UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
For whatever reason ATPN and Dailytech are havens for global warming deniers. I've never quite figured out why. What I do know is that having this argument on here won't really get you very far.

Some people aren't willing to jump on an Al Gore teat and swill the nectar. That doesn't make us global warming deniers, it makes us skeptics. The simple fact is that neither you nor Al Gore can prove that global warming is happening.

What we are encountering is climate change and we don't yet understand the driving mechanisms behind it. When we do understand them properly then we can attempt do something about it. Until science provides more answers any attempt to address the problem would be nothing more than shooting in the dark in a crowded room.

Meh, it all comes down to responsible decision making. We always need to make decisions on incomplete information and this is no different. Maybe the overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong on this, and we will be spending money for no good reason. That definitely sucks, but if they are right and we do nothing, the costs are orders of magnitude higher.

So, with the information we have and the relative costs and benefits of our choices, I believe the action we must take as responsible adults is to mitigate this problem in the best way we know how.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
For whatever reason ATPN and Dailytech are havens for global warming deniers. I've never quite figured out why. What I do know is that having this argument on here won't really get you very far.

Some people aren't willing to jump on an Al Gore teat and swill the nectar. That doesn't make us global warming deniers, it makes us skeptics. The simple fact is that neither you nor Al Gore can prove that global warming is happening.

What we are encountering is climate change and we don't yet understand the driving mechanisms behind it. When we do understand them properly then we can attempt do something about it. Until science provides more answers any attempt to address the problem would be nothing more than shooting in the dark in a crowded room.

The thing is we just kind of noticed that the climate is changing when we had assumed it would be static (for some stupid reason).

I am reminded of Einstein's biggest blunder. He looked up at the sky and saw stars which should all be gravitating towards each other. He figured that the universe should be crashing together in a big crunch, or more likely, that it should have already. He invented a "cosmological constant" which was a magical force that provided an outward pressure on the universe, counteracting gravity, thus keeping the universe stable and static.

Hubble then did some measurements and noticed that the universe was actually not static, and all the stars were moving away from each other.

Einstein then realized that the universe was dynamic, and called his magical cosmological constant a huge blunder.

Right now we just noticed that the Earth isn't static. I'm guessing this MMGW will become another cosmological constant added in to explain something.

*disclaimer* The cosmological constant has actually re-gained favour (or a form of it anyways... vacuum energy) to explain the increasing rate of expansion in the universe. This is beside the point though.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
For whatever reason ATPN and Dailytech are havens for global warming deniers. I've never quite figured out why. What I do know is that having this argument on here won't really get you very far.

Some people aren't willing to jump on an Al Gore teat and swill the nectar. That doesn't make us global warming deniers, it makes us skeptics. The simple fact is that neither you nor Al Gore can prove that global warming is happening.

What we are encountering is climate change and we don't yet understand the driving mechanisms behind it. When we do understand them properly then we can attempt do something about it. Until science provides more answers any attempt to address the problem would be nothing more than shooting in the dark in a crowded room.

The thing is we just kind of noticed that the climate is changing when we had assumed it would be static (for some stupid reason).

I am reminded of Einstein's biggest blunder. He looked up at the sky and saw stars which should all be gravitating towards each other. He figured that the universe should be crashing together in a big crunch, or more likely, that it should have already. He invented a "cosmological constant" which was a magical force that provided an outward pressure on the universe, counteracting gravity, thus keeping the universe stable and static.

Hubble then did some measurements and noticed that the universe was actually not static, and all the stars were moving away from each other.

Einstein then realized that the universe was dynamic, and called his magical cosmological constant a huge blunder.

Right now we just noticed that the Earth isn't static. I'm guessing this MMGW will become another cosmological constant added in to explain something.

*disclaimer* The cosmological constant has actually re-gained favour (or a form of it anyways... vacuum energy) to explain the increasing rate of expansion in the universe. This is beside the point though.

Scientists are well aware of the variability of Earth's climate. They are alarmed by the rate of change, as it vastly outstrips anything ever recorded in the past.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
To think man can control the planet is pretty damn arrogant. If nature wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth, it will.

And to think we can't contribute to her downfall is pretty damn ignorant.

Earth's been around a few billion years. Will be around a few billion more, with or without us. It will adapt and overcome, no matter what happens. IF mankind wipes itself out? Fine. If it saves itself? That's fine too.

We can't contribute to her downfall, only our own.

I don't think we can 'destroy' the earth but if we are contributing to a warming we may accelerate it and possibly put something (edit: long term) disastrous in motion.

It sure seems warmer where I live. We used to have several hard freeze warnings during the winter season. I can't remember the last time that happened. We got a break from the heat about a month ago but this past week the A/C's back on. Temps were 81 Tue and 84 yesterday - not 'hot' but it's mid-dec. I know my short /small example isn't indicative of the planet in general and the increases are much more gradual. Still, it sure seems like summer is longer and hotter now than it was when we moved here in 1980.

We've got rain today but looks like we have another cold front coming and nice weather to follow. We'll get to open the condo back up again.

 

[GoPackGo]

In Minnesota right now we could use some global warming.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
For whatever reason ATPN and Dailytech are havens for global warming deniers. I've never quite figured out why. What I do know is that having this argument on here won't really get you very far.

Some people aren't willing to jump on an Al Gore teat and swill the nectar. That doesn't make us global warming deniers, it makes us skeptics. The simple fact is that neither you nor Al Gore can prove that global warming is happening.

What we are encountering is climate change and we don't yet understand the driving mechanisms behind it. When we do understand them properly then we can attempt do something about it. Until science provides more answers any attempt to address the problem would be nothing more than shooting in the dark in a crowded room.

Meh, it all comes down to responsible decision making. We always need to make decisions on incomplete information and this is no different. Maybe the overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong on this, and we will be spending money for no good reason. That definitely sucks, but if they are right and we do nothing, the costs are orders of magnitude higher.

So, with the information we have and the relative costs and benefits of our choices, I believe the action we must take as responsible adults is to mitigate this problem in the best way we know how.

There is a difference between making responsible decisions when we don't have all of the information but we have a pretty good grasp of what's happening, and making decisions when we have little reliable information and no real agreement on what is happening. Where climate change is concerned the case is the latter, not the former. You can't mitigate a problem when you're not really sure what the problem is in the first place.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The fallacy of "scientific concensus" becomes more and more apparent each day.

No it doesn't.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There is a difference between making responsible decisions when we don't have all of the information but we have a pretty good grasp of what's happening, and making decisions when we have little reliable information and no real agreement on what is happening. Where climate change is concerned the case is the latter, not the former. You can't mitigate a problem when you're not really sure what the problem is in the first place.

Well the scientific community certainly thinks that we have enough reliable information to make recommendations on, and the consensus on the issue really is pretty overwhelming. I guess we just disagree on the level of information and the degree of uniformity of opinion necessary to act. I believe we are far, far beyond that threshold.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There is a difference between making responsible decisions when we don't have all of the information but we have a pretty good grasp of what's happening, and making decisions when we have little reliable information and no real agreement on what is happening. Where climate change is concerned the case is the latter, not the former. You can't mitigate a problem when you're not really sure what the problem is in the first place.

Well the scientific community certainly thinks that we have enough reliable information to make recommendations on, and the consensus on the issue really is pretty overwhelming. I guess we just disagree on the level of information and the degree of uniformity of opinion necessary to act. I believe we are far, far beyond that threshold.

Their entire argument boils down to the simplistic proposition that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increasing greenhouse gasses can cause the global temperature to rise, there has been a recent slow rise in recorded temps, so therefore CO2 must be the problem. Sounds like a logical causation/correlation on the surface. However, when models are created based on their claims those models continually fail to reflect reality. That tells us that there are other variables at play, important and influencial variables, and that we don't comprehend the big picture.

btw, the only real concensus there is among scientists is that something is happening with the climate. Ask 100 of them exactly what is happening and you'll get 100 different answers. Any scientist who claims to know the cause of our current climate change is either a charlatan, a liar, or a special interest whore.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There is a difference between making responsible decisions when we don't have all of the information but we have a pretty good grasp of what's happening, and making decisions when we have little reliable information and no real agreement on what is happening. Where climate change is concerned the case is the latter, not the former. You can't mitigate a problem when you're not really sure what the problem is in the first place.

Well the scientific community certainly thinks that we have enough reliable information to make recommendations on, and the consensus on the issue really is pretty overwhelming. I guess we just disagree on the level of information and the degree of uniformity of opinion necessary to act. I believe we are far, far beyond that threshold.

Their entire argument boils down to the simplistic proposition that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increasing greenhouse gasses can cause the global temperature to rise, there has been a recent slow rise in recorded temps, so therefore CO2 must be the problem. Sounds like a logical causation/correlation on the surface. However, when models are created based on their claims those models continually fail to reflect reality. That tells us that there are other variables at play, important and influencial variables, and that we don't comprehend the big picture.

btw, the only real concensus there is among scientists is that something is happening with the climate. Ask 100 of them exactly what is happening and you'll get 100 different answers. Any scientist who claims to know the cause of our current climate change is either a charlatan, a liar, or a special interest whore.

Truth.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

---

What I would like to see is a trend indicating the percentage of scientists who were "for" or "against" MMGW over time, to see what the discipline really thinks.

I'm mostly on the fence with it. My greatest criticism is of those who put far too much stock in the patently hopeless predictive models of their champions; the predictions are constantly and woefully inaccurate. I am positive that the scientific community that claims it has a strong knowledge of what's going on is either lying or simply ignorant of its own shortcomings, these shortcomings continually laid bare every year, as new climate date comes out in direct refute with whatever they said would happen. I think we simply know far too little about global warming and about what it would actually mean, so I am glad to see so many reputed scientists here call it for what it often is, an ideology or religion.

Who died and made you a Constitutional Lawyer??

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There is a difference between making responsible decisions when we don't have all of the information but we have a pretty good grasp of what's happening, and making decisions when we have little reliable information and no real agreement on what is happening. Where climate change is concerned the case is the latter, not the former. You can't mitigate a problem when you're not really sure what the problem is in the first place.

Well the scientific community certainly thinks that we have enough reliable information to make recommendations on, and the consensus on the issue really is pretty overwhelming. I guess we just disagree on the level of information and the degree of uniformity of opinion necessary to act. I believe we are far, far beyond that threshold.

Although I agree to a point, but mankind has a history of being WRONG. All the greatest minds of the time thought the world was flat. Its all in the scope of "whats known". To think we even have a beginning of a grasp on the science involved in MMGW is prideful at best. Do I think man contributes? Sure I do. But certainly not to the extent many say.

A good read to show where Im coming from is this

 

[bauerbrazil]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

---

What I would like to see is a trend indicating the percentage of scientists who were "for" or "against" MMGW over time, to see what the discipline really thinks.

According to the article the UN has 52 who say it is happening, the opposition has 650.

That's 8% in favor of MMGW, and 92% against it.

This comparison is meaningless and retarded.

When Einstein proposed his Theories, 99,99% of the scientific community was against his ideas. The history showed who was right.

Same as Quantum Mechanics, Einstein and a lot of scientists were against it and they were wrong!

Scientists are humans, humans are greed, liars, cheaters? and humans are not perfect, most of the time we are wrong!

Those topics are just a waste of time, nobody will change their point.

I am 99% that MMGW is true but I do not fucking care anymore because most of the people are greed and do not care about the future of Earth and humans.

We humans, are the shit of the planet, we just deserve the worst fate and we will have it because of our greed.

And fuck us all?

Sorry about my english.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bauerbrazil

I am 99% that MMGW is true but I do not fucking care anymore because most of the people are greed and do not care about the future of Earth and humans.

We humans, are the shit of the planet, we just deserve the worst fate and we will have it because of our greed.

And fuck us all?

Sorry about my english.

Your english is fine.

The truth is clear no matter what language.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bauerbrazil

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

---

What I would like to see is a trend indicating the percentage of scientists who were "for" or "against" MMGW over time, to see what the discipline really thinks.

According to the article the UN has 52 who say it is happening, the opposition has 650.

That's 8% in favor of MMGW, and 92% against it.

This comparison is meaningless and retarded.

When Einstein proposed his Theories, 99,99% of the scientific community was against his ideas. The history showed who was right.

Same as Quantum Mechanics, Einstein and a lot of scientists were against it and they were wrong!

Scientists are humans, humans are greed, liars, cheaters? and humans are not perfect, most of the time we are wrong!

Those topics are just a waste of time, nobody will change their point.

I am 99% that MMGW is true but I do not fucking care anymore because most of the people are greed and do not care about the future of Earth and humans.

We humans, are the shit of the planet, we just deserve the worst fate and we will have it because of our greed.

And fuck us all?

Sorry about my english.

Einstein built on the work of Michelson, Morley, Lorentz, Poincaré, and others. The scientific community of the day wasn't so much against his ideas as they were unprepared for his views. It didn't take long though before nearly everyone saw his undeniable truth, which had held up under rigorous scientifc testing.

Einstein is a bad example in the case of MMGW though. At this point MMGW is more akin to the opposite of what you're claiming. MMGW is the convential wisdom. Those dissenting are the minority. And testing has not validated the majority opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There is a difference between making responsible decisions when we don't have all of the information but we have a pretty good grasp of what's happening, and making decisions when we have little reliable information and no real agreement on what is happening. Where climate change is concerned the case is the latter, not the former. You can't mitigate a problem when you're not really sure what the problem is in the first place.

Well the scientific community certainly thinks that we have enough reliable information to make recommendations on, and the consensus on the issue really is pretty overwhelming. I guess we just disagree on the level of information and the degree of uniformity of opinion necessary to act. I believe we are far, far beyond that threshold.

Although I agree to a point, but mankind has a history of being WRONG. All the greatest minds of the time thought the world was flat. Its all in the scope of "whats known". To think we even have a beginning of a grasp on the science involved in MMGW is prideful at best. Do I think man contributes? Sure I do. But certainly not to the extent many say.

A good read to show where Im coming from is this

Yeap, we could definitely be totally wrong. It doesn't mean that deciding to act on global warming is wrong though. It's just a cost/benefit analysis based around the probability of each side being right and the corresponding costs associated with them. I think when you look at it that way, the answer is clear.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Scientists are well aware of the variability of Earth's climate. They are alarmed by the rate of change, as it vastly outstrips anything ever recorded in the past.

BS. We have maybe 100 years of decent temperature records. Maybe 40 or 50 good ones. 100 years is certainly not enough time to say whether this type of change is abnormal or not.

Also, there have been many much larger climate changes in history. There have been several mass extinctions before humans came around. Ice ages, warm periods...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Scientists are well aware of the variability of Earth's climate. They are alarmed by the rate of change, as it vastly outstrips anything ever recorded in the past.

BS. We have maybe 100 years of decent temperature records. Maybe 40 or 50 good ones. 100 years is certainly not enough time to say whether this type of change is abnormal or not.

Also, there have been many much larger climate changes in history. There have been several mass extinctions before humans came around. Ice ages, warm periods...

Sure it's BS. I'm not really interested in rehashing the same old MMGW arguments again. I've long ago come to accept the fact that AT and Dailytech are meccas for global warming deniers.

I respect that people feel differently than me on the subject, but I take a lot of comfort in the fact that the majority of the world feels as I do, and that action is being taken.

 

[jonks]

In google searches I'm only finding this senate minority blog quip reported by conservative blogs and periodicals (washington times) and completely off the rocker righty sources (worldnetdaily) and have only found one refutation from a liberal source, which I post below:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...detail?&entry_id=33450

I've earned legitimacy as environmental journalist: I got a press release from Marc Morano, research lackey of Climate-Denier-in-Chief James Inhofe, (sadly) the ranking Republican member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The release claims that there were more scientists dissenting about climate science than authored the 2007 UN IPCC report that asserted that it was 90 percent certain that manmade climate change was occurring and would be a major, major problem if not controlled.

As usual, Morano's facts are misleading. The IPCC report had 450 lead authors. However, it had 800 contributing authors and drew on the work of 2500 scientists asked to contribute because of their expertise in climatology?the study of large-scale and long-term trends in weather and their causes.

There were 650 dissenting "scientists," according to the press release. However, their areas of expertise including geology, physics, paleontology and meteorology?the study of short-term weather patterns.

The main substance of the release is "there's more of us than there are of you," for which it relies on misrepresented data. Now, if you were a minority who genuinely believed a majority theory was flawed in its methodology, wouldn't you be more honest in your own methods? The release also claims that the IPCC ignores solar variation as a cause of climate change. This is also false.

The obscure location of this press release on the committee's website is well deserved. Inhofe and Morano are endangered species.

 

[CanOWorms]

I've always found it interesting that some people live by the scientific consensus on climate change yet then turn around and ignore the scientific consensus on genetically modified food.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I've always found it interesting that some people live by the scientific consensus on climate change yet then turn around and ignore the scientific consensus on genetically modified food.

Consensus is not an exact science. This mmgw boogyman will be better for the masses than the current type used.

 

[NeoV]

TLC is now questioning if CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Come on. Are you going to question water vapor next?

We are adding excess CO2 to the atmosphere, we are cutting down forests all over the world, and the oceans - particularly in the lower southern hemisphere, do not appear to be absorbing as much CO2 as they used to. Add in a 40+% increase in man-made CO emission, and you have a problem.

Either way, cutting down on pollution in the air is a good thing, lowering our reliance on foreign oil is a good thing - spending money towards those ends is worthwhile, GW or not.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NeoV
TLC is now questioning if CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Come on. Are you going to question water vapor next?

0/10 for your utter lack of reading comprehension.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Scientists are well aware of the variability of Earth's climate. They are alarmed by the rate of change, as it vastly outstrips anything ever recorded in the past.

BS. We have maybe 100 years of decent temperature records. Maybe 40 or 50 good ones. 100 years is certainly not enough time to say whether this type of change is abnormal or not.

Also, there have been many much larger climate changes in history. There have been several mass extinctions before humans came around. Ice ages, warm periods...

Sure it's BS. I'm not really interested in rehashing the same old MMGW arguments again. I've long ago come to accept the fact that AT and Dailytech are meccas for global warming deniers.

I respect that people feel differently than me on the subject, but I take a lot of comfort in the fact that the majority of the world feels as I do, and that action is being taken.

The majority of the world has had a lot of stupid ideas in the past. It certainly isn't a nice blanket to roll yourself up in.