Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Read my sig.

This isn't a one line post.

And yet here is another opinion from a scientist.......Good article.


Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.

Another opinion that does agree...with the warmists..

Originally posted by edsinger
And yet here is another opinion from a scientist.......Good article.

That's Fred Singer - serial denier.

Give him a shilling and he'll deny anything from tobacco health science to CFCs. He's probably the best example of a denier out there.

He went from 'there is no warming', to 'there is warming, but it's not due to humans', to 'we cannae do anything cap'n (in best Scotty voice)'.

Did you actually read it? His statements are based on reasonable facts. Call him a denier if you choose, but just because he doesn't follow in line with the agenda of the warmists doesn't mean its denial.

Again not all scientists believe in GW by humans, and that fact along with the 'Tulipwalker' agenda to tax the crap out of energy should make a reasonable person take notice.

Follow the money......


Side-note: I use the term Tulipwalker here because It surely fits the definition, or at least an important portion of it.

Originally posted by edsinger
Did you actually read it? His statements are based on reasonable facts. Call him a denier if you choose, but just because he doesn't follow in line with the agenda of the warmists doesn't mean its denial.

What the hell is a 'warmist', heh.

Tulpiwalker, well, that's quite endearing. But warmist, that's pretty silly.

I even think Singer is a warmist now. He never used to be, in the past he denied that the climate was warming at all.

What is there to respond to in Singer's piece that hasn't been said before. He just says, yeah CO2 is increasing, yeah, it's likely human, but correlation is not causation. Then rants a bit about economics, proposes natural sources that he think are ignored, but which aren't, then says that feedback from CO2 increase might be negative, even though there's no evidence to suggest it is. And that a bit of warming will be good in some ways, for instance, we will save on heating bills, heh.

One problem is that we don't depend on correlation for suggesting CO2 causes warming. We know it does, it is a GHG due to its physical properties.

We have this little radio show up here in Ottawa, Canada called "Late Night Counsell" .

Tonight he'll be talkling about this very subject and will be featuring Steve Milloy, a guy who's offering $100,000 to anyone who can prove scientifically that man is causing global warming.


You can listen live at the link below from 10 to midnight.

www.cfra.com...

Should be interesting

[edit on 11-9-2007 by palg1]

[edit on 11-9-2007 by palg1]

Originally posted by palg1
Tonight he'll be talkling to about this very subject and will be featuring a guy who's offering $100,000 to whoever can prove that global warming is man made.

That's not what the junkscience dudes have challenged, someone must falsify both of these hypotheses.

UGWC Hypothesis 1
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

In essence, any entrant must support catastrophic climate change. And this just kills any honesty the challenge might have:

Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.

www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com...

I think that hypothesis 1 could be supported at a scientific level.

Hypothesis 2 is a joke. Moreover, it is assessed solely at the discretion of junkscience dudes. I'd rather give $15 to oxfam.

I think this is comparable to Kent Hovind's evolution challenge - a pure BS publicity stunt. There are people taking bets on future climate, if they were that keen on putting money against the science, Milloy can do so without such crap challenges.



[edit on 11-9-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I would like to know what your response will be to a presumed reality that man are warming the planet but not by industrial activity.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can start reading around post four and tell me what you think about that and the following.

Probably the best-known of the aerial geoengineering proposals was that put forward in 1997 by Edward Teller and entitled ‘Global Warming and the Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change’ subsequently popularised in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled ‘The Planet Needs a Sunscreen’.

Teller proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, a task he claimed could be achieved for less than $1 billion a year, between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of the $100 billion he estimated it would cost to bring fossil fuel usage in the United States back down to 1990 levels, as required by the Treaty of Kyoto.

Characteristic of the politics of Teller is the fact that he both ridiculed the idea of global warming and at the same time put forward what he represented as a solution to global warming. ‘For some reason,’ Teller observed sarcastically, ‘This option isn't as fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use them.’

www.spectrezine.org...

----------

Teller says that cooling caused by volcanic eruptions shows this technique would work. For exmaple, the erruption of Mexico's El Chichon in the 1980s cooled the Northern Hemisphere by about one-quarter as much as the average prediction for global warming expected by 2100.

According to Teller, the director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Coordination Office has been promoting such geoengineering for three decades, and one National Academy of Sciences report a few years ago commented on "the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented."

Teller and his colleagues presented their proposal for geoengineering at the 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies in August 1997.

www.ncpa.org...

So they say geo-engineering is in fact possible.

It will be noted that in October of 1997 a change in the reporting system of visibility data was reduced from a former maximum of 40 miles to a limit of 10 miles. It is a reasonable question to ask as to why that change was made, and whether or not it was made in anticipation of certain events to follow that involve large scale aircraft aerosol operations over large scale geographic regions.

It is observed that there are highly significant degradations in the visibility data immediately following this change in the reporting method. Immediately after this change, the dramatic increase in visibility reports of less than 10 miles is quite apparent.

The graphs shown are taken from climatic archive data available for Santa Fe, NM from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. Three different time periods are shown to aid in demonstrating the magnitude of change which has occurred in visibility. The first graph shows all data available inclusive from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. The second graph shows the transition zone during which the visibility standards were altered. This graph showns a period from Jan 1996 to Dec 1998; the change in reporting standard was made in Oct 1997. The third graph shows recent data, where visibility below 10 miles is now a regular occurrence. This graph shows the period from Jan 1999 to Mar 2001.

www.carnicom.com...

The proposed revisions address two categories of particulate matter: fine particles (PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10-2.5), which are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter but larger than PM2.5. EPA has had national air quality standards for fine particles since 1997 and for coarse particles 10 micrometers and smaller (PM10) since 1987

EPA last revised the particulate matter standards in 1997. Under terms of a consent decree, EPA agreed to propose whether to revise the particulate matter standards by December 20, 2005; and committed to finalizing any revisions to the standards by September 27, 2006.

Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality

And visibility seems to be fast declining... The question that then comes up is why are things heating up so fast so suddenly despite the possibility of activity countermeasures?

May the possibility of the planet heating up not then have more to do with the Sun heating up and the global warming that seems to be taking place on all the planets in the inner solar system ?

Just for interest sake and because i have a great deal of archived 'stuff' .

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


Hi Stellar,

I think ideas such as pumping out cooling sulphates would work. Not sure it would be a good idea though. As we generally have a poor history of meddling with nature.

As for solar being the major cause of current warming (i.e. last few decades), the evidence suggests this is not the case. Solar activity has not increased for quite a few decades, being pretty consistent, even possibly falling in more recent decades. Thus, solar can't fully account for the current warming trend, probably has some input (e.g., 10-25%'ish).

As for other human non-GHG causes (e.g., black carbon, habitat destruction/urbanisation), I would think they are having an impact, maybe a bit more than we currently think, maybe not.

Also, only a few planets/moons are warming. It's very unlikely that a 2'C warming on pluto is due to increases in solar activity, as this would suggest warming well in excess of 2'C here on earth (in fact, we would be baking). Most likely each has it's own reason for warming apart from solar variations (i.e. local weather, orbital variations etc).

ABE: This guy has some of the research on the planetary warming issue.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Hi Stellar,

I think ideas such as pumping out cooling sulphates would work. Not sure it would be a good idea though. As we generally have a poor history of meddling with nature.

Well supposedly it already did work hence the far longer cooling trend due to particulant pollution which we are now outlawing and otherwise preventing; are they( them, TPTB, etc ) TRYING to heat up the planet?

As for solar being the major cause of current warming (i.e. last few decades), the evidence suggests this is not the case. Solar activity has not increased for quite a few decades, being pretty consistent, even possibly falling in more recent decades.

Well ok BUT:

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

www.livescience.com...

www.chesmontastro.org.../531

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.astro.ucla.edu...

www.john-daly.com...

So the Sun is doing SOMETHING to most of the planets even if our scientist can not explain how or why; i wont accept the claim that it's just a 'coincidence'.

Thus, solar can't fully account for the current warming trend, probably has some input (e.g., 10-25%'ish).

But it's not that much warmer if at all and certainly not on average.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

It's interesting that a former of editor of New Scientist would feel so very strongly about that, right?

As for other human non-GHG causes (e.g., black carbon, habitat destruction/urbanisation), I would think they are having an impact, maybe a bit more than we currently think, maybe not.

So we are going to destroy hundreds of millions of lives all over the world but when we are clearly not sure?

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

www.crichton-official.com...

Kinda like his approach and i have validated the claims to the best of my abilities. ....

Also, only a few planets/moons are warming.

I can show you evidence that almost all are which either means there are humans on all of them ( John Lear would tell you so... ) or the Sun is doing SOMETHING somehow...

It's very unlikely that a 2'C warming on pluto is due to increases in solar activity, as this would suggest warming well in excess of 2'C here on earth (in fact, we would be baking).

Well i just provided you with data that suggest we can influence the global weather patterns by means of introduction of particulant matter; have you ever heard of chem trails?

Most likely each has it's own reason for warming apart from solar variations (i.e. local weather, orbital variations etc).

I know that it suits many agenda's to believe that but personally i do not believe in that type of 'coincidences'.

ABE: This guy has some of the research on the planetary warming issue.

I think i supplied some sources earlier one showing the other side of that story...

Stellar

[edit on 11-9-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
reply to post by melatonin

 

I would like to know what your response will be to a presumed reality that man are warming the planet but not by industrial activity.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can start reading around post four and tell me what you think about that and the following.

Probably the best-known of the aerial geoengineering proposals was that put forward in 1997 by Edward Teller and entitled ‘Global Warming and the Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change’ subsequently popularised in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled ‘The Planet Needs a Sunscreen’.

Teller proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, a task he claimed could be achieved for less than $1 billion a year, between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of the $100 billion he estimated it would cost to bring fossil fuel usage in the United States back down to 1990 levels, as required by the Treaty of Kyoto.

One tiny issue here... we're already tossing reflective particles into the upper atmosphere and they are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. It's making the temperatures a bit cooler, but is drastically affecting weather. This is called "global dimming" and the chief culprit appears to be jet contrails.

And I don't think we need MORE gunk in our atmosphere... know what I mean?

EPA last revised the particulate matter standards in 1997. Under terms of a consent decree, EPA agreed to propose whether to revise the particulate matter standards by December 20, 2005; and committed to finalizing any revisions to the standards by September 27, 2006.

A comment here... the changes in standards were driven by Bush's demands that they change the measurements. At the same time, other EPA reporting was changed -- and not in a good direction.

May the possibility of the planet heating up not then have more to do with the Sun heating up and the global warming that seems to be taking place on all the planets in the inner solar system ?

The planets aren't warming up.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by StellarX
Well ok BUT:

So the Sun is doing SOMETHING to most of the planets even if our scientist can not explain how or why; i wont accept the claim that it's just a 'coincidence'.

Not necessarily. There are only three things that planets/moons can do. Warm, cool, or stay same. To find that less than a handful of the dozens of major bodies in the solar system are warming is no great surprise. There are good explanations for warming on these bodies.

But it's not that much warmer if at all and certainly not on average.

But it appears that solar is still unable to account for it. Even the highest estimate only puts solar contribution at around 30%. That's 70% still to be accounted for, and human activity can account for much of it.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

Nope, satellites and ground temperature measurements show increasing temperatures even after 1998, which was the big El Nino year. Tamino has analysed the data from 1998 onwards and clearly shows the trend is still upwards.

OK, a bit of cooling here and a bit of warming there. No issue. The problem is global, so regional variation is not an issue.

It's interesting that a former of editor of New Scientist would feel so very strongly about that, right?

Well, David Bellamy thinks similar. So what? Neither are climatologists or even current academic researchers.

So we are going to destroy hundreds of millions of lives all over the world but when we are clearly not sure?

Not entirely sure of your point here. Destroy millions of lives in what way?

Kinda like his approach and i have validated the claims to the best of my abilities. ....

Well, if I want to know how to write vacuous fiction, I would take Crichton's advice.

I can show you evidence that almost all are which either means there are humans on all of them ( John Lear would tell you so... ) or the Sun is doing SOMETHING somehow...

I've seen evidence for a handful. All have other explanations. Not really interested in John Lear, I use the primary scientific literature when possible.

Well i just provided you with data that suggest we can influence the global weather patterns by means of introduction of particulant matter; have you ever heard of chem trails?

I don't think you understand. We would see it from satellite measurements.

Try this experiment. Put your hand a 3 inches from a hot light bulb, feel the warmth? That's like the heat we get from the sun. Now place it 90 inches away. That's a bit like the heat that neptune gets, pluto will get something similar. Now if I heated the lightbulb sufficently for you to feel the warmth at 90 inches that you did at 3 inches, how warm do you think it would be at 3 inches?

I know that it suits many agenda's to believe that but personally i do not believe in that type of 'coincidences'.

There are over 150 moons and planets in the solar system, are you that surprised a few are warming?

The data just doesn't show the increases in solar activity you require.

I think i supplied some sources earlier one showing the other side of that story...

Stellar

Aye, one side uses stories, the other actual scientific research.

Well you didnt like that guy so...


Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Originally posted by edsinger
More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age

Eh? So, there are natural changes in climate. I don't think any half-intelligent climatologist would deny this. This essentially means little to the causes of current warming.

2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

Depends what you mean by 'strongly' and 'modern'. All the data shows that the correlation between solar activity and climate broke down around 1970's, and even the highest contribution for solar has it at about 30%.

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Ai, another think-tank dude. No wonder he has an issue being completely honest about this stuff, he has a history of misrepresenting science.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by edsinger
More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age

Eh? So, there are natural changes in climate. I don't think any half-intelligent climatologist would deny this. This essentially means little to the causes of current warming.

So could you explain what caused the warming of 1934?












If you can't answer you could always just admit that we arrogent humans really don't know everything.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Heh, you want me to explain the warming of a single year in the US?

You do understand that we are looking at long-term trends, rather than single year anomalies?

Anyway, there is a recent study on this issue:

Science 19 March 2004:
Vol. 303. no. 5665, pp. 1855 - 1859

Reports
On the Cause of the 1930s Dust Bowl

Siegfried D. Schubert,1* Max J. Suarez,1 Philip J. Pegion,1,2 Randal D. Koster,1 Julio T. Bacmeister1,3

During the 1930s, the United States experienced one of the most devastating droughts of the past century. The drought affected almost two-thirds of the country and parts of Mexico and Canada and was infamous for the numerous dust storms that occurred in the southern Great Plains. In this study, we present model results that indicate that the drought was caused by anomalous tropical sea surface temperatures during that decade and that interactions between the atmosphere and the land surface increased its severity. We also contrast the 1930s drought with other North American droughts of the 20th century.

You know what I mean: THE TREND. Are you suggesting that 1934 was the only year? As if there isn't a 30 year trend all throughout?

Plus that study is about the drought. Drought as in dry. That's the model for the drought, not the climate. Explain where the 30 year trends came from. Let's hear your mechanism. What causes the 30 year trends? Considering the graphs I provided it appears quite obvious that neither the sun nor CO2 'drove' much during that 'spell'.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by edsinger

More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Dennis Avery is co-author (with Fred Singer) of the book "Unsptoppable Global Warming every 1,500 years" which proposes a 1,500 year cycle caused by solar activity .....

Do you think he may just have an ulterior motive for making those comments?

Besides which he's either displaying ignorance or has been misquoted. There have not (and hasn't enough time for) "a natural 1,500 year cycle to produce more than a dozen warmings" in the past 12,000 years

Oddly, his book doesn't mention 300 separate scientists all independently finding evidence for this cycle either. Of course, 300 out of 30,000 clearly proves a lack of consensus regarding human activity having an effect on climate.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You know what I mean: THE TREND. Are you suggesting that 1934 was the only year? As if there isn't a 30 year trend all throughout?

That's what you asked for. The study actually assessed the causes of the 1930s dustbowl.

Plus that study is about the drought. Drought as in dry. That's the model for the drought, not the climate. Explain where the 30 year trends came from. Let's hear your mechanism. What causes the 30 year trends? Considering the graphs I provided it appears quite obvious that neither the sun nor CO2 'drove' much during that 'spell'.

The study assesses the climate variations that led to the dustbowl in the US and north america.

Here's a better illustration of the link between solar activity and global climate during the last 150yrs or so.



I think we can look at solar effects for the global trends during that period, with some input from human effects. At the regional level, we need to look at variations in more local systems, which may well be driven by these larger scale effects.

What you need to understand is that the effects of human activity are additive to the natural system. Thus, for example, ENSO effects still occur, but may well be modulated by longer term trends.