It will be claimed here at least several times that CO2 cannot be a greenhouse
gas because it is relatively heavy, and cannot therefore rise high enough in the
atmosphere to be a factor in global warmingBut that is not how
greenhouse gases work. Greenhouse gases act as they do because they are
blankets, holding in and absorbing the earth's long wave energy emissions,
like a blanket on a cold night. So CO2's weight holding it close to
the earth helps it be a greenhouse gas.
What if 100% of the scientists agreed that the earth was flat or that the sun
revolved around the earth? We all know that for millennia more than 97% of all
scientists told us that the earth was flat. We know that "scientists"
who told us that the earth revolved around the sun were punished severely.
"Scientists" came to those conclusions by examining the data available
to them. Their data was wrong. Now "scientists" are being paid by
governments to prove that we are causing a greenhouse effect. They fail to note
that when Mt. Saint Helen erupted, spewing untold tons of debris into the
atmosphere, that the earth cooled. It didn't get hotter. NASA scientist
learned in 2013, the denser the atmosphere, the more solar radiation that is
bounced back into space. The net effect is cooling, not heating, yet scientists
keep spending millions of dollars of taxpayer furnished grant money telling us
that unless we are taxed for using fossil fuels, that we are going to fry the
earth. The fire that burns the earth will not be man-made nor will it be caused
by burning fossil fuels.
Dave,The whole climate change issue is no longer a scientific issue
in America.It is now a political issue. And being so, we are
required to side along party lines and take logic and common sense out of the
equation. I mean, did you see that 3% number? In the same light, I
now understand how unlimited political contributions and lobby money is actually
good for the system and in no way affects the legislation produced in
Congress.Some things are counter intuitive. That is why we need
partisan politicians to explain them.
It's a bit ironic that the conservative mantra is that we're leaving
too much debt for the children, but they seem to have no problem leaving a
decimated, overheated planet to those same children.
I suppose that would depend if the 97% Doctors were Democrat or Republican, since that is how the GW deniers are basing their decisions as to what to
"What if 100% of the scientists agreed that the earth was flat or that the
sun revolved around the earth? "Were these "scientists"
really scientists in the modern sense. What changed other than the information
itself? Methods and scientific equipment. So this what if straw
man is absolutely nonsensical. And PS Mike you demonstrate one of
the reasons many of us don't take the ancients view of the world seriously
including where we came from and where we're going.
What climate change? Global temperatures have been flat for 16 years after
rising slightly for about 17. Before that, temperatures fell slightly for 40
years. And all the while, CO2 levels rose. In records of distant past
temperatures, CO2 levels rose centuries after temperatures rose, not before. As
a scientist, I believe that means CO2 is not the primary temperature driver,
which is what skeptics have been saying all along.Science is not a
democracy. When the majority admits their climate models have been wrong and
have too much uncertainty to base trillion-dollar decisions on, then I'll
listen because that's what the objective facts say.
The Earth is warming. In what way exactly? Over the last few years the whole
Earth has actually cooled a smidgen if you take overall temperatures from
certain areas. I'll bet most on the East Coast this last winter were
wanting a little warming. Does this warming only apply to certain areas? And,
if is does warm a little, is that necessairly bad for every place on Earth?
Some places would be helped with a little warming. Most of the warming
predicted is based on computer models and such. GIGO. And the idea that people
are causing the warming because of industrial activity pretty much ignores all
the natural souces of CO2 that come from the Earth. Earth seems to be pretty
resilient to any Human abuses and makes corrections when necessary. So we
create a little more CO2. Earth will likely create a little less to balance
things out. That's my "computer" model.
Mike Richards said: "What if 100% of the scientists agreed that the earth
was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth? We all know that for
millennia more than 97% of all scientists told us that the earth was
flat."You start off with a false statement, "European
Scientist" under the heavy hand of a religion that didn't allow free
thought may have got inline, but scientist the world round knew and espoused the
truth.Think of your political party and big business as "Dark
Ages Religion Rulers" and the rest of the scientific community as those not
under the rule of their power (or paycheck)The burning of fossil
fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of
approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according
to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than
even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.
The global warming alarmists aren’t attempting to shut down debate because
they’re worried the dissenters are wrong; the alarmists are attempting to
shut down debate because they know their models are wrong, and they’d
rather nobody focus on that inconvenient little fact.--Sean Davis
Mr. Folland, If your belief in catastrophic climate change is based on the
"97%" survey you should investigate the details of the study. The number
comes from Doran/Zimmerman 2009. Over 10,000 scientists were surveyed, 3,146
responded. This number was whittled down by the study team to 79. 77 of these
answered "yes" to a rather vague question:"Do you think
human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global
temperatures?" Voila! 97% Nothing in the study
mentioned extreme weather, drought, fires and all of the other wild claims now
coming from some of our leaders, activist scientists and their faithful media.
This is not so much about climate science as about political science, the only
kind of science that is ever "settled".
Oh and another thing -- We never had a 100% consensus or conclusive
evidence by independant Global Weapons Inspectors and "Scientists"
verifying Weapons of Mass Destruction existed before committing 12 years and $3
Trllion to start "doing something" like starting offensive wars by
attacking and invading Iraq!
We make decisions based on the best information available in the moment, not
with perfect hindsight, and we assess risks and benefits based on the best
available information. Mr. Folland's analogy is absolutely
right…..when 97% of doctors tell you to choose a certain treatment, you
would be quite a bold gambler to ignore them. If we look at the information we
have gathered on climate science and pollution, and we compare that to
alternatives, then clearly the better risk is to start switching to
less-polluting technologies as soon as possible. So much data indicates that
our present course is a disaster, but what harms are caused by less pollution?
Remember, there are still no medical studies which have PROVEN with
a double-blind placebo study that smoking CAUSES cancer. Tobacco companies have
built their entire industries around this fact. I know a handful of people who
have smoked their whole lives and don't have cancer, so does that mean we
should deregulate tobacco? Let people smoke anywhere they want? On planes? In
restaurants? Let stores sell cigarettes to kids and companies market tobacco to
And you want to get all "religous", I believe God makes
natural laws, and everything - including himself - obeys them.He
only told us calamities "would" happen in the last days, He never
said anything about him being like a Cosmic puppet master in the sky making it
all happen.I think - like everything else in life - we bring things
upon ourselves.The good and the bad.Do as we are commanded --
be good stewards of the Earth, tend and take care of it, Waste not, want
not...Like manna from heaven, only taking what we need - and as
little as possible...We will be OK, he will bless us.Exploit
it, Fight Wars over it, waste and manipulate it for $Profit [i.e.,
for Gain $$ - Master Mahan]It will be our own curse.Amen.
Several of you have made my point. "Scientists" were told what was
expected of them by their sponsor, which, in some cases, was a church. They
"found" proof of whatever it was that they were expected to find. SOME
scientists outside the influence of that church or sponsor, came to other
conclusions, but for millennia, the "official" stance that is found in
our European History books, was that the world was either flat or that the sun
revolved around the earth. Those "scientists" were not allowed to
promote the findings of scientists from other parts of the world. It was
"settled" science. You either "believed" or you lost your
sponsorship.How is that different than what is happening today? As
stated, Out of 10,000 scientists polled, 77 scientists "agreed" and 2
scientists disagreed with the "expected answer". It looks like 9,923
scientists "agreed" that there was no merit to the question that was
asked. Ask your politician why he believes that the earth will fry
based on that 0.77% response.
I should think that the scientific method has improved in the 5 centuries since
anyone took the flat earth view (which contradicted empirical observations of
ancient Greeks and Egyptians) or the geocentric solar system seriously. Pointing out these blunders, which owe far more to dogmatic religion and
philosophy than to science, is in no way a refutation of current scientific
theories. That comes about through continued science studies.
@David FollandCheck your facts. That 97% number is completely bogus.
Bad assumptions produce erroneous conclusions.
Is this an "either/or" situation, or is it a political situation where
billions of dollars in untapped "taxes" are at stake? Truth is truth.
When sufficient data has been collected and the proper means to use that data
have been developed, then, reasonable people can collectively discuss their
findings. Foolish people jump on the "popular" bandwagon
just because it serves their personal desires. Some people who can walk to work
would ban cars, thinking that they are unnecessary. Some people who live in a
well insulated cave would ban using fossil fuels to heat a normal house. Some
people who live in a world of their own, would tell us that 77
"scientists" out of 10,000 who answered a question the way that they
wanted that question to be answered, declared that their pet theory is correct.
They neglect the opinions of the 99.3% of those polled who thought the question
was not worth answering.
@Res Novae "Pointing out these blunders..is in no way a refutation of
current scientific theories. That comes about through continued science
studies."True. This is why the claim that this is "settled
science" is so ridiculous. Nothing left to discover here? Really? Then why
are the climate models consistently wrong?
"...the comprehensive National Climate Assessment released Tuesday predicts
a hot, dry future for Utah marked by more wildfires, drought, greater air
pollution and scarcity of water due to climate change." Quoted today from
this paper.Anybody besides me going to read it? I will, how about
Re: "What if this large majority is right?"There's a
good question. But, remember, there's a critical corollary -- "What if
they're wrong?"Both questions need an answer. It's as
fatal [or perhaps, moreso] to ignore the second, as to ignore the first. And,
each question deserves the same analysis and attention.Economic
experts agree that implementation of most liberal AGW "solutions" will
be ruinously expensive to real people. Highly profitable for Al Gore and other
liberal crony capitalists, to be sure, but ruinous to most of us. Constitutional
freedoms experts agree that these "solutions" will also destroy American
freedoms.If the bleating majority of climate "scientists" is
correct, there will, of course be consequences. But, if they're wrong, and
we find out, after bankrupting the world economy, that the primary effect is not
climatic, but establishment of a new environmental oligarchy, what then?The vast, vast majority of real people, disingenuously labeled
"deniers" by Goebbels-like climate "science" propagandists,
really just want answers to both questions.And then, we want to make
up our minds, based on the best available information. Not coercive climate
Oh let me put away my violin and get a Kleenex to wipe my tears. Typical leftist
ploy. Lets try comparing apples to apples, not oranges. Pretty sure there is a
little more known science about heart conditions, then guessing about the
atmosphere, and all the shadowy causes of climate and weather! Now that I know
my kid will probably live, lets move on. If the climate does change,
just like it has been for millions of years, likely few of us are going to die.
Actually all of us are going to die, but not necessarily from climate change. We
can adapt. If the climate is going to change, it is going to have very little to
do with what you and I do. Don't be so arrogant! If all you do-gooder
leftists were really serious about man made climate change, there are about 25
other countries you need to be imposing your ideas and opinions on, before you
come back to the US and start preaching to us.
What if the 97% (are all of these 97% climatologists) are not right? It's
been proven by scientists that the computer models that they use are flawed and
skewed toward the side of human caused climate change.Mt. St Helens
blows again, it will put more bad stuff into the atmosphere in a few minutes
than any human intervention ever thought of doing over the entire course of
human history. What about an asteroid of large size hitting the earth? How
about some major solar activity? Are we going into an ice age now? That seems
to be the consensus of scientists.Have you ever stopped to consider
that the climate change debate, on both sids, is agenda driven? Don't tell
me that Algore is pure on this subject. He's made millions off of the
scare tactics. He's found a way to cash in. For him it's apparently
about the money.
1. The greeks talked about the Earth being a sphere in 600 B.C.2. No
Scientist in Mideval Europe believed in a Flat-Earth -- that dogma was
pertetuated by the ignorant, uneducated, and the religous.3.
Christopher Columbus was a Government sponsored program.It's
funny to listen to "some" of these 3% Global Warming Deniers, using "Science" to back up their claims...While at the
same time, they argue that the Earth is 6,000 years old, Was
entirely under 37,000 feet of water less than 4,000 years ago, That
even a slight evolutionary process by any of the animals on the Noah's ark
could not possibly happened,That fossil fuels are not even fossil
based, but are somehow being cooked deep within the earth faster than we can
possibly pump and burn them, and That the only reason we
don't believe them [the deniers] and believe these "Scientists" is
because we've all been snookered by some secret Government cabal cover-up,
making things to make Al Gore rich.These are the same people who
believe; Obama's birth certificate was faked, Osama Bin Laden
death was faked, 9/11 was faked, the Apollo missions were faked, so of course Global Warming is fake too!
Getting down to the gritty of the nitty, conservatives are far more interested
in their wallets than they are in "conserving" our air, water, or land.
I suggest that right-wingers drop the label "conservative" in deference
to the truth-in-labeling laws.
You don't mind spending billions for hedgefund managers and other
executives cheat you and ruin our economy but if it comes to protecting your
children and grandchildren then "kill" the messenger. By the way, the
last decade was the warmest on recorded history for you that tout your facts.
The consensus noted by the author is wrong but not for the reasons noted by the
conservative commentators. Of the last 9,136 peer-reviewed articles from
scientific journals on this subject, only one has called into question
anthropogenic climate change. The consensus is more along the lines of 99.99%
among the scientific community with 98% confidence, it is undisputed by every
single nation and inter-governmental organization, as well as nearly every
single non-profit and for-profit organization outside the US. Indeed, the only
global exception are American conservatives and the American non-profit dirty
energy front groups. The general debate is over, it is time to move toward
finding solutions and leave conservative America behind as they toil away in
whatever faux conspiracy theory they can come up with next. Mr.
Richards - The comparison you've given is apt although the stages are
mixed. You see, the current stage we are at is comparable to a post-columbian
stage of the spherical earth debate. Everyone has now seen the evidence,
undeniable determinations within the scientific community have been made, but
yet there still exist a few of you flat-earthers.
@Flashback "Mt. St Helens blows again, it will put more bad stuff into
the atmosphere in a few minutes than any human intervention ever thought of
doing over the entire course of human history."Not true. Not
even close. Do global warming deniers even bother to cross check the claims
that they post? Why is there such an aversion to facts? 30 seconds with
google yields the following..."Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion
tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around
29 billion tonnes per year."There's literally no other way
to spin the data. Volcanoes contribute a fraction of of the CO2 that man does,
yet every discussion on global warming sees at least one denier claiming the
@ugottbkidnRecorded history is very short when compared with the
lifetime of the earth. The proxy record indicates that temperatures have been
much higher over the last three thousand years. In fact, we are below the median
temperature in that timeframe. We just went through the Little Ice Age and are
still climbing back out of it.
LDS LiberalA nice series of non-sequitors. You forgot to mention
the Kennedy assisination. And by the way, of that list, the only one that would
make sense and be easiest to accomplish is the faked birth certificate. All the
others would require a massive conspiracy and coverup by hundreds of people.
Faking a document like a birth certificate is done every day.
Years ago, I owned and operated a photo lab that only processed film and made
prints for professional photographers. I had a Kodak VCNA (Video Color Negative
Analyser) that, at the time, cost twice as much as the average home in Utah.
That "closed circuit TV" allowed me to "analyse" each negative
before it was printed and adjust the settings so the resulting print was
"perfect". It didn't work quite as expected. No matter how
carefully I calibrated things, some prints weren't acceptable, requiring an
expensive "re-do". That's when I learned of "the circle of
confusion". The Kodak representative showed me how each part of the process
could add error. The temperature of the paper, the time between the exposure
and the processing of the paper, the temperature of the chemicals, the quickness
or slowness of the solenoids that operated the shutter and the color filters all
had variables.What does that have to do with "climate
change"? Unless every "contributing factor" works exactly as the
scientists hope, the "error rate" will beyond expectations. I don't believe that the scientists can predict climate change based on
their data set.
The problem still remains. The models are not right, and the science is not
settled.The NOAA stated in their 2008 report that 15 years or more
of no warming would mean that the models are wrong. We are now going on 16 or
17 years with no significant warming. IF that isn't enough, the RSS and
UAH satelite data indicates that we have been remaining constant or else
cooling.Now, if that isn't enough for you, if the science is
settled then why do climatologists keep finding out new significant information
that proves their models wrong?In the past 7 years scientists have
found that the earth sheds more heat than they thought, they found that there
are more natural aerosols than previously thought, can't figure out where
all the CO2 goes, and found that when solar activity decreases the earth cools.
At the same time we have found that glaciers are growing and the ice sheet is
getting thicker.For a settled science there sure are a lot of new
discoveries going on that put big holes into previous theories.
@Nate,"True. This is why the claim that this is "settled
science" is so ridiculous. Nothing left to discover here? Really?"I don't think that the letter's author claimed anything about
"settled science" but addressed the overwhelming weight of scientific
consensus. There's a subtle yet distinct difference between the two."Then why are the climate models consistently wrong?"Pointing to single data points which suit a minority view is the same as
pointing to a single brick on the side of building and declaring it to be the
whole structure. The scientific consensus will change only when its
explanations no longer hold water for observed evidence. Single data points are
insufficient to do that. Personally, I've long been agnostic
on climate change, not having the background to dig down into the details. But
the views of an overwhelming number of scientists around the world has to give
me pause. If not for its inherent political, economic, and social
ramifications, there'd be as little opposition to the theory of climate
change as there is to the correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
@ Mile Richards 97% of scientists in the last millennia believed the earth
orbited the sun and the world was flat? The scientific revolution was not until
the 16th Century. The term "scientist" and the scientific method were
not even used in Medieval times. And "scholars" then knew of the
sun-centered solar system but did not write or lecture about it for fear of
being excommunicated and punished for heresy. Thus the general population did
not know that either. Even the ancient Greek scholars knew the earth was round.
Eratosthenes even measured its circumference in the 4th century BCE. And
yes volcanic activity which blocks solar radiation has a cooling effect. What
are you suggesting, that man should add to particulates in the atmosphere to
counter the warming trend? Should we just hope for more eruptions to cool the
planet? As for scientists getting government monies for research, how about the
deniers who get funding from energy companies and conservative political groups.
Are we to trust their research and conclusions as being objective? Who has more
vested interest in the climate change debate, our democratic government or
investors, bankers and energy companies?
Stalwart Sentinel,The study you reference of "9,136
articles" (in reality 9,136 authors of 2,258 articles) is as flawed as the
one I referenced, Doran/Zimmerman, in an earlier post. It's a bit like
sampling the library for books on UFOs or Bigfoot and being stunned to find that
the vast majority of the writers claim to believe in the subject.
Look what's happened in just over a century. Einstein changed our
understanding of time and space with his papers on relativity. The
understanding of matter is changing. We've learned that the atom, instead
of being the smallest "thing" possible, is made up of other parts.
We've learned (long after I was in school) that the neutron, proton and
electron are not the smallest parts of an atom, but that quarks exist and that
even quarks come in various "flavors". As we learn more and more of
what really is, our understanding of how things work also increases. The jet
stream is moving around, causing unpredictable weather. Those who believe in
global warming tell us that burning carbon is causing the jet stream to move.
Those who don't believe in global warming give their own reasons. In other
words, it is a war of words.Does anyone remember what Barack
Obama's "claim to fame" was before he became President? He was a
community organizer. He used people, behind the scenes, to influence front line
activities. He's a master of doing that. His people are pushing global
warming because money is involved.
Redshirt - If you consider NOAA to be the preeminent authority on this subject,
you should read their statement yesterday regarding Obama's Climate Action
Plan. NOAA called it, "the most comprehensive and authoritative scientific
report ever generated about climate changes that are happening now in the
U.S." because it, "is the result of a three-year analytical effort by a
team of over 300 climate scientists and experts." Guess what that study
found? Anthropogenic climate change.Further, if you take the last
couple of decades (hottest on record) and compare them to one another, you see
little variance - but when compared to the rest of the century, there is no
denying the warming trend. This is simple stuff, you should be able to figure
it out on your own. Your example is like taking the average height of an NBA
team and saying that is representational of society as a whole. Finally, nearly all the "new discoveries" you mention are consistently
plugged into the data sets/models and result in more negative affects than
previously thought. The science is settled, only the details remain.
Re: Mike Richards "Now "scientists" are being paid by governments
to prove that we are causing a greenhouse effect. "In other
words, according to Mike, scientists who find that global warming is occurring
because of the greenhouse effect are doing so for profit, that is, they have no
scientific objectivity whatsoever, that indeed, they are not scientists at
all.Not true at all of course. It is remarkable that we have sunk
to this depth. But then we had the witch hunts of the 1950's as a model.
This is Birchism focused on climate change. It should come as no surprise.
Mike Richards - The takeaway from your "Kodak VCNA" example is that when
you are not an expert on a subject you should consult an expert for assistance.
Well, I hate to break the news but 99.99% of experts on climate science are
telling us the same thing. Hint: the experts disagree with you completely. chilly - First, you do realize that whether the statistic is 1 article
of 9, 136 or 1 author of 2,258, the result is still 99.99% consensus, right?
Second, you don't seem to understand the term "peer-reviewed".
Indeed, the fact that you compare an undeniable consensus of peer-reviewed
articles from every single major scientific journal across the planet to an
isolated poll or a UFO library tells me all I need to know about the level of
analysis you've applied to the subject matter. Scientific peer-reviewed
journals are not bigfoot books; the comparison is ludicrous and juvenile.
@FlashbackKearns, UTWhat if the 97% (are all of these 97%
climatologists) are not right? ======== Ya what IF they
are wrong? Then what?We end up with cleaner air and water?
boo-hoo.We leave more energy in the gorund for future generations?
boo-hoo.We eliminate our dependancy and no longer fund Terrorists?
boo-hoo.We no longer need make up lies to attack and invade soveign
nations for their oil? boo-hoo.You know, years ago at a
University symposium - a speaker suggested that the "Wine of Babylon"
(i.e., Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia) refered to in Revelations - that made Kings
Rich and Nations drunk and addicted to was "OIL".I've
never forgotten that because it rang so true to me -- and here we are 35
years and 2 wars later...it never seemed truer.
Stalwart Sentinel,In climate science, "peer review" has
become "pal review". Did you know that all of the climate modeling, that
has been done to date, was peer reviewed? Surely you are aware of the resounding
failure of these models. So much for "peer review".
To "Stalwart Sentinel" you realize that Obama does not have a scientific
background, so as far as he is concerned it could have been written by Dr.
Dre.The question now is which NOAA are you going to believe?If you take the last 1000 years of information, we find that the earth
is still too cold, and that we should let the earth warm up some more. The
longer time period that you look at, the higher the average global temperature
you find. So, why do you want to keep the earth in an ice age?Read
the article "The New York Times' Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17
Years Of Flat Global Temperatures" in Forbes. They explain that despite the
Chicken Little cries of people like you, the Earth's temperature is not
acting like you claim.If something is settled, that means that the
details are done and there is nothing more to add.
@chilly"Surely you are aware of the resounding failure of these
models."Please, do tell us of these 'resounding
failures' and how their existence refutes the trend of the data showing
that humans are contributing to global warming. Nevermind that the models
aren't even intended to assess 'Whether' its happening, rather
'To What Degree' is it happening and can we slow/stop the trend.Since you and others seem to miss this point. The only flaws found in
computer models occurred through peer review. Not from pretentious posts on
message boards. Not from AM radio hosts. Not from forwarded emails. And how
is it that these scientists deserve your praise when their peer-review process
finds things you agree with, but earns your scorn when the data shows
otherwise?That's the beauty of science, it acknowledges a
trend, but keeps asking questions, even when the answers are unexpected. Sadly,
for those who are anti-science, the opposite is true. They reject the trend,
focus on any unexpected result and proclaim that science is wrong because of
that unexpected result.
For my two cents, I am skeptical of the computer "models" so many people
rely on for their opinions. The models are man made, and while I do not imply
overt dishonesty in the various models that are created, it appears to me that
they are not always accurate or 100% on target.Perhaps the earth is
warming, is it due to CO2? Sun activity? The vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Who is
certain of the cause, and who is certain of the end result? No one knows,
because we rely upon computer models that are man made. A warmer
earth would require us to adjust, overcome and adapt. To me the problem is that
we want to remain static - business and life as usual- in a dynamic environment
that we really can't control. The inability to control hurts our pride and
ego and we try harder to control what we are unable to fully comprehend let
There's still no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global
temperature. That means everything that is "projected" is just a guess -
there's no data to back it up. That means all the evidence offered to
"prove" their case is anecdotal. That isn't science.A
problem the letter-writer needs to address is whether 97% of people who have a
clue about climate science agree with the premise of AGW, or whether it's a
made-up number. If it's the latter - and it is - the real message is
"those people can't be trusted."Our grandchildren will
study the AGW silliness as a case study in how the scientific process can be
gamed. That is, they will if we aren't bankrupted by the alarmists.If we all were a bit more scientifically literate, we wouldn't fall
for this kind of stuff.
Re: Mike Richards "Now "scientists" are being paid by governments to
prove that we are causing a greenhouse effect. "=== As I recall, it was the smoking causes lung cancer deniers of the 1950's
that were being bribed and paid to go against all Scientific evidence.So which is it today?The once again majority of Scientific evidence, or the Oil Industry bribing and paying off to once again "deny" there
is a problem?I think your conspiracy theory is about 180
@Res Novae "I don't think that the letter's author claimed
anything about 'settled science' but addressed the overwhelming weight
of scientific consensus. There's a subtle yet distinct difference between
the two."It's a distinction without a difference. The
purpose of either claim is to shut down dissent. When we ask what it is that
makes the science settled, the answer is always the same: consensus. So it
really does amount to the same appeal to authority. (Take note: the case for
catastrophic warming rests upon a logical fallacy.)"The
scientific consensus will change only when its explanations no longer hold water
for observed evidence."The case has crumbled already. Clinging
to some bogus 97% figure from years past is less and less possible, as the
observed flat temperatures diverge more and more from the fraudulent path of the
hockey stick graph."Single data points are insufficient to do
that."We're talking about many thousands of data points
taken from all over the world, by both terrestrial and satellite stations,
revealing flat (or slightly declining) global temperatures. The
"consensus" is contradicted by reality.
To "LDS Liberal" you bring up an interesting point in history.Did you know that prior to the 1950's that the government, Medical
Doctors, and all sorts of people and groups were telling us about the benefits
of smoking.The government even funded studies telling us about the
benefits of smoking. Government funded scientists were more than happy to say
that smoking didn't cause any problems. It wasn't until people
started to see for themselves that smoking was bad did government begin to agree
that smoking was bad.In the early 1900's the government was
promoting Eugenics in the US. That was again another lie that was harmful. The
government is still practicing eugenics within US prisons. Don't you think
you should have more distrust of the government that constantly uses science to
lie to the US population?If the government was willing to lie to us
about smoking prior to the 1950's. How do you know that the government
isn't doing the same again with climate change? The government has a
history of using scientists to tell us that something is beneficial when in
reality it isn't.
chilly - So, if we distill our positions down: I have thousands upon thousands
of scientific peer-reviewed articles that support me and you have a baseless,
spurious personal accusation that the entire global scientific community lacks
integrity. I wonder which is more credible?Redshirt - I do realize
Obama is not a scientist, hence the reason I included the point that the report
was comprised over three years by more than 300 experts (Hint: Obama didn't
write it on a whim during his spare time). Had you spent even a minute doing
research, you would have realized that on your own. Further, I believe both
"NOAAs" - there is an explanation for your misrepresented discrepancy,
you just have to do your own due diligence to figure it out - I"m tired of
holding your hand on this. Finally, please spare us Op/Eds - I'm sorry but
an opinion article in Forbes does not rebut thousands of actual climate
scientists and their peer-reviewed articles, scientific models, etc.... There is
no comparison, your position is ludicrous outside American conservative safe
havens - just deal with it.
To "StalwartSentinel" if you believe both NOAA's, then what do you
do. They say that the models are wrong, but the plan to stop the warming is
good. How can they tell that it is a good plan since they don't have an
accurate model to tell them what will happen if we decrease CO2 output?To quote the NOAA's 2008 report "The simulations rule out (at the 95%
level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed
absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the
expected present-day warming rate." We are now pushing 17 years with no
warming.So, how do we know the effect of lowering our CO2 emissions
if the model is wrong? Think of it this way. Would you fly in an airplane
where they thought the aluminum was stronger than it realy is?You
can't have it both ways. If the model is garbage, then Obama's report
is garbage. If the model is right, then the NOAA was wrong in 2008.So again, which NOAA do you believe?
RedShirt -- As much as I am wholehearted opposed to it -- It
does me good tho know that you voted for a guy who used the NSA, and
created the Dept. of HomeLand Security and the "Patriot Act" to spy on
all you Government haters -- and you did it not only once, but twice.
Redshirt - NOAA does not say the models are all wrong, etc... let's show
some integrity here. Further, I believe you misunderstood NOAA's stance in
2008. You also appear to use the word "model" in various
instances/contexts and are under the apparent misguided understanding that there
is only one. In fact, there is not just one "model". Again, the
science of anthropogenic climate change is settled, only the details remain.
I would suggest you re-read the entire 2008 report and subsequent
reports by NOAA, among many other government, NGO, and scientific reports in
order to make sense of your fictional discrepancy. To ensure balance and
scientific representational accuracy, for any article you read that denies
anthropogenic climate change, you must read at least 9,999 that support it.
Unfortunate for conservatives, that's the real world you live in but deny.
Again, you'll have to figure this one out on your own -
consider this your initiation to heightened thought. One hint though, you will
not find truth nor answers in op/eds, so I suggest you skip over those from
To "LDS Liberal" your answer is confusing. I asked why you trust a
government with a history of propping up scientists to use for its own
agenda.I don't trust the government, I don't trust the
politicians that I like. That is a good thing because I will look to keep them
honest.You on the other hand, still cannot get over Bush. However,
it is nice to know that you voted for the guy who is using the NSA to spy on the
US and its allies, uses the IRS to target political opponents and their
supporters, is granting more power to the Department of Homeland Security, and
has made the worst parts of the Patriot Act permanent. In addition to that, the
guy you voted for promised to be the most transparent yet has turned out to be
the most secretive President in recent history. He has gone from one crisis to
another and has yet to get one right. And you voted for him twice, and would
vote for him again if he could run again.
@Nate,"When we ask what it is that makes the science settled,
the answer is always the same: consensus. So it really does amount to the same
appeal to authority."It's not appeal to authority to offer
scientific evidence. And the weight of that evidence constitutes consensus. On
what basis to you decide to accept or reject "consensus"? What's
the difference between "correct" and "incorrect" consensus, and
how should we know? Do you accept or reject the consensus that the
Big Bang is the best explanation for the formation of the universe? Or that
evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on this planet?
Or that smoking causes cancer? Or the consensus behind plate tectonics, quantum
theory, general/special relativity, aerodynamics, orbital mechanics, etc, etc?
On what grounds do we accept or reject these?The glaring issue
facing American conservative opposition to climate change theory is that it is
the only major source of opposition in the developed world. That points to
ideology, not science, and there are many ideological reasons for them to
dismiss it. It does not help that they oppose science on many other fronts
where it conflicts with their views.
To "StalwartSentinel" the NOAA is quite clear. If they see 15 years or
more with no warming that would indicate a discrepancy. They were 95% certain
that could never happen. We are now going on 17 years with no warming. There
is a discrepancy. A discrepancy means that the model got it wrong.If the science is settled, then why do they keep finding that their model is
wrong? They have found that the earth releases more heat than previously
thought. NASA can't figure out where all of the CO2 goes. They have found
out that the sun plays a bigger role than previously thought. The have even
found that they had cloud cover figured wrong.For a settled science,
they sure keep finding problems with what they said just a few years ago. Plus
if it is so settled, why is it that nearly all of their predicitons have been
wrong. The only thing that is settled is that they don't know nearly as
much as they think they do.
@Res Novae "It's not appeal to authority to offer scientific
evidence."Correct. So, offer the evidence. Don't tell me
how many people you think there are who agree with you. See the difference?"And the weight of that evidence constitutes consensus."No, the weight of the evidence is its ability to explain observed
phenomena. Climate alarmism fails to do this. You try to paint conservatism as
being anti-science, and I'm asking you to adhere to the scientific method.
If the theory doesn't match the experiment, it must be rejected.What we have learned from the experiment is that the alarmist climate models
placed too much weight on feedback loops. As a result, the predicted warming is
not occurring. The models must be revised.The problem with these
models is that they don't model the earth -- they model the
researcher's assumptions about the earth. And our observations show us that
those assumptions are, in many cases, just plain wrong.
The perception that "most climate scientists agree" is vastly overblown.
The number of climate researchers who actually engage in research on the causes
of climate is quite small. What has happened is that those researchers who study
the effects of warming - not the cause - are counted as "true believers"
and thus are the statistics inflated.That any "scientist"
would refuse to debate their peers, would refuse to release their data or R
code, would hide data that reverses a paper's conclusion in a folder named
"censored_data", would refuse to honor FOIA requests, would use
"tricks" to "hide the decline", would think exaggeration or
outright lying is justified to achieve an end, would resort to personal attacks
on their peers, would misrepresent the data, would violate the law in order to
obtain the names of people who support an opposing view for the purpose of
attacking them, is not only embarrassing, but is also a pretty good indicator
that what they are doing is not science. Truth does not require such underhanded
tactics, it is capable of standing on its own two feet.
Redshirt - You honestly need to read the entire 2008 report and those since, the
explanation is very simply. I know you haven't because the exact phrase
you quote is all over conservative, non-scientific blogs, etc... because they,
like you, do not read entire articles, preferring to focus on a mute talking
point. If you would put as much effort into understanding as you put into
sticking your head in the sand, you'd answer your own question rather
quickly. So, are you going to be self-reliant or continue to rely
on me to do all the work for you? Please, answer that question. I
will repeat: the science is settled, only the details remain. Science, unlike
conservative mantra, is actually self-correcting so they have and will continue
to fine tune their findings but it is undeniable from a scientific standpoint.
This is why American conservatives should have no place at the table, your ilk
have forfeited rational thought and chosen a path of a political agenda instead.
'm sorry, you chose the incorrect position, stop looking to me to bail you
@StalwartSentinel:How can the science be settled when there is no
correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2? I don't mean
the squinty-eyed look at graphs or the computer models. I mean mathematical
correlation at the 95% confidence level using data from the real world. Without
correlation, it's all a house of cards.
To "StalwartSentinel" attacking me or the quote doesn't change its
validity. The fact is still there. We have not had any warming for 17 years,
proving that the models used for long term temperature predictions are not
accurate.If we don't have accurate models, how can we base
public policy on models that do not give us good data.If science is
self-correcting, that would mean that the science of climate change is not
settled. If it was settled, then why would there be a need to correct it?The lack of logic in your arguement only shows that you don't
understand much about science and computer modeling.
Redshirt - No one is being attacked, you simply refuse to do even the most
basic-level research to answer your own question. Here's the slightest
hint: what are the standards for measuring any given 15-year interval and are
you applying those correctly? Further, you continue to use the word
"model" as though there is a single, omnipresent "model" that
exists. Please, quantify how many models you are specifically referring to and
tell me how many additional models exist in addition to the ones you reference.
The science for anthropogenic climate change is settled; however,
adjustments have been and will consistently be made. We will never be able to
give every single plausible public policy proscription, yet we know enough to
move forward with certain ones. Please, continue to lecture me on
how I don't understand science and computer modeling when you claim to
rebut literally thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed science articles and
models simply because you google-searched conservative talking-points to find
half a phrase in a single statement from NOAA in 2008, misunderstood what it
said, and then proceeded to perpetuate the incomprehension on comment boards.
This is a conversation of rapidly diminishing returns.
To "StalwartSentinel" do you not realize that for something to be
settled that means that it is not needing to be changed. The fact that it keeps
changing and they keep finding new information shows that it is not settled.You do realize that just because something is peer reviewed does not
make it true. For example, peer reviewed articles in the 1930's and
1940's told us that cigaretts were safe.Scientific papers in
from the late 1800's and early 1900's told us that eugenics would
improve the world.Government sponsored scientists have told us what
proper nutrition should be, yet since they started to tell us what to eat the
obesity rate has gone up. Their peer reviewd papers say that obesity rates
should drop.Scientists still can't make up their mind if eggs
are good or bad. Each time they present their evidence in peer reviewed
journals.So, just saying it was peer reviewed does not really mean
much, especially if those peers believe the same thing you do. A better system
would be to have rival reviewed papers. The scrutiny would be much better.So again, since the the models are wrong, why trust them?
@Mike Richards"What if 100% of the scientists agreed that the earth
was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth? "So do you
accept no science at all? No vaccinations or medication at all?"They fail to note that when Mt. Saint Helen erupted, spewing untold tons
of debris into the atmosphere, that the earth cooled. It didn't get
hotter."Climate scientists know volcanoes cool temporarily, they
often point to when Pinotubo happened in the temperature charts (St. Helens
wasn't nearly as influential).@Nate"Then why are the
climate models consistently wrong?"Arctic sea ice is declining
faster than any of the IPCC model projections suggested but you all ignore that
one since that doesn't fit the narrative you're after.
To "Schnee" so if Arctic sea ice is declining faster than the IPCC model
projections suggested. Doesn't that mean that the model is wrong?If warming is happening faster than predicted or slower than predicted that
would mean that the model is wrong.However, you are wrong about the
sea ice. There are quite a few recent studies out there showing that the arctic
sea ice is remaining too thick during the spring and polar bears are starving
because they can't eat seals.