Real Global warming skeptics

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I found this after a five-second google search...

Conservobots, please find one global warming skeptic not under the oil companys' payrolls. Please, this is getting stupid. I must've exposed a dozen or more "scientists" in the past year within five minutes of reading an OP. It's getting really stupid.

Dr. S. Fred Singer - Oil Company's Paid Stooge

Oh yes, a true scientist can never work for the oil company. Now do you have any comments about his academic credentials or any disputes on what he has to say about global warming. My guess is you dont, but I guess anyone scientist that does not work in favor of GW is somehow going to be a paid shill in your mind.

What do you think about the IPCC paying to have research done when they had already drawn their conclusions about GW and hurricanes? At least the guy had the ethics to refuse the job, when he found about it.


But since this is so easy, why dont you go about discrediting all 12 of the individuals I put in the OP.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Jadow
Mars is warming up too, I don't think man is contributing to the warming there.

You do know Mars has seasons too? Summer comes and the ice cap shrinks.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: XMan
Michael Crichton would be another example of a skeptic. I don't see see how you could say that he has any financial reason to be so.

His book made money, right? And it was a work of fiction. Can you recognize the irony?

 

[Arglebargle]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: XMan
Michael Crichton would be another example of a skeptic. I don't see see how you could say that he has any financial reason to be so.

His book made money, right? And it was a work of fiction. Can you recognize the irony?

Crichton has been anti-science for quite a while. And a bad writer to boot.

 

[conjur]

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserv...handlers/index.cfm?id=3207&method=full

Another highly visible skeptic, S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Singer recent acknowledged that his institute, The Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP), is partially funded by Exxon.

Singer's defense is that his scientific position on global atmospheric issues predates that funding and has not changed because of it.

So this guy takes money from big oil and claims his findings are based on 15 year-old studies.

What a credible source. :roll:


Note, also, how the other skeptic from that link in the OP is also tied to energy companies:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/

 

[Acanthus]

The world ends on Dec 21st 2012 anyway.

Global warming isnt an issue

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Kntx
What is the payoff of global warming for its proponents? This is what I don't get. It is clear what the payoff is for those people heavily invested in fossil fuels. But for those who argue that all of the available evidence supports global warming and want action, what is the payoff?

Survival of our species with a modicum of comfort.

Sounds good to me. That's what makes me wonder whether these skeptics are morally and/or intellectually bankrupt. Are they doing it for the money or just to be on the opposing end?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The world ends on Dec 21st 2012 anyway.

My Birthday, how is that?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
You all act like it's an undeniable fact that mankind is causing significant increased CO2 levels which, in turn, causes global warming. In case you have't noticed, there's legitimate disagreement within the scientific community on this subject. Read the OP's links...think about it...research it...and maybe, just maybe, you'll be open-minded enough to see that there's many valid reasons to question the theory that global warming is a 'man-made' phenomenon.

No, we all don't act like anything is an undeniable fact, stop spreading lies. We act like a preponderance of the evidence points towards anthropogenic activities increasing CO2 levels. There's a difference that you ignore so you can get all histrionic on us but it's intellectually dishonest to do so.

The legitimate disagreement is miniscule, it's legitimacy is not nearly as relevant as it's acceptance within the scientific community (which tends to say something about it's legitimacy). Perhaps you're not too busy to do some reading of your own? What consensus means

Perhaps reading links, researching and being open-minded is what has led the majority of us to accept the conclusions offered up so far? You assume because some one has a different opinion than you that they are ignorant of the issues (sounds like elitism, but that's a perjorative reserved for liberals these days, so I won't apply it to you).

I've read the article thoroughly (as I would hope that you would have done with the OP's 2 links).

Tell me about concensus and the effectiveness of IPCC peer review in light of Mann's hockey stick fiasco. This was the poster-child to graphically show the public the seriousess of global warming. Funny thing is that random data produced hockey sticks. Mann didn't make the effort to test their model with the standard Monte Carlo approach. Peer review didn't make the effort to test their model with the standard Monte Carlo approach. This is unexcusable and a huge black eye for the IPCC.

Tell me about concensus when 30 years ago scientific concensus was concern over global cooling.

My point is that sometimes concensus is wrong. This is a very complex subject and I think that science still has a long way to go before they fully understand what's going on. Heck, they can't even adequately explain why global climate changes have occurred in the past (without mankinds influence). Like I said...global climate is very complex.

Despite what you say...there's legitimate disagreement in the scientific community as to whether global warming is caused by anthropogenic activities or not. Start by reading some studies on solar forcing. You might also want to check out other sites besides Real Climate. Or perhaps you can show me a study that proves anthropogenic activities are solely responsible for global warming. Good luck.

 

[umbrella39]

Does it really matter who is responsible? Can we just put the blame game aside and deal with the problem? Those who can't at the very least acknowledge GW is real and something that we potentially can alter and prevent need not apply. I don't give 2 sh!ts whether Al Gore, George Bush, or Boy George for that matter has the greenest house tbh.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The world ends on Dec 21st 2012 anyway.

My Birthday, how is that?

You ever read about the mayan calander?

And what they theorize might happen on that exact day?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Infidel
The same payoff we got when we were proactive about lead emissions from gas and lead content in paint.

The same payoff we got when we limited effluents and outfalls of chemicals into our waterways.

The same payoff we got when we limited the amount of pollutants allowed to be spewed into the air.

Big business feels a pinch in the pocketbook, the rest of society saves untold amounts of money in health and environmental costs.

Which side would you rather be on, the side motivated by money and partisan politics (deniers) or the side that is willing to sacrifice, compromise, conserve and use our vast technology and resources to mitigate the harm we may be causing ourselves, others and future generations?

I think it's pretty evident who the petty, selfish, money grubbing, sorry excuses for humanity are.

Quite true, and yet big-biz/big-industry cheerleaders like Charrison here, are lining up in droves to try and debunk global warming. They should join forces with the Intelligent Design nutjobs who are trying to poke holes in evolution. They both have about the same level of credibility.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Infidel
The same payoff we got when we were proactive about lead emissions from gas and lead content in paint.

The same payoff we got when we limited effluents and outfalls of chemicals into our waterways.

The same payoff we got when we limited the amount of pollutants allowed to be spewed into the air.

Big business feels a pinch in the pocketbook, the rest of society saves untold amounts of money in health and environmental costs.

Which side would you rather be on, the side motivated by money and partisan politics (deniers) or the side that is willing to sacrifice, compromise, conserve and use our vast technology and resources to mitigate the harm we may be causing ourselves, others and future generations?

I think it's pretty evident who the petty, selfish, money grubbing, sorry excuses for humanity are.

Quite true, and yet big-biz/big-industry cheerleaders like Charrison here, are lining up in droves to try and debunk global warming. They should join forces with the Intelligent Design nutjobs who are trying to poke holes in evolution. They both have about the same level of credibility.

No, I am seeking solid science on global warming and the IPCC is doing some questionable things in this regard. The OP listed 12 scientist and so far no one has managed to discredit anything any of them have stated. So far I have not anyone anywhere discredit anything they have said.

But as far as global warming goes, I do beleive it is happening, however there remains many unanswered questions about its cause and severity. I really do not have any problems with carbon trading if implemented correctly as nuclear power will allow us to cost effectively reduce carbon emissions.

 

[fskimospy]

There are already hundreds of peer reviewed papers on man caused global warming. I haven't seen any peer reviewed papers from these guys. Certainly none in any recent time. That is the standard of evidence in the scientific community. If anyone has some links to some peer reviewed essays, I would be very glad to see them.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
No, I am seeking solid science on global warming and the IPCC is doing some questionable things in this regard. The OP listed 12 scientist and so far no one has managed to discredit anything any of them have stated. So far I have not anyone anywhere discredit anything they have said.

But as far as global warming goes, I do beleive it is happening, however there remains many unanswered questions about its cause and severity. I really do not have any problems with carbon trading if implemented correctly as nuclear power will allow us to cost effectively reduce carbon emissions.

If that were really true, you'd submit some peer-reviewed papers like eskimo has requested only about a billion times. Instead, you post some lame interview that proves nothing.

How about stepping up instead of ducking the challenge?

 

[Acanthus]

Im not against global warming for any business reasons.

I find it alarming that the scientific community has tried to convince the world that not only is the temperature of the earth controlled by one variable, but that calculating that this one variable is high or low with no relation to historic temperature, is sound science. Demonizing scientists who dissent with this "belief" (not based on real science) by saying "the studies are over, global warming is real".

They dont measure output of radiation from the sun, our proximity to the sun in orbit (yes, it does change, we dont orbit in a perfect circle around the sun *gasp* if you take a period of 10000 years our orbit looks like a spirograph picture). No measurement of the average temperature of other planets. How about the other 30 major components of our atmosphere? some of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

I do not diagree that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago. I strongly disagree with the science of chasing one variable.

While reducing emissions would help us in countless ways, im strongly unconvinced that global warming is caused by this.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im not against global warming for any business reasons.

I find it alarming that the scientific community has tried to convince the world that not only is the temperature of the earth controlled by one variable, but that calculating that this one variable is high or low with no relation to historic temperature, is sound science. Demonizing scientists who dissent with this "belief" (not based on real science) by saying "the studies are over, global warming is real".

They dont measure output of radiation from the sun, our proximity to the sun in orbit (yes, it does change, we dont orbit in a perfect circle around the sun *gasp* if you take a period of 10000 years our orbit looks like a spirograph picture). No measurement of the average temperature of other planets. How about the other 30 major components of our atmosphere? some of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

I do not diagree that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago. I strongly disagree with the science of chasing one variable.

While reducing emissions would help us in countless ways, im strongly unconvinced that global warming is caused by this.

Read the IPCC report. They do not peg it all on one source(CO2).

 

[smack Down]

IS there any good reason to care the it might be few degree warmer? The only real problem is a rise in ocean level, and that seems like a small problem compared with trying to prevent all C02 emissions.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: smack Down
IS there any good reason to care the it might be few degree warmer? The only real problem is a rise in ocean level, and that seems like a small problem compared with trying to prevent all C02 emissions.

It alters Weather Patterns, Rainfall Patterns, Ocean Currents, and the Jetstream(all interrelated to each other). It's not just raising Ocean Levels.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There are already hundreds of peer reviewed papers on man caused global warming. I haven't seen any peer reviewed papers from these guys. Certainly none in any recent time. That is the standard of evidence in the scientific community. If anyone has some links to some peer reviewed essays, I would be very glad to see them.

You well state the scientific case. But your mistake is overestimating the intellect of charrison, who now claims to "believe global warming is happening" and is evidently a shill or a child.

His reasoning is based on false documentation, not science, and this thread should have been locked.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
No, I am seeking solid science on global warming and the IPCC is doing some questionable things in this regard. The OP listed 12 scientist and so far no one has managed to discredit anything any of them have stated. So far I have not anyone anywhere discredit anything they have said.

But as far as global warming goes, I do beleive it is happening, however there remains many unanswered questions about its cause and severity. I really do not have any problems with carbon trading if implemented correctly as nuclear power will allow us to cost effectively reduce carbon emissions.

If that were really true, you'd submit some peer-reviewed papers like eskimo has requested only about a billion times. Instead, you post some lame interview that proves nothing.

How about stepping up instead of ducking the challenge?

So why is some scientist somewhere not stepping up to say what he said in the interview is complete bunk. It has not happened. No one has yet come out to disprove anything that was stated by these 12 scientist.

The points he makes in that interview clearly state that we do not fully understand all the processes of the current climate and therefor are unable to model it very well. This is why different models get different results. I dont think there is anyone in the weather modeling and simulation world that would even attempt to dispute this claim. There is still much we dont know trying to model weather. Consensus in science does make a theory true and never will.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im not against global warming for any business reasons.

I find it alarming that the scientific community has tried to convince the world that not only is the temperature of the earth controlled by one variable, but that calculating that this one variable is high or low with no relation to historic temperature, is sound science. Demonizing scientists who dissent with this "belief" (not based on real science) by saying "the studies are over, global warming is real".

They dont measure output of radiation from the sun, our proximity to the sun in orbit (yes, it does change, we dont orbit in a perfect circle around the sun *gasp* if you take a period of 10000 years our orbit looks like a spirograph picture). No measurement of the average temperature of other planets. How about the other 30 major components of our atmosphere? some of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

I do not diagree that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago. I strongly disagree with the science of chasing one variable.

While reducing emissions would help us in countless ways, im strongly unconvinced that global warming is caused by this.

Read the IPCC report. They do not peg it all on one source(CO2).

Yes, but if you dig deep, CO2 accounts for 3-5% of GH gases. A significant portion of GH is water vapor ( around 70%) and we no control over that.

 

[imported_gardener]

You fail to answer Eskimospy. Submit a single peer-reviewed paper.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There are already hundreds of peer reviewed papers on man caused global warming. I haven't seen any peer reviewed papers from these guys. Certainly none in any recent time. That is the standard of evidence in the scientific community. If anyone has some links to some peer reviewed essays, I would be very glad to see them.

You well state the scientific case. But your mistake is overestimating the intellect of charrison, who now claims to "believe global warming is happening" and is evidently a shill or a child.

His reasoning is based on false documentation, not science, and this thread should have been locked.

NO it is based upon documentation you want to be false. No one has proved it false. So far the only response to these scientist is they are paid shills. No one has yes tried to dissect what they are saying about the matter. Ad homi does not win an argument.

And as far as my intellect goes, I will let my masters speaker for itself. I have read both arguments and I do see problems with what the IPCC is doing. I work with modeling and simulation and I know how difficult it is to make simulations work properly.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im not against global warming for any business reasons.

I find it alarming that the scientific community has tried to convince the world that not only is the temperature of the earth controlled by one variable, but that calculating that this one variable is high or low with no relation to historic temperature, is sound science. Demonizing scientists who dissent with this "belief" (not based on real science) by saying "the studies are over, global warming is real".

They dont measure output of radiation from the sun, our proximity to the sun in orbit (yes, it does change, we dont orbit in a perfect circle around the sun *gasp* if you take a period of 10000 years our orbit looks like a spirograph picture). No measurement of the average temperature of other planets. How about the other 30 major components of our atmosphere? some of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

I do not diagree that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago. I strongly disagree with the science of chasing one variable.

While reducing emissions would help us in countless ways, im strongly unconvinced that global warming is caused by this.

Please read.