Real Global warming skeptics

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

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,

The scientific community has tried to convince the world that the temperature of the earth is controlled by one variable? What?

Where do you come up with this tripe? This is a lie cut from whole cloth, no basis in reality whatsoever.

I think I've found the problem with the GW deniers. It's related to the post above this one.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Acanthus

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,

The scientific community has tried to convince the world that the temperature of the earth is controlled by one variable? What?

Where do you come up with this tripe? This is a lie cut from whole cloth, no basis in reality whatsoever.

I think I've found the problem with the GW deniers. It's related to the post above this one.

oops

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news...d=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388


Seems one of the most well known supporters is now a "former supporter" of man caused global warming...



the house of cards is coming down.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's a couple choice quotes from the article regarding Dr. Allegre:

Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.

With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

"The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

Infidel...how do you spin this?

 

[DealMonkey]

One guy changes his mind on GW and suddenly that's news-worthy? I laugh at the very notion. While he's entitled to believe whatever he wishes, and the debate will surely rage onward, but again, so what?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
One guy changes his mind on GW and suddenly that's news-worthy? I laugh at the very notion. While he's entitled to believe whatever he wishes, and the debate will surely rage onward, but again, so what?

He's not just one guy. This is one guy in a growing list of guys who are changing their minds on the subject. The "so what" part is that many of them are finally seeing and stating the obvious, that the science doesn't justify the conclusions that are being made... That man-made global warming is not a theory that is accepted by every scientist... That politics is driving the science rather than the other way around... That rational scientific debate on the subject has been shut down for too long...

I don't understand why some people freak out when someone points out that the science on GW has barely left the theory stage in the scientific method.


And if you look at this "one guy's" credentials you'll see that he is very qualified to speak on the subject.

 

[umbrella39]

And again I'll state, who cares what or who is to blame? We can all do things in our daily lives to make sure, just in case, GW does not get worse just in case, again, we might have something to do with it.

 

[cwjerome]

The GW fanatics have staked a lot psychological weight on this issue... if it were to turn out (like it surely will) to be over-hyped and under-scienced, they stand to lose a lot of mental health. I would also say credibility, but they lost that long ago.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Page 32, solar activity can only be measured back 20 years.

Ugh, please read the whole thing. Page 57, Section E.4

"Assessments based on physical principles and model simulations indicate that natural forcing alone is unlikely to explain the recent observed global warming or the observed changes in vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere."

Your sited paragraph mentions using centuries of solar data... Which they say on page 32 isnt possible.

Bolded.

So they are doing simulations on data they dont have?

Great science.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Acanthus

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,

The scientific community has tried to convince the world that the temperature of the earth is controlled by one variable? What?

Where do you come up with this tripe? This is a lie cut from whole cloth, no basis in reality whatsoever.

I think I've found the problem with the GW deniers. It's related to the post above this one.

I didnt vote for GW, im agnostic, and im a science major.

The argument clearly is :

OMGWTF CO2! we are all going to die in a hellstorm of hurricanes and floods.

The other variables are ignored either because they cant be measured, or they dont follow with the already made conclusions before the experiment began. Which is bad science.

 

[fskimospy]

Ugh, those simulations are based on reams of data. So now instead of arguing the case you want to divert the discussion into the manner in which the simulations are created. How many more topic changes do we need until you can find something you can win on? This is a classic example of what people do with a losing argument, they try to keep changing it till they find something they can win.

I have offered up a real scientific paper compiled for the government by experts in the field, peer reviewed by other experts. You have offered up a TV documentary and your expertiese as a "science major". Put up some real evidence, or admit you don't have it.

Furthermore the reason why CO2 is mentioned so often is because it is the gas with the shortest residual time in the atmosphere, and therefore is the gas we can do the most about. We can complain about Nitrous Oxide emissions all we want, but with an atmospheric lifetime of 114 years.... it's not going anywhere. Is it not reasonable to concentrate on CO2 considering this?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh, those simulations are based on reams of data. So now instead of arguing the case you want to divert the discussion into the manner in which the simulations are created. How many more topic changes do we need until you can find something you can win on? This is a classic example of what people do with a losing argument, they try to keep changing it till they find something they can win.

I have offered up a real scientific paper compiled for the government by experts in the field, peer reviewed by other experts. You have offered up a TV documentary and your expertiese as a "science major". Put up some real evidence, or admit you don't have it.

Furthermore the reason why CO2 is mentioned so often is because it is the gas with the shortest residual time in the atmosphere, and therefore is the gas we can do the most about. We can complain about Nitrous Oxide emissions all we want, but with an atmospheric lifetime of 114 years.... it's not going anywhere. Is it not reasonable to concentrate on CO2 considering this?

The problem is im not making an argument, i stated my opinion as i see it.

I havent shown anything about a tv documentry...

And i wasnt arguing on how the simultations were created, because i dont know.

They state they cant extrapolate the data, then clearly state that they used data that they couldnt extrapolate to create models...

If you want me to get into the argument you so desperately want, look up the name Dr Richard Lindzen.

Edit: typo

Lindzen on Larry King:

LINDZEN: Well, in a certain sense, when it comes to expenditures, and I'm speaking mostly as a citizen, except in one respect, almost everything proposed so far, if there's anything that there is a consensus on, will do very little to affect climate. So right now despite all of the claims to the contrary, we're talking about symbolism. And I think Julian's point is correct. Do you spend a lot? Do you distort a great deal in the economy for symbolism? And I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us. And I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating. Senator Inhofe was absolutely right. All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Acanthus

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,

The scientific community has tried to convince the world that the temperature of the earth is controlled by one variable? What?

Where do you come up with this tripe? This is a lie cut from whole cloth, no basis in reality whatsoever.

I think I've found the problem with the GW deniers. It's related to the post above this one.

I didnt vote for GW, im agnostic, and im a science major.

The argument clearly is :

OMGWTF CO2! we are all going to die in a hellstorm of hurricanes and floods.

The other variables are ignored either because they cant be measured, or they dont follow with the already made conclusions before the experiment began. Which is bad science.

CO2 is one variable, and an important one. To claim it's the only one, and that scientists are trying to convince the world that it is, is utter horseshit.

It's yet another strawman argument. Post up some totally false so that you have something to beat around.

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Here's a couple choice quotes from the article regarding Dr. Allegre:

Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.

With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

"The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

Infidel...how do you spin this?

What is there to spin? He's entitled to his opinion and his interpretation of the data. I don't see him trotting out the same repetitive talking points BS that have already been debunked i.e., solar forcing, natural CO2 sources, global cooling in the '70s, Shivetas BS, etc..

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I did everyone a favor and read up on the whole solar variation theory.

Looks like that doesn't account for global warming afterall.

So, can we drop that one too? There is your answer. Now I'm sure another disagreement will surface the same as before... but ah well.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Here's a couple choice quotes from the article regarding Dr. Allegre:

Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.

With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

"The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

Infidel...how do you spin this?

What is there to spin? He's entitled to his opinion and his interpretation of the data. I don't see him trotting out the same repetitive talking points BS that have already been debunked i.e., solar forcing, natural CO2 sources, global cooling in the '70s, Shivetas BS, etc..

Previously you stated that "legitimate disagreement is miniscule" yet the list of IPCC defectors keeps growing despite the political ramifications for their careers. The credentials on some of these guys are quite impressive. I don't understand how you can say (with a straight face) that legitimate disagreement does not exist within the scientific community on this subject.

So...you say that solar forcing is BS. How do you come to that conclusion?

Svensmark found a surprisingly strong correlation between cosmic rays and low altitude clouds. Earth's cloud cover increased when the intensity of cosmic rays grew and decreased when the intensity declined.

CERN, the world's largest particle physics laboratory in Geneva, has just started a project that begins with replicating Svensmark experiment, only CERN will use an accelerator rather than relying on natural cosmic rays. They are looking at the mechanisms through which the sun and cosmic rays can influence the formation of clouds and the climate. Research on solar forcing is underway...how can you make conclusions about the results before the science has been completed?

If solar forcing is BS, then you better get with CERN before they waste any more money on their research.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, I did everyone a favor and read up on the whole solar variation theory.

Looks like that doesn't account for global warming afterall.

So, can we drop that one too? There is your answer. Now I'm sure another disagreement will surface the same as before... but ah well.

Gotta sign up.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Acanthus

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,

The scientific community has tried to convince the world that the temperature of the earth is controlled by one variable? What?

Where do you come up with this tripe? This is a lie cut from whole cloth, no basis in reality whatsoever.

I think I've found the problem with the GW deniers. It's related to the post above this one.

I didnt vote for GW, im agnostic, and im a science major.

The argument clearly is :

OMGWTF CO2! we are all going to die in a hellstorm of hurricanes and floods.

The other variables are ignored either because they cant be measured, or they dont follow with the already made conclusions before the experiment began. Which is bad science.

CO2 is one variable, and an important one. To claim it's the only one, and that scientists are trying to convince the world that it is, is utter horseshit.

It's yet another strawman argument. Post up some totally false so that you have something to beat around.

Post up some totally false what?

Just because i dont agree with the research being done, doesnt mean i have proof that it's wrong.

Im saying its largely unconvincing.

 

[fskimospy]

Long story short:

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.

They explain the reasoning behind it in the article... but its long.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

That's not a peer reviewed article. That's a summary by climate scientists for the government. They make absolutely no mention of the methodology or data sets they use (we measured tree rings, and used thermometers to get temperature data... etc). That paper is far from a peer reviewed source.

They do have some references in there which I have not gone through yet, but I will.

 

[fskimospy]

Ugh.

Of course it is a report given to lawmakers. A compilation of the information from many peer reviewed studies. Every single claim it makes is based upon those studies.

That's exactly why I linked it... because it was an effective summary. Would it be better to link hundreds of papers, or a single one summarizing it?

EDIT: I checked up on the IPCC review process. It is actually far far more rigorous then the review standard for any scientific publication. Instead of 2-5 referees, there are literally hundreds of experts checking on it. Doesn't make it foolproof... but the important part is that the review process is there, and it is robust. The mentions of methodology are removed because they aren't relevant to the audience intended.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh.

Of course it is a report given to lawmakers. A compilation of the information from many peer reviewed studies. Every single claim it makes is based upon those studies.

That's exactly why I linked it... because it was an effective summary. Would it be better to link hundreds of papers, or a single one summarizing it?

EDIT: I checked up on the IPCC review process. It is actually far far more rigorous then the review standard for any scientific publication. Instead of 2-5 referees, there are literally hundreds of experts checking on it. Doesn't make it foolproof... but the important part is that the review process is there, and it is robust. The mentions of methodology are removed because they aren't relevant to the audience intended.

Please. There are no references to any real papers in that summary. They don't say where they got their figures, they don't say where they got their numbers, they don't say anything really. For someone wanting to judge the data, that summary is a poor read.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
And again I'll state, who cares what or who is to blame? We can all do things in our daily lives to make sure, just in case, GW does not get worse just in case, again, we might have something to do with it.

On this we agree. Kind of... On a personal level you are absolutely correct.

But centering government policy around the concept to dictate behavior is wrong. And for government research grants to be handed out on the basis of which way your research is pointing... well that's wrong too.

I'm sure there's a balance there somewhere.

 

[silverpig]

Journal article showing global observed temperatures used in those studies

It seems as though most of this temperature data they so highly rely on comes from one set of data. This data set comprises readings from over 4300 different temperature recording stations. In this article there is a graphic plotting the positions of these stations. They are heavily clustered in the most industrialized areas of the most industrialized nations. Sampling error?

There seems to be a lot of debate still over whether the urban heat island effect causes any global warming, injects bias into the data, or does nothing at all. The wiki entry for the urban heat island first says that it's acknowledged that the uhi effect is real and causes local warming, but then it goes on to say that it doesn't raise temperatures. The problem I see with the analysis they run on the UHI effect is that they don't take into account a time dependent trend in the UHI. They just seem to subtract an average UHI effect.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh.

Of course it is a report given to lawmakers. A compilation of the information from many peer reviewed studies. Every single claim it makes is based upon those studies.

That's exactly why I linked it... because it was an effective summary. Would it be better to link hundreds of papers, or a single one summarizing it?

EDIT: I checked up on the IPCC review process. It is actually far far more rigorous then the review standard for any scientific publication. Instead of 2-5 referees, there are literally hundreds of experts checking on it. Doesn't make it foolproof... but the important part is that the review process is there, and it is robust. The mentions of methodology are removed because they aren't relevant to the audience intended.

Please. There are no references to any real papers in that summary. They don't say where they got their figures, they don't say where they got their numbers, they don't say anything really. For someone wanting to judge the data, that summary is a poor read.

Yeah the data for the summary is not going to be released for a few more months. Apparently they wanted to make sure the data matched the summary. And that is what we call bad science...

 

[Acanthus]

Funny no one thinks that the MIT Professor of Atmospheric science disagreeing with alarmist global warming is something we should talk about...