing in an online forum where people post anonymously.

[I do accept, however, that Inhofe's blog looks like the work of a loon.]

hoser expat

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How can we be sure of that? Credentials are worth nothing in an online forum where people post anonymously.

[I do accept, however, that Inhofe's blog looks like the work of a loon.]

I don't ask that you trust my credentials, but if you send me your email by PM and I will send my CV.

P. Breathnach

hoser expat wrote: »

I don't ask that you trust my credentials, but if you send me your email by PM and I will send my CV.

Thank you for the offer, but there is no need to trouble yourself.

You achieved your objective by getting me to look at Inhofe's ramblings.

I made my observation about 10% to show myself off as a smartass, and 90% to remind people to treat anything that they read online with caution.

Sam Kade

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill” – Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome (1991).

Here's a link to the book
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2297152/Alexander-King-Bertrand-Schneider-The-First-Global-Revolution-Club-of-Rome-1993-Edition

bonkey

Sam Kade wrote: »

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill” – Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome (1991).

Yup. Nowhere in that quote, nor in the book, will you find the suggestion, however, that the "new enemy" is fictitious.

Jimbo

66o66o wrote: »

Exactly, just incase somebody doesn't get your sarcasm...

The poor government would lose out if they stopped taxing us on a non-existant issue, and the big evil person working for minimum wage might have enough money to pay for petrol to go to the shops to buy Food....
Those evil people always trying to screw the government

Surely governments would welcome not having to pay carbon credits to the EU in the future?

Húrin

66o66o wrote: »

New Report from the US Senate Committee

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Do you people even realise what you are asking us to do? We cannot afford to ignore the risk that the climate might be heating (and I certainly think it is). The consequences of taking action that we don't need to take may be undesirable to you. The consequences of not taking action in a heating world (i.e. if GW evidence turns out to be true) would be catastrophic.

Sam Kade

bonkey wrote: »

Yup. Nowhere in that quote, nor in the book, will you find the suggestion, however, that the "new enemy" is fictitious.

“We came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill” Does this not suggest that the new enemy is fictitious?

http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

djpbarry

Sam Kade wrote: »

“We came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill” Does this not suggest that the new enemy is fictitious?

Hmm. Pollution, water shortages and famine are all real, are they not?

Sam Kade

djpbarry wrote: »

Hmm. Pollution, water shortages and famine are all real, are they not?

Global warming isn't real.

djpbarry

Sam Kade wrote: »

Global warming isn't real.

I believe the popular term used to describe your position is "denial".

Sam Kade

djpbarry wrote: »

I believe the popular term used to describe your position is "denial".

Call it using common sense. Read the link a lot of research went into it.

If you want to see how much Al Gore believes in what he preaches look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6rtp296RTU&feature=channel

djpbarry

Sam Kade wrote: »

Call it using common sense.

No, common sense would be accepting that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing rapidly and average global temperature over the last number of decades is on an upward trend. Refusing to accept those two facts independently of one another equates, quite simply, to a state of denial.

Sam Kade wrote: »

If you want to see how much Al Gore believes in what he preaches look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6rtp296RTU&feature=channel

Where exactly did I state that I'm a believer in the gospel according to Al?

csm

Sam Kade wrote: »

Global warming isn't real.

I feel you may have lost touch with your fellow skeptics. The vast majority of credible skeptics have now admitted that global warming is real (yes, even George W.!). The latest line in climate change skepticism is that, yes, it is real, BUT it isn't caused by humans and is all just natural variability.

It's a shifting of the goalposts from their stance, say, a decade ago, but was unavoidable due to the overwhelming weight of evidence that the global temperature is rising.

P. Breathnach

csm wrote: »

I feel you may have lost touch with your fellow skeptics...

I suspect that Sam Kade is not open to persuasion.

Sam Kade

csm wrote: »

I feel you may have lost touch with your fellow skeptics. The vast majority of credible skeptics have now admitted that global warming is real (yes, even George W.!). The latest line in climate change skepticism is that, yes, it is real, BUT it isn't caused by humans and is all just natural variability.

It's a shifting of the goalposts from their stance, say, a decade ago, but was unavoidable due to the overwhelming weight of evidence that the global temperature is rising.

Global temperature is dropping since 2006. You must have lost touch with your fellow activists as they now accept that global temperature can go down as well as up.

csm

Sam Kade wrote: »

Global temperature is dropping since 2006. You must have lost touch with your fellow activists as they now accept that global temperature can go down as well as up.

Ha! You can't actually believe that scientists claimed that there would be no interannual variation that would allow global temps to fall from year to year? There is an upward trend in global temperature. Interannual variations mean that there can be a drop in temperature for the next 5 years and yet the global trend will still be predicted to be upwards. You need to be talking about decades and upwards when it comes to future climate. Then the signal to noise ratio increases enough to allow statistically significant conclusions.

The media often reports that this year is the 'warmest on record' or the 'coldest since 2000' (this year for example). It bears some relation to the overall trend but you can't claim that it's colder (or warmer) this year than last and then conclude that the climate is cooling (warming).

Can I ask you a question? Could someone ever provide any evidence to you to change your mind and make you believe that the climate is warming? It sounds like you have made your mind up and are not for turning.

Sam Kade

csm wrote: »

I feel you may have lost touch with your fellow skeptics. The vast majority of credible skeptics have now admitted that global warming is real (yes, even George W.!). The latest line in climate change skepticism is that, yes, it is real, BUT it isn't caused by humans and is all just natural variability.

It's a shifting of the goalposts from their stance, say, a decade ago, but was unavoidable due to the overwhelming weight of evidence that the global temperature is rising.

Global temperature is dropping since 2006. You must have lost touch with your fellow activists as they now accept that global temperature can go down as well as up.

fishfoodie

djpbarry wrote: »

No, common sense would be accepting that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing rapidly and average global temperature over the last number of decades is on an upward trend. Refusing to accept those two facts independently of one another equates, quite simply, to a state of denial.

The critical point is determining if there is any linkage between the two data points.

The cost of a pint of plain has been rapidly increasing over the last century, but that doesn't mean that its coupled to the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere !

csm

fishfoodie wrote: »

The critical point is determining if there is any linkage between the two data points.

The cost of a pint of plain has been rapidly increasing over the last century, but that doesn't mean that its coupled to the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere !

Indeed, but he was making the point that Sam above doesn't believe that temperatures are going up, which, to use your analogy, is akin to not believing that the price of a pint is going up. This makes Sam a denier, rather than a credible skeptic, as he doesn't appear to understand the basics of the science, but has made his mind up on it nonetheless.

fishfoodie

csm wrote: »

Indeed, but he was making the point that Sam above doesn't believe that temperatures are going up, which, to use your analogy, is akin to not believing that the price of a pint is going up. This makes Sam a denier, rather than a credible skeptic, as he doesn't appear to understand the basics of the science, but has made his mind up on it nonetheless.

And he's perfectly entitled to ask the question; science is a process that doesn't work if people just sit around like sheep & blindly accept everything that plonked in front of them

As it happens I'm not entirely convinced in the temp thing myself. I think it probable that temperatures are increasing, but there are lots of very important unanswered questions about: 'where are temperatures increasing ?', 'what weighting is being given to different temperatures ?', 'what margins of error are being applied to older temperature readings ?' etc, etc, etc.

csm

He's not asking any questions. He's not probing in any way. He has stating that global warming is a fallacy. Now, he can't be doing that based on reading the scientific evidence. It appears that he has read some reports from skeptics and decided that it's all a conspiracy. That's his prerogative, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but given the major societal & environmental implications of climate change I would always encourage someone to delve a little deeper and try to understand the problem.

You are completely right in what you say about science. It can't be progressed without skepticism and your questions are very important. I'm sure you're already aware of this but for anyone else who may not be:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Chapters 3-5 of this report will give you a good starting basis for answering your questions ie it will tell you the methodologies that are currently employed in determining current temperatures and those of the recent past. Chapter 6 covers palaeoclimate ie climate in the distant past. The report is freely available but the papers it summarises may not be.

Now, to tackle your point that we shouldn't sit around and blindly accept what people tell you. I agree but I would also like to point out that if a topic is very complex and outside of your training, would you not enlist the help of experts? Do you not go to a doctor when you are sick etc? This isn't to say that you should blindly accept what they say, not at all. It does make the point that you shouldn't dismiss their advice out of hand, just because you don't like the implications of it.

BigUnit

djpbarry wrote: »

Hmm. Pollution, water shortages and famine are all real, are they not?

Ever read the bible???

We had this stuff 2000 years ago, before the dreaded CARBON.

djpbarry

BigUnit wrote: »

Ever read the bible???

Nope, not really.

BigUnit wrote: »

We had this stuff 2000 years ago, before the dreaded CARBON.

Point?

baldieman

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/understanding-man-made-climate-change/
Since it's Christmas, here's a slightly humorous view

derry

baldieman wrote: »

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/understanding-man-made-climate-change/
Since it's Christmas, here's a slightly humorous view

Really global warming is a debate and the trends are slow and subtle and can have many reasons to occour or not even occour

However for some on the extreme ends the case for global warming is a neo fachist cause to bring another new control to society versus for some who are skeptics it is a neo fachist cause to maintain the control on society they already have..
Me its simple the global warming case is just is too weak to stand up even if you take some global waring from CO2 from mankind .However I keep an eye on it in case new results come in.But I do like bio fuels and renewables so as to help remove the grip the big energy companies have on society and hopefully finally get rid of that bunch of fachists . I am not very keen to replace them with a green brigade bunch of fachists .


here is another to look at the issue

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/

which has this graph that shows global warming trends are down wards
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/msucruco2.jpg

uploaded here to show for educational purposes

Húrin

Sam Kade wrote: »

If you want to see how much Al Gore believes in what he preaches look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6rtp296RTU&feature=channel

Well, is Gore actually preaching that individuals should intensely regulate their lives to ensure that their "carbon footprint" is minimal? Or is he campaigning for changes in government policy. If the former, he is a hypocrite; if the latter, he is not.

Húrin

djpbarry wrote: »

Nope, not really.

I would advise you to read the Bible, djp! There are a lot of misconceptions around about who Jesus was and what he did, and reading the Gospels will dispel many of this misinformation. Even better, the Bible contains the historical record of Jesus, who came to earth to provide the bridge to God that we need.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

gerky

baldieman wrote: »

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/understanding-man-made-climate-change/
Since it's Christmas, here's a slightly humorous view

The emphasis being on slightly, I prefer this one myself.

derry

gerky wrote: »

The emphasis being on slightly, I prefer this one myself.

Twas a good cartoon a few years back when Australia was in deep drought. Since then the rains came back as per the normal cycle of long droughts and rivers flow and dams are full. Even the The snow has returned to give tinsil town Los Vagas a white christmas.Seems to me the ice agers are in the acendasy and pinguins are the new food crop to harvest when the 5 mile thick ice sheet arrives on top of Ireland any day.
Nobody pays me to say the things I see it just comon sence that all these scientists sell out to the hihghest bidder the globall warmers or the iceagers ,simple really. If all cimate scientist agree there is no issue no bogie man they all get the heave ho and end up packing shelves in dunnes stores .


Derry

gerky

derry wrote: »

Twas a good cartoon a few years back when Australia was in deep drought. Since then the rains came back as per the normal cycle of long droughts and rivers flow and dams are full. Even the The snow has returned to give tinsil town Los Vagas a white christmas.Seems to me the ice agers are in the acendasy and pinguins are the new food crop to harvest when the 5 mile thick ice sheet arrives on top of Ireland any day.
Nobody pays me to say the things I see it just comon sence that all these scientists sell out to the hihghest bidder the globall warmers or the iceagers ,simple really. If all cimate scientist agree there is no issue no bogie man they all get the heave ho and end up packing shelves in dunnes stores .


Derry

I somehow doubt you saw that exact same cartoon, as I only put the writing on it about twenty seconds before I posted it:)

Also the cartoon isn't really relating to drought or desertification, its to do with the old saying of someone sticking their head in the sand to avoid hearing or seeing something.

I'm not in the mood of getting in to a long posting session so I'll keep believing what I do which tends to be peer reviewed scientific research and you can believe what you do, okay.

derry

gerky wrote: »

I somehow doubt you saw that exact same cartoon, as I only put the writing on it about twenty seconds before I posted it:)

Also the cartoon isn't really relating to drought or desertification, its to do with the old saying of someone sticking their head in the sand to avoid hearing or seeing something.

I'm not in the mood of getting in to a long posting session so I'll keep believing what I do which tends to be peer reviewed scientific research and you can believe what you do, okay.

When I hit quote button it dragged in the cartoon as well
Anyway in my younger days I belived in the Ice age and guess what every year through the 70s it got colder weather.The in the hot nineties I belived the global warmers and guess what it got hotter. Then in the 2000 I figured it was a fashion and a scam and quess what now sometimes it cold and sometimes its hot

Sycomoligal I think all this believe system until you see who buys up the global warmers to keep them in cushy jobs and who buys the Iceagers to keep them in cushy jobs

Happy newe neutral climate year

Derry

gerky

derry wrote: »

When I hit quote button it dragged in the cartoon as well
Anyway in my younger days I belived in the Ice age and guess what every year through the 70s it got colder weather.The in the hot nineties I belived the global warmers and guess what it got hotter. Then in the 2000 I figured it was a fashion and a scam and quess what now sometimes it cold and sometimes its hot

Sycomoligal I think all this believe system until you see who buys up the global warmers to keep them in cushy jobs and who buys the Iceagers to keep them in cushy jobs

Happy newe neutral climate year

Derry

Sorry but I'm honestly not sure what your trying to say, you quoted my post which was a cartoon and one line about the cartoon claiming you had seen it before years ago but you couldn't have so if your weren't responding to me posting the cartoon why else would you be responding to me?

As regards the the rest of your post I'm equally confused, but as I said I'm not looking for a pointless posting back and forth spree.

oscarBravo

derry wrote: »

Nobody pays me to say the things I see it just comon sence that all these scientists sell out to the hihghest bidder the globall warmers or the iceagers ,simple really. If all cimate scientist agree there is no issue no bogie man they all get the heave ho and end up packing shelves in dunnes stores .

Your "comon sence" [sic] has one major flaw: it's completely unsupported by anything resembling evidence.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your "comon sence" [sic] has one major flaw: it's completely unsupported by anything resembling evidence.

That's the nature of common sense. It's a label for saying "my belief", and a belief can be defensible or it might be no more than a simple prejudice.

RocketShip

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your "comon sence" [sic] has one major flaw: it's completely unsupported by anything resembling evidence.

You know how to get government grants, maybe you should get him a grant to research "global warming", just make sure that you leave out the fact he is a "DENIER".

What evidence has anyone got???

You get a model, decide the results you want and reverse engineer the whole thing. Piece of piss. The whole thing is laughable.

hoser expat

hey guys, for an intelligent debate involving people who actually know what they are talking about, please visit www.realclimate.org

eco8

i'm no expert or scientist, but i do care about my health. i want to live to a healthy age and have a healthy life. i don't know for sure if global warming is another propoganda campaign. i rarely believe any big issue in the media anymore. however what i do know is the fact that people are dying from all sorts of diseases, people's bodies are attacking themselves. chemicals/pollution is the problem. i care the environment because i care about my health. you should really think about how many chemicals that surround you right now, the varnishes that are applied to the table you use, the radiation from your screen, the flame retardant couch, the shampoo you used, the toothpaste you used, the chemicals in the water that didn't quite get filtered, the preservatives in the food you ate and the drink you drank, the clothes you wear cotton being the most sprayed by pesticides,

and many many more inhaled and absorbed into your skin, of course there are more diseases now than there were before. logically it makes sense, so don't you think it's a good idea to care about your health and maybe live longer?

this means one would indeed care about the environment. it's about protecting nature because we rely on nature to survive and nourish us. so i really don't care if what the media and governments are saying is true or not, but i am happy that certain green things have tax breaks and it is enouraged to recycle, it's good for the environment and in turn good for us

eco8

PlantPot wrote: »

And what has caring for the environment got to do with global warming??

You speak of real issues, things we all care about. Those are the issues that should be tackled, but are they?? Of course not. Where are fed pictures of polar bears and melted ice. Laughable, until this is used as an excuse to collapse the global economy and enforce the scam known as carbon taxes.

You obviously don't get my point. Carbon taxes are good, they encourage people to buy cleaner products, therefore; cleaner environment and therefore cleaner air to breath, therefore we live healthier longer lives, get it?

Not all green products are good for people, I am selective in the products I choose. I want my environment to be as chemical free as possible and like I said I'm happy that these laws and taxes are changing. It's good for us. Just because other people don't want to care about the chemicals they use in order to have an easy life and complain about unfair taxes. I view these taxes like I view the smoking bann, we all have a choice now to live in a clean environment and if global warming is the so called fake excuse used, then I don't care. bring it on

eco8

^^ sorry about the font, don't know how to fix that

EDIT now fixed

eco8

PlantPot wrote: »

you, my friend, have been had.

I suggest you visit a recycling plant, see the truth behind the media image. You'll be shocked. I don't have any betters, I don't need scams to help change my world views.

haha, i'm intrigued now, what exactly goes on in a recycling plant in your view?

eco8

PlantPot wrote: »

Not my view, reality.

You take in say three lorry loads of rubbish. Pick out anything valuable, I mean anything that is literally jumping out at you. The rest is put in giant compressing machines where the three lorry loads is compressed into 1. The profit is in the compression.

That is it. And anyway, all rubbish should be burnt, it is more energy intensive to recycle materials than create new products.

do you have an links to support this other than telling me to go down and look for myself? have you personally been down to a recycling plant? if so, which one? also you're talking about recyling alone, are these plants owned by private or public? makes a difference, what about all the other issues? cars are now taxed based on their emmissions, thats great news. green environmentally friendly projects get grants and tax breaks, thats great imo. using renewable energy sources is cost effective in the long run and clean for the air, what exactly are you saying is the harm in the so called fake propoganda for global warming? as i said before, its a healthier option for everyone, surely you can't deny that, your issue just seems to be with the tax right? and the inconvenience of having to separate your rubbish maybe?

djpbarry

PlantPot wrote: »

The rest is put in giant compressing machines where the three lorry loads is compressed into 1. The profit is in the compression.

And then what?

PlantPot wrote: »

And anyway, all rubbish should be burnt, it is more energy intensive to recycle materials than create new products.

Nonsense.

gerky

PlantPot wrote: »

This has been proven.

Okay prove it, show us a proper report, notice I said proper, not a blog or an article in a tabloid.



On a separate issue, Hi casey.

gerky

PlantPot wrote: »

I was going to link to an IPCC report, but as you want something proper than is out the window.




Alright, mate?

Nope, a smart ass quip isn't proof and you claimed it had been proven so show us the proof.