The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (3 Viewers)

[The_Man]

It is not what they know that bothers people most, it is what they don't know and a large part of what they 'know' is based on these models which by all accounts are not very good and many important variables are not known.

I am a research engineer of 20+ years experience and am the head computer modeler in my organization. Models are useful tools, but must be validated first. In my opinion, (a) the climate models are not validated and (b) even if they were, the users appear to be trying to attach meaning to predictions that are too near-term. I will concede that there are other tools, such as empirical measurements, or even plain old common sense, that have a place in the climate science debate.

I would not be particularly interested in even a good model's prediction for, say, 5 years from now. There appears to be too much noise in the very complicated global temperature system to make that kind of prediction meaningful. Kind of like trying to predict the # of hurricanes in a given season. Give me a 100 year prediction, and I'd take it seriously, assuming the model had been validated. None have.

This is not a model. But if I could show you the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 400,000 years, would that be something you might be interested in?

That doesn't look good. Got a graph with a shorter time line? Say last 500 years?

Here's one since 1750.

 

[Fennis]

It is not what they know that bothers people most, it is what they don't know and a large part of what they 'know' is based on these models which by all accounts are not very good and many important variables are not known.

I am a research engineer of 20+ years experience and am the head computer modeler in my organization. Models are useful tools, but must be validated first. In my opinion, (a) the climate models are not validated and (b) even if they were, the users appear to be trying to attach meaning to predictions that are too near-term. I will concede that there are other tools, such as empirical measurements, or even plain old common sense, that have a place in the climate science debate.

I would not be particularly interested in even a good model's prediction for, say, 5 years from now. There appears to be too much noise in the very complicated global temperature system to make that kind of prediction meaningful. Kind of like trying to predict the # of hurricanes in a given season. Give me a 100 year prediction, and I'd take it seriously, assuming the model had been validated. None have.

This is not a model. But if I could show you the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 400,000 years, would that be something you might be interested in?

That doesn't look good. Got a graph with a shorter time line? Say last 500 years?

the break out graph here shows last 1000 years ending in 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

In 2013 levels hit 400 parts per million for what is believed to be the first time in history.

It was supposedly 10 times higher during the End-Triassic extinction. And baseline levels before that event were orders of magnitude higher than today.

You're right. I meant to type millions of years.

 

[The_Man]

It is not what they know that bothers people most, it is what they don't know and a large part of what they 'know' is based on these models which by all accounts are not very good and many important variables are not known.

I am a research engineer of 20+ years experience and am the head computer modeler in my organization. Models are useful tools, but must be validated first. In my opinion, (a) the climate models are not validated and (b) even if they were, the users appear to be trying to attach meaning to predictions that are too near-term. I will concede that there are other tools, such as empirical measurements, or even plain old common sense, that have a place in the climate science debate.

I would not be particularly interested in even a good model's prediction for, say, 5 years from now. There appears to be too much noise in the very complicated global temperature system to make that kind of prediction meaningful. Kind of like trying to predict the # of hurricanes in a given season. Give me a 100 year prediction, and I'd take it seriously, assuming the model had been validated. None have.

This is not a model. But if I could show you the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 400,000 years, would that be something you might be interested in?

That doesn't look good. Got a graph with a shorter time line? Say last 500 years?

the break out graph here shows last 1000 years ending in 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

In 2013 levels hit 400 parts per million for what is believed to be the first time in history.

It was supposedly 10 times higher during the End-Triassic extinction. And baseline levels before that event were orders of magnitude higher than today.

From Encyclopedia Britannica on what happened during the end-Triassic extinction:

Many scientists contend that this event was caused by climate change and rising sea levels resulting from the sudden release of large amounts of carbon dioxide. The release of carbon dioxide from widespread volcanic activity associated with the rifting of the supercontinent Pangea, where eastern North America met northwestern Africa, is thought to have strengthened the global greenhouse effect, which raised average air temperatures around the globe and acidified the oceans.

Other authorities suggest that the relatively modest heating caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere could have liberated massive amounts of methane trapped in permafrost and undersea ice. Methane, a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, could have then caused Earth’s atmosphere to warm significantly.

Want to see a graph of methane levels in the atmosphere? Spoiler alert: it looks a lot like the CO2 graph, except maybe a little more severe.

 

[The_Man]

This is slightly off-topic, but I'm assuming some of the people in this thread are weather semi-nerds and might find it funny like I did.

Actual map released earlier today by the NOAA.

 

[Rove!]

This is slightly off-topic, but I'm assuming some of the people in this thread are weather semi-nerds and might find it funny like I did.

Actual map released earlier today by the NOAA.

 

[DiStefano]

This is slightly off-topic, but I'm assuming some of the people in this thread are weather semi-nerds and might find it funny like I did.

Actual map released earlier today by the NOAA.

We're going to need a bigger boat.

 

[jon_mx]

It looks like global warming is swallowing Washington DC first, so it ain't all bad.

 

[lod01]

It is not what they know that bothers people most, it is what they don't know and a large part of what they 'know' is based on these models which by all accounts are not very good and many important variables are not known.

I am a research engineer of 20+ years experience and am the head computer modeler in my organization. Models are useful tools, but must be validated first. In my opinion, (a) the climate models are not validated and (b) even if they were, the users appear to be trying to attach meaning to predictions that are too near-term. I will concede that there are other tools, such as empirical measurements, or even plain old common sense, that have a place in the climate science debate.

I would not be particularly interested in even a good model's prediction for, say, 5 years from now. There appears to be too much noise in the very complicated global temperature system to make that kind of prediction meaningful. Kind of like trying to predict the # of hurricanes in a given season. Give me a 100 year prediction, and I'd take it seriously, assuming the model had been validated. None have.

This is not a model. But if I could show you the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 400,000 years, would that be something you might be interested in?

That doesn't look good. Got a graph with a shorter time line? Say last 500 years?

Here's one since 1750.

Doesn't look good for those that will be alive over the next few hundred years.

 

[DrJ]

It is not what they know that bothers people most, it is what they don't know and a large part of what they 'know' is based on these models which by all accounts are not very good and many important variables are not known.

I am a research engineer of 20+ years experience and am the head computer modeler in my organization. Models are useful tools, but must be validated first. In my opinion, (a) the climate models are not validated and (b) even if they were, the users appear to be trying to attach meaning to predictions that are too near-term. I will concede that there are other tools, such as empirical measurements, or even plain old common sense, that have a place in the climate science debate.

I would not be particularly interested in even a good model's prediction for, say, 5 years from now. There appears to be too much noise in the very complicated global temperature system to make that kind of prediction meaningful. Kind of like trying to predict the # of hurricanes in a given season. Give me a 100 year prediction, and I'd take it seriously, assuming the model had been validated. None have.

This is not a model. But if I could show you the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 400,000 years, would that be something you might be interested in?

That doesn't look good. Got a graph with a shorter time line? Say last 500 years?

Here's one since 1750.

Doesn't look good for those that will be alive over the next few hundred years.

It's probably looks better than for those that will be dead, so there's that.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I think showtimes 9 part special ''Years of living dangerously '' raises a lot of interesting questions ,excellent series so far.

 

[datonn]

I think showtimes 9 part special ''Years of living dangerously '' raises a lot of interesting questions ,excellent series so far.

Good stuff...thanks for sharing. The only episode I could find to view for free was the first one: http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/video/episode-1/

Not any "evidence" that anyone on the Right is going to buy. That, and Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle and Thomas Friedman aren't exactly going to carry equal weight to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck for folks on the other side of the issue. But I liked their tying the drought in Syria to the civil war that eventually erupted (though saying that the drought is the direct result of climate change/global warming was a pretty big leap from the evidence that was presented). That, and I really liked the professor from Texas Tech. A conservative, Christian, scientist who travels through the South teaching people about climate change?! I think that makes millions of people's heads explode.

I think the answer to most of our problems related to climate, hunger, war, et al is simply having less people. The planet's population has tripled in less than a century! More than three-times the number of people consuming resources, when said resources and available land and fresh water have remained relatively static or even decreased. Population control would solve a bevy of problems (including the ever-mounting pressure related to social services and the size of government). But if people threaten to storm the White House at the thought of not being able to own a few dozen assault rifles, can you imagine if folks were limited to having only, say, two children?

 

[DrJ]

I think showtimes 9 part special ''Years of living dangerously '' raises a lot of interesting questions ,excellent series so far.

Good stuff...thanks for sharing. The only episode I could find to view for free was the first one: http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/video/episode-1/

Not any "evidence" that anyone on the Right is going to buy. That, and Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle and Thomas Friedman aren't exactly going to carry equal weight to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck for folks on the other side of the issue. But I liked their tying the drought in Syria to the civil war that eventually erupted (though saying that the drought is the direct result of climate change/global warming was a pretty big leap from the evidence that was presented). That, and I really liked the professor from Texas Tech. A conservative, Christian, scientist who travels through the South teaching people about climate change?! I think that makes millions of people's heads explode.

I think the answer to most of our problems related to climate, hunger, war, et al is simply having less people. The planet's population has tripled in less than a century! More than three-times the number of people consuming resources, when said resources and available land and fresh water have remained relatively static or even decreased. Population control would solve a bevy of problems (including the ever-mounting pressure related to social services and the size of government). But if people threaten to storm the White House at the thought of not being able to own a few dozen assault rifles, can you imagine if folks were limited to having only, say, two children?

First off, this is some crazy ####. But secondly, if we don't have enough children on our side of the globe you probably have bigger problems. Like the Earth spinning off its axis or something.

 

[datonn]

I think showtimes 9 part special ''Years of living dangerously '' raises a lot of interesting questions ,excellent series so far.

Good stuff...thanks for sharing. The only episode I could find to view for free was the first one: http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/video/episode-1/

Not any "evidence" that anyone on the Right is going to buy. That, and Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle and Thomas Friedman aren't exactly going to carry equal weight to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck for folks on the other side of the issue. But I liked their tying the drought in Syria to the civil war that eventually erupted (though saying that the drought is the direct result of climate change/global warming was a pretty big leap from the evidence that was presented). That, and I really liked the professor from Texas Tech. A conservative, Christian, scientist who travels through the South teaching people about climate change?! I think that makes millions of people's heads explode.

I think the answer to most of our problems related to climate, hunger, war, et al is simply having less people. The planet's population has tripled in less than a century! More than three-times the number of people consuming resources, when said resources and available land and fresh water have remained relatively static or even decreased. Population control would solve a bevy of problems (including the ever-mounting pressure related to social services and the size of government). But if people threaten to storm the White House at the thought of not being able to own a few dozen assault rifles, can you imagine if folks were limited to having only, say, two children?

First off, this is some crazy ####. But secondly, if we don't have enough children on our side of the globe you probably have bigger problems. Like the Earth spinning off its axis or something.

It's crazy to think that tripling the human population on Earth in less than a Century has no adverse effects on the planet, or the availability of resources in the future?

The rich and rich nations having kids isn't really the problem, as much as the poor around the planet (and the United States) breeding like rabbits/mice. CRAZY is countries such as the United States offering financial incentive to people to have more children than they can afford. News Flash: The West has been settled...no more 40 acres and a mule to be had. Unless you maybe want to go live in the wilds of Alaska.

 

[Josie Maran]

I think showtimes 9 part special ''Years of living dangerously '' raises a lot of interesting questions ,excellent series so far.

Good stuff...thanks for sharing. The only episode I could find to view for free was the first one: http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/video/episode-1/Not any "evidence" that anyone on the Right is going to buy. That, and Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle and Thomas Friedman aren't exactly going to carry equal weight to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck for folks on the other side of the issue. But I liked their tying the drought in Syria to the civil war that eventually erupted (though saying that the drought is the direct result of climate change/global warming was a pretty big leap from the evidence that was presented). That, and I really liked the professor from Texas Tech. A conservative, Christian, scientist who travels through the South teaching people about climate change?! I think that makes millions of people's heads explode.

I think the answer to most of our problems related to climate, hunger, war, et al is simply having less people. The planet's population has tripled in less than a century! More than three-times the number of people consuming resources, when said resources and available land and fresh water have remained relatively static or even decreased. Population control would solve a bevy of problems (including the ever-mounting pressure related to social services and the size of government). But if people threaten to storm the White House at the thought of not being able to own a few dozen assault rifles, can you imagine if folks were limited to having only, say, two children?

First off, this is some crazy ####. But secondly, if we don't have enough children on our side of the globe you probably have bigger problems. Like the Earth spinning off its axis or something.

Children as ballast? I like this theory.

 

[DrJ]

I think showtimes 9 part special ''Years of living dangerously '' raises a lot of interesting questions ,excellent series so far.

Good stuff...thanks for sharing. The only episode I could find to view for free was the first one: http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/video/episode-1/

Not any "evidence" that anyone on the Right is going to buy. That, and Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle and Thomas Friedman aren't exactly going to carry equal weight to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck for folks on the other side of the issue. But I liked their tying the drought in Syria to the civil war that eventually erupted (though saying that the drought is the direct result of climate change/global warming was a pretty big leap from the evidence that was presented). That, and I really liked the professor from Texas Tech. A conservative, Christian, scientist who travels through the South teaching people about climate change?! I think that makes millions of people's heads explode.

I think the answer to most of our problems related to climate, hunger, war, et al is simply having less people. The planet's population has tripled in less than a century! More than three-times the number of people consuming resources, when said resources and available land and fresh water have remained relatively static or even decreased. Population control would solve a bevy of problems (including the ever-mounting pressure related to social services and the size of government). But if people threaten to storm the White House at the thought of not being able to own a few dozen assault rifles, can you imagine if folks were limited to having only, say, two children?

First off, this is some crazy ####. But secondly, if we don't have enough children on our side of the globe you probably have bigger problems. Like the Earth spinning off its axis or something.

It's crazy to think that tripling the human population on Earth in less than a Century has no adverse effects on the planet, or the availability of resources in the future?

The rich and rich nations having kids isn't really the problem, as much as the poor around the planet (and the United States) breeding like rabbits/mice. CRAZY is countries such as the United States offering financial incentive to people to have more children than they can afford. News Flash: The West has been settled...no more 40 acres and a mule to be had. Unless you maybe want to go live in the wilds of Alaska.

If this stops you from passing more of your genetic code along, I'm probably for it.

 

[DiStefano]

I think showtimes 9 part special ''Years of living dangerously '' raises a lot of interesting questions ,excellent series so far.

Good stuff...thanks for sharing. The only episode I could find to view for free was the first one: http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/video/episode-1/

Not any "evidence" that anyone on the Right is going to buy. That, and Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle and Thomas Friedman aren't exactly going to carry equal weight to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck for folks on the other side of the issue. But I liked their tying the drought in Syria to the civil war that eventually erupted (though saying that the drought is the direct result of climate change/global warming was a pretty big leap from the evidence that was presented). That, and I really liked the professor from Texas Tech. A conservative, Christian, scientist who travels through the South teaching people about climate change?! I think that makes millions of people's heads explode.

I think the answer to most of our problems related to climate, hunger, war, et al is simply having less people. The planet's population has tripled in less than a century! More than three-times the number of people consuming resources, when said resources and available land and fresh water have remained relatively static or even decreased. Population control would solve a bevy of problems (including the ever-mounting pressure related to social services and the size of government). But if people threaten to storm the White House at the thought of not being able to own a few dozen assault rifles, can you imagine if folks were limited to having only, say, two children?

First off, this is some crazy ####. But secondly, if we don't have enough children on our side of the globe you probably have bigger problems. Like the Earth spinning off its axis or something.

It's crazy to think that tripling the human population on Earth in less than a Century has no adverse effects on the planet, or the availability of resources in the future?

The rich and rich nations having kids isn't really the problem, as much as the poor around the planet (and the United States) breeding like rabbits/mice. CRAZY is countries such as the United States offering financial incentive to people to have more children than they can afford. News Flash: The West has been settled...no more 40 acres and a mule to be had. Unless you maybe want to go live in the wilds of Alaska.

The fastest way to reduce the fertility rate is to help poor nations grow their economies at a rapid rate. There isn't a single developed country that has a fertility rate very far about replacement level (2.1 children per woman), and virtually all of them are below replacement level. Unfortunately, many of the solutions to slow the increase in carbon dioxide also provide a drag on developing economies. A little bit of a Catch 22.

Humans can adapt to a warmer climate. And they will find technological means to cool the planet, if it does warm significantly..

 

[drummer]

Humans can adapt to a warmer climate. And they will find technological means to cool the planet, if it does warm significantly..

If you mean AC and plenty of water (like a swimming pool)....

Speaking as a resident who will suffer 110+ degree weather this summer

 

[jon_mx]

Humans have already came up with a proven way to successful cool the earth. The latest IPCC report acknowledges it. The report attributes about 0.2 degrees of cooling to ozone depleting aerosols. So as I been saying for years, all we need to do is legalize aerosols and open up those holes again in our ozone layer.

 

[DrJ]

I think showtimes 9 part special ''Years of living dangerously '' raises a lot of interesting questions ,excellent series so far.

Good stuff...thanks for sharing. The only episode I could find to view for free was the first one: http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/video/episode-1/Not any "evidence" that anyone on the Right is going to buy. That, and Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle and Thomas Friedman aren't exactly going to carry equal weight to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck for folks on the other side of the issue. But I liked their tying the drought in Syria to the civil war that eventually erupted (though saying that the drought is the direct result of climate change/global warming was a pretty big leap from the evidence that was presented). That, and I really liked the professor from Texas Tech. A conservative, Christian, scientist who travels through the South teaching people about climate change?! I think that makes millions of people's heads explode.

I think the answer to most of our problems related to climate, hunger, war, et al is simply having less people. The planet's population has tripled in less than a century! More than three-times the number of people consuming resources, when said resources and available land and fresh water have remained relatively static or even decreased. Population control would solve a bevy of problems (including the ever-mounting pressure related to social services and the size of government). But if people threaten to storm the White House at the thought of not being able to own a few dozen assault rifles, can you imagine if folks were limited to having only, say, two children?

First off, this is some crazy ####. But secondly, if we don't have enough children on our side of the globe you probably have bigger problems. Like the Earth spinning off its axis or something.

It's crazy to think that tripling the human population on Earth in less than a Century has no adverse effects on the planet, or the availability of resources in the future? The rich and rich nations having kids isn't really the problem, as much as the poor around the planet (and the United States) breeding like rabbits/mice. CRAZY is countries such as the United States offering financial incentive to people to have more children than they can afford. News Flash: The West has been settled...no more 40 acres and a mule to be had. Unless you maybe want to go live in the wilds of Alaska.

The fastest way to reduce the fertility rate is to help poor nations grow their economies at a rapid rate. There isn't a single developed country that has a fertility rate very far about replacement level (2.1 children per woman), and virtually all of them are below replacement level. Unfortunately, many of the solutions to slow the increase in carbon dioxide also provide a drag on developing economies. A little bit of a Catch 22.Humans can adapt to a warmer climate. And they will find technological means to cool the planet, if it does warm significantly..

The US is breaking historic records for our low fertility rate as well. The problem that datonn references of people having more children than they can afford seems to have some merit though as over 40% of babies are being born to unmarried mothers, a large percentage of which probably strain to afford it.

 

[DrJ]

Humans have already came up with a proven way to successful cool the earth. The latest IPCC report acknowledges it. The report attributes about 0.2 degrees of cooling to ozone depleting aerosols. So as I been saying for years, all we need to do is legalize aerosols and open up those holes again in our ozone layer.

You don't want to cool the earth. That would hurt the plant life at the bottom of the food chain.

 

[DiStefano]

Humans can adapt to a warmer climate. And they will find technological means to cool the planet, if it does warm significantly..

If you mean AC and plenty of water (like a swimming pool)....

Speaking as a resident who will suffer 110+ degree weather this summer

Become a climate refugee and move to Alaska.

Then the IPCC will only have to find 9,999,999 more. And they'll have to find them by 2010.

 

[DrJ]

Humans can adapt to a warmer climate. And they will find technological means to cool the planet, if it does warm significantly..

If you mean AC and plenty of water (like a swimming pool)....

Speaking as a resident who will suffer 110+ degree weather this summer

Become a climate refugee and move to Alaska.Then the IPCC will only have to find 9,999,999 more. And they'll have to find them by 2010.

I call Quebec. Those Canadians aren't going to know what hit em.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Ted Talk from Nasa climate modeling guru

For jnmx What the IPCC said about aerosols

 

[Jim11]

Dear Al:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

The report noted, "We weren't producing much [carbon dioxide] prior to 1945, so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years. But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945."

Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center, said: "It's true, temperatures have risen, but not in the last 15 years."

"We've seen glaciers receding since 1862 — long before human activities that caused carbon dioxide."

As for melting icecaps causing worldwide flood-related disasters, the World Climate Report found that in Antarctica, "there is absolutely no evidence of increasing temperatures since the mid-1960s."

One more fallacy that the climate-change movement doesn't like to remember is the infamous "hockey stick" predictor, said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "That's the curve that showed an exponential increase with the hike attributed largely to human activities that emit greenhouse gases."

"They are otherwise burdened by the only 'climate-change denial' on record: rewriting history — the hockey stick — to pretend [temperatures] didn't change until the horrors of industrial society were unleashed."

Horner said the science touted by climate-change proponents often falls by the wayside, a victim of factual evidence.

"The most notable changes were the cessation of a brief warming trend they vowed would continue linearly and without interruption, that the noisy hurricane season of 2005 was the future here and now – only to see things go remarkably quiet," Horner said.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Dear Al:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

Here's the list.

A few times, when others bring it up, I'll google some of the signees to check them out. It's always amusing. I just did two. Both dead. One a legit physicist. The other not qualified to sign according to the rules of the petition. He never went to college, but did work as an electric engineer for Phillip Morris for 18 years. It's fun. Try it.

 

[Koya]

Dear Al:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

Here's the list.

A few times, when others bring it up, I'll google some of the signees to check them out. It's always amusing. I just did two. Both dead. One a legit physicist. The other not qualified to sign according to the rules of the petition. He never went to college, but did work as an electric engineer for Phillip Morris for 18 years. It's fun. Try it.

I stopped at newsmax.com

 

[Josie Maran]

Dear Al:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

The report noted, "We weren't producing much [carbon dioxide] prior to 1945, so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years. But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945."

Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center, said: "It's true, temperatures have risen, but not in the last 15 years."

"We've seen glaciers receding since 1862 long before human activities that caused carbon dioxide."

As for melting icecaps causing worldwide flood-related disasters, the World Climate Report found that in Antarctica, "there is absolutely no evidence of increasing temperatures since the mid-1960s."

One more fallacy that the climate-change movement doesn't like to remember is the infamous "hockey stick" predictor, said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "That's the curve that showed an exponential increase with the hike attributed largely to human activities that emit greenhouse gases."

"They are otherwise burdened by the only 'climate-change denial' on record: rewriting history the hockey stick to pretend [temperatures] didn't change until the horrors of industrial society were unleashed."

Horner said the science touted by climate-change proponents often falls by the wayside, a victim of factual evidence.

"The most notable changes were the cessation of a brief warming trend they vowed would continue linearly and without interruption, that the noisy hurricane season of 2005 was the future here and now only to see things go remarkably quiet," Horner said.

 

[Jim11]

Dear Al:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

Here's the list.

A few times, when others bring it up, I'll google some of the signees to check them out. It's always amusing. I just did two. Both dead. One a legit physicist. The other not qualified to sign according to the rules of the petition. He never went to college, but did work as an electric engineer for Phillip Morris for 18 years. It's fun. Try it.

I stopped at newsmax.com

Of course you did.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I swear some of you people must work for the Heartland institution ...wow

 

[DiStefano]

I swear some of you people must work for the Heartland institution ...wow

Well, it's better than the pinko Commie preverts.

 

[Josie Maran]

I swear some of you people must work for the Heartland institution ...wow

Well, it's better than the pinko Commie preverts.

They're not hiring.

 

[Koya]

Dear Al:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

Here's the list.

A few times, when others bring it up, I'll google some of the signees to check them out. It's always amusing. I just did two. Both dead. One a legit physicist. The other not qualified to sign according to the rules of the petition. He never went to college, but did work as an electric engineer for Phillip Morris for 18 years. It's fun. Try it.

I stopped at newsmax.com

Of course you did.

I'm probably one of the more openminded on here on this. Weather's ####### tricky. And I'm cynical by nature a anyway.

But when someone throws out freakin Newsmax, they have to know it actually hurts their cause. I'm sure Newsmax is right plenty. But it's at times been so laughable in my experience that I almost read the title and assume there's a 50%+ chance of the truth being just the opposite.

Sorry. Fair or not, a good amount of experience has me profiling the periodicals. But it sadly usually works.

 

[fatness]

I swear some of you people must work for the Heartland institution ...wow

Well, it's better than the pinko Commie preverts.

They're not hiring.

They gotta hire me. I'm a graduate.

 

[Jim11]

Dear Al:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

Here's the list.

A few times, when others bring it up, I'll google some of the signees to check them out. It's always amusing. I just did two. Both dead. One a legit physicist. The other not qualified to sign according to the rules of the petition. He never went to college, but did work as an electric engineer for Phillip Morris for 18 years. It's fun. Try it.

I stopped at newsmax.com

Of course you did.

I'm probably one of the more openminded on here on this. Weather's ####### tricky. And I'm cynical by nature a anyway.

But when someone throws out freakin Newsmax, they have to know it actually hurts their cause. I'm sure Newsmax is right plenty. But it's at times been so laughable in my experience that I almost read the title and assume there's a 50%+ chance of the truth being just the opposite.

Sorry. Fair or not, a good amount of experience has me profiling the periodicals. But it sadly usually works.

So you're saying that there is no such petition...the story was just fabricated?

 

[Josie Maran]

Dear Al:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

Here's the list.

A few times, when others bring it up, I'll google some of the signees to check them out. It's always amusing. I just did two. Both dead. One a legit physicist. The other not qualified to sign according to the rules of the petition. He never went to college, but did work as an electric engineer for Phillip Morris for 18 years. It's fun. Try it.

I stopped at newsmax.com

Of course you did.

I'm probably one of the more openminded on here on this. Weather's ####### tricky. And I'm cynical by nature a anyway.

But when someone throws out freakin Newsmax, they have to know it actually hurts their cause. I'm sure Newsmax is right plenty. But it's at times been so laughable in my experience that I almost read the title and assume there's a 50%+ chance of the truth being just the opposite.

Sorry. Fair or not, a good amount of experience has me profiling the periodicals. But it sadly usually works.

So you're saying that there is no such petition...the story was just fabricated?

A petition signed by dead guys and electricians? Sure.

 

[Jim11]

Dear Al:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

Here's the list.

A few times, when others bring it up, I'll google some of the signees to check them out. It's always amusing. I just did two. Both dead. One a legit physicist. The other not qualified to sign according to the rules of the petition. He never went to college, but did work as an electric engineer for Phillip Morris for 18 years. It's fun. Try it.

I stopped at newsmax.com

Of course you did.

I'm probably one of the more openminded on here on this. Weather's ####### tricky. And I'm cynical by nature a anyway.

But when someone throws out freakin Newsmax, they have to know it actually hurts their cause. I'm sure Newsmax is right plenty. But it's at times been so laughable in my experience that I almost read the title and assume there's a 50%+ chance of the truth being just the opposite.

Sorry. Fair or not, a good amount of experience has me profiling the periodicals. But it sadly usually works.

So you're saying that there is no such petition...the story was just fabricated?

A petition signed by dead guys and electricians? Sure.

Qualifications of Signers:

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment

.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

 

[Josie Maran]

How many peer reviewed climate studies out of that group? If agw is a big load of horse#### it should be easy for 31,000 scientists to debunk it.

 

[DrJ]

How many peer reviewed climate studies out of that group? If agw is a big load of horse#### it should be easy for 31,000 scientists to debunk it.

I have no idea on the list itself, but number of peer reviewed studies is a pretty worthless metric when a few politically biased and motivated scientists control the peer review process on this.

 

[Josie Maran]

How many peer reviewed climate studies out of that group? If agw is a big load of horse#### it should be easy for 31,000 scientists to debunk it.

I have no idea on the list itself, but number of peer reviewed studies is a pretty worthless metric when a few politically biased and motivated scientists control the peer review process on this.

Gotcha. The lack of evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence for the conspiracy.

 

[DrJ]

How many peer reviewed climate studies out of that group? If agw is a big load of horse#### it should be easy for 31,000 scientists to debunk it.

I have no idea on the list itself, but number of peer reviewed studies is a pretty worthless metric when a few politically biased and motivated scientists control the peer review process on this.

Gotcha. The lack of evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence for the conspiracy.

No conspiracy, just a simple witch hunt.

 

[Josie Maran]

How many peer reviewed climate studies out of that group? If agw is a big load of horse#### it should be easy for 31,000 scientists to debunk it.

I have no idea on the list itself, but number of peer reviewed studies is a pretty worthless metric when a few politically biased and motivated scientists control the peer review process on this.

Gotcha. The lack of evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence for the conspiracy.

No conspiracy, just a simple witch hunt.

You pretty much gave a textbook definition of conspiracy. Don't run from it, man. Embrace it!

 

[DrJ]

How many peer reviewed climate studies out of that group? If agw is a big load of horse#### it should be easy for 31,000 scientists to debunk it.

I have no idea on the list itself, but number of peer reviewed studies is a pretty worthless metric when a few politically biased and motivated scientists control the peer review process on this.

Gotcha. The lack of evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence for the conspiracy.

No conspiracy, just a simple witch hunt.

You pretty much gave a textbook definition of conspiracy. Don't run from it, man. Embrace it!

No, I described a monopoly. Something tells me you've never read a textbook.

 

[Josie Maran]

How many peer reviewed climate studies out of that group? If agw is a big load of horse#### it should be easy for 31,000 scientists to debunk it.

I have no idea on the list itself, but number of peer reviewed studies is a pretty worthless metric when a few politically biased and motivated scientists control the peer review process on this.

Gotcha. The lack of evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence for the conspiracy.

No conspiracy, just a simple witch hunt.

You pretty much gave a textbook definition of conspiracy. Don't run from it, man. Embrace it!

No, I described a monopoly. Something tells me you've never read a textbook.

Now you're just f###ing with me.

 

[jon_mx]

You can classify about anything as conspiracy theory. Not all 'conspiracy theories' are equal though. You have something like the 9-11 truthers who you would have to believe thousands of people lied and are covering information up in a criminal manner. Or you can call the fact that the board of directors of a corporation are conspiring for their company to make the most money possible by any legal means possible a conspriacy. The IPCC falls into the second category. There is nothing illegal, but there is a concerted effort to advance an agenda by the leadership of the IPCC. A lot of it was exposed in those emails so it really isn't a theory, but known facts. The IPCC withholds data from people they think are skeptics. The IPCC works with publications to stop studies which is counter to their agenda. The IPCC also modifies the final report without obtaining consensus and in some cases it even counters the consensus of the scientists.

Shortly before the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), headed by well-known contrarian Dr. S. Fred Singer, released a report attacking the IPCC on numerous counts. Among the most serious accusations was the following: that Chapter 8 the IPCC report, the chapter detailing the extent of human influence on global climate, had been edited, with key clauses expressing the uncertainty of man's impact on climate change intentionally discarded in order to conform to the Summary for Policy Makers--a clear violation of the formal scientific review process essential to all ongoing scientific debates.

In its defense, the IPCC rebutted that the reasons for these changes were for the purpose of scientific clarity. All changes were scientifically justifiable and were made upon the recommendation of IPCC scientists and policy makers, and represent the consensus of those involved in Working Group-I of the IPCC. However, a survey conducted in 1991 by SEPP suggests otherwise, reporting that many scientists involved in the IPCC process do not agree with the Summary as printed in the 1990 and 1992 reports. The survey indicated that not only did 40 percent of the group not agree with the IPCC summary, but also, that many felt that the report was running into the danger of describing a false scenario to the public. Almost all of the IPCC group agreed with the basic conclusion stated on p 254 of the report that, "it is not possible to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global mean warming to the enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of observational data currently available."

It has also been alleged that the conclusions of the IPCC Summary are not supported by the evidence listed in the report. For example, the summary states that increasing temperature trends are in accordance with GCMs, while the body of the report expresses concern over the certainty of the very GCMs used to make such predictions. The SEPP survey indicates that 60 percent of the IPCC group does not believe that the models accurately simulate the ocean-atmosphere circulation system., an essential component of any climate model. Furthermore, the panel's position concerning the role of water vapor in forcing climate change is one of uncertainty as well, as it's latest assessment stresses the lack of data and overall uncertainty concerning the mechanisms behind H20 vapor.

I am sure the IPCC directs money to only people who do work they feel will advance their agenda. The motive to label this a conspiracy theory is to exaggerate what it is and make it sound like something like the 9-11 Truthers, when it is nothing like that. A propaganda tactic to belittle the opponents. I don't see the desire to label this a conspiracy theory is intellectually honest.

 

[The_Man]

Lucky for us, there is a plucky group of underfunded but spirited entities like ExxonMobil ($420 Billion in 2013 revenue) fighting to keep an evil and all-powerful group of college professors and researchers from spreading their lies. Clearly the scientists have so much to gain from their falsehoods, while groups like ExxonMobil have no incentive except to see truth spread throughout the land.

 

[jon_mx]

Lucky for us, there is a plucky group of underfunded but spirited entities like ExxonMobil ($420 Billion in 2013 revenue) fighting to keep an evil and all-powerful group of college professors and researchers from spreading their lies. Clearly the scientists have so much to gain from their falsehoods, while groups like ExxonMobil have no incentive except to see truth spread throughout the land.

The US government alone spends more than $4 billion on climate change reseach, which by far dwarfs the collective spending of every think tank research groups for the past decade. It is not like these researchers are working for free or that there are not money-making schemes on the global warming side. For every $1 spent by conservative think tanks, there is easily $100 spent advancing global warming. These poor college professors are working for free out of the goodness of their huge hearts. I feel so charitable for these poor professors who milk another $400 from each student for the books they require for their classes which they just happen to have written. They are such sweet and innocent people who only care about the truth and nothing about money.

 

[Sand]

Lucky for us, there is a plucky group of underfunded but spirited entities like ExxonMobil ($420 Billion in 2013 revenue) fighting to keep an evil and all-powerful group of college professors and researchers from spreading their lies. Clearly the scientists have so much to gain from their falsehoods, while groups like ExxonMobil have no incentive except to see truth spread throughout the land.

There are profit motives on both sides. Just because one involves a large multinational and the other involves personal livelihoods doesn't change motivations. There is zero doubt that the IPCC reports are massively slanted one way and that something released by Exxon is slanted the other.

 

[Sand]

Lucky for us, there is a plucky group of underfunded but spirited entities like ExxonMobil ($420 Billion in 2013 revenue) fighting to keep an evil and all-powerful group of college professors and researchers from spreading their lies. Clearly the scientists have so much to gain from their falsehoods, while groups like ExxonMobil have no incentive except to see truth spread throughout the land.

The US government alone spends more than $4 billion on climate change reseach, which by far dwarfs the collective spending of every think tank research groups for the past decade. It is not like these researchers are working for free or that there are not money-making schemes on the global warming side. For every $1 spent by conservative think tanks, there is easily $100 spent advancing global warming. These poor college professors are working for free out of the goodness of their huge hearts. I feel so charitable for these poor professors who milk another $400 from each student for the books they require for their classes which they just happen to have written. They are such sweet and innocent people who only care about the truth and nothing about money.

And I'll say this again. What a colossal waste of money.

 

[Jim11]

Lucky for us, there is a plucky group of underfunded but spirited entities like ExxonMobil ($420 Billion in 2013 revenue) fighting to keep an evil and all-powerful group of college professors and researchers from spreading their lies. Clearly the scientists have so much to gain from their falsehoods, while groups like ExxonMobil have no incentive except to see truth spread throughout the land.

The US government alone spends more than $4 billion on climate change reseach, which by far dwarfs the collective spending of every think tank research groups for the past decade. It is not like these researchers are working for free or that there are not money-making schemes on the global warming side. For every $1 spent by conservative think tanks, there is easily $100 spent advancing global warming. These poor college professors are working for free out of the goodness of their huge hearts. I feel so charitable for these poor professors who milk another $400 from each student for the books they require for their classes which they just happen to have written. They are such sweet and innocent people who only care about the truth and nothing about money.

And I'll say this again. What a colossal waste of money.

Amen...and it's gonna get worse.

 

[Chaos Commish]

100 million dollar alarmist super pac