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

reply to post by melatonin

---

Thanks melatonin for providing an accurate depiction of this.


On one side you have cynics who say "Follow the money" and employ out of work scientists with not much background to say "ITS FAKE"

On the other hand you actually have scientific communities concerned!

Hmmm, what does the UN's own data say now?

UN Data Shows Global Warming has Stopped


2008 Will Be Coolest Year of the Decade

The global warming scare, whether real or generated is a good thing for the worlds people regardless. It spurred international cohesive action towards a "nearly" agreed upon result. It gave all companies looking towards the future with alternative energy a boost in business, and a chance to show that gas and oil doesn't always have to = power.

So if it is a scandal, I say let it continue. Returning to a one-way thinking pattern in regards to our electric, power and mobility scares me more than a little. I personally don't think that will happen anyway, because the "alternative" engine has already been fired up and is gaining momentum, and I don't believe that they can figure out how to turn it off. hehe

reply to post by jdub297

---

Do a Google search for "Greenland Viking farming" and you will see that 1,000 years ago Greenland was a net exporter of agricultural products. We need more global warming!

Humans are rational. Always looking for reasons and explanations, and in our quest we have become so aware of ourselves that we actually started to think that we matter. That we're special in the greater scheme of things.
Well, of course if this is true then we must also be to blame for what happens to planet earth in the long run.
The problem is that somewhere along the way spin doctors realized that all this knowledge about biology and how the planet works in the solar system, and the solar system in the universe, is so vast and incomprehensible that the common man cannot contain or understand it, and seeing how we therefore like to be told what to think, feel and do, what was more obvious than to use these things against us?
The more you read that the heating of Earth is man-made the more you believe its true, right? Because if your neighbour, you boss, your wife and your dog believes it... well then it must be right, right?

We seem to forget that behind every little scientific study lies a stoodge ready to intrepret the value of its usability for a commercial or political agenda.

When governments are making deals over our heads, across borders and without comprehension, then they are selling our votes for the sake of power, money and political friendship.
I bet each of you can find a politician that looked aspiring, a hope for the people, during his or hers younger years. And then see them later, corrupted moraly towards the people they are supposed to govern, and their own ideals.
Oh, I wrote politician... basicly, I mean "person". This goes for scientists as well.

So no... you cannot trust scientists, or anyone claiming to be wise in matters of their field, simply because they don't know enough. None of them have shown capability of holding past events in the history of Earth together or even relate different parts of science to eachother. They ignorantly look at the present, and guess about the future when they should be looking at the past and learning from past events.
Apart from that there's no use of intuition and the logic that could evolve from this. Intuition in the objective sense. There's no... empathy. Only proclaimed logic.

But logic is: we have, winter, spring, summer, autumn. These fall at the same time every year. It's a cycle. Pretty simple.
The Earth revolves around the sun. A cycle.
The solar system revolves around in the galaxy. Another cycle.
Heck an even simpler cycle is, I eat then I crap.

We know there's been several iceages. After the iceage came something more mild, the something warmer and then at some point it goes back the other way. Let's not be so presumptious that anything we do or don't do is going to change this cycle or any of the others mentioned. Earth is going to fry and probably freeze too at some point.

Why are we discussing where the blame is to be put?
We should be discussing what to do when either scenario is happening again. Not that it matters, humanity is not supposed to last forever.

Having said that. I see no reason what so ever why we shouldn't switch completely to environmentally friendly energy. I think we can all agree that even though fossil fule usage might not contribute all that much to so-called global warming, it's definately not making our lounges better or the water taste nicer and since we are here, we might as well enjoy the ride as long as we can.
Our legacy IS NOT to earn as much money in a lifetime as we can, but to hand over the planet, we are borrowing, to the next generation in such a state that we would have been able to look ourselves in the mirror had we lived on.

Keep in mind... I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying, I believe they are wrong and that you can't trust them. I hold no alligience to anyone, I'm here on borrowed time, just like you guys. So I think it best to trust that strong feeling we've got.


Or put in other words. Green taxes and the prolonging of development within the sector of green energy is just another way to suck out as much money from the common man as possible. A spin at best...
You think it's going to be cheaper when we switch over to green energy? You're wrong. It's going to be the exact same thing, same price, same people controlling it. And you're going to pay the price, because you forgot how to say "no".

[edit on 14/12/08 by flice]

That warming did not have anything to stop it from cooling back off again. Humans have quite possible made it so that it will never cool again.

Not sure how that will turn out. All I know, is that in the North we depended on harsh winters to kill off many insects each year.

If it happens, it happens, but man did not cause it either way.

It is pure hubris to conclude, based on untested models, that man is capable of altering global climate.

Sure, we poluute ouselves out of many places, but they are miniscule and quickly recover once we let nature take its course.

The most laughable piece of deception is the conclusion that man is capable of causing climate change of any sort. Ad hominem attacks do not change basic physics or the unbiased findings of even the IPCC data and instrumentation.

As I've pointed out several times in this thread alone, the point is not anyone's opinion about warming or cooling, but whether man is the cause.

Those associated with the "pro-GW" movment say man's dispersal of CO2 is causing unnatural warming, and that carbon caps and/or sequestration must be forced upon all the people of the world.

Those opposed, typically say that the data shows cooling, rather than warming, but that in either case, it is nature and not man the primary cause. Moreover, they push no forced agenda upon people that must be paid ultimately by tge individuals small farms and small businesses of the industrializedworld.

I don't give a rat's a** if the data ultimately show temps trending up or down; they will ultimately change. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let vested interests make me pay for their gimmicks, either way.

Are you willing to defend yourself before the World Climate Court now being proposed by PM Brown, which will have jurisdiction to enforce climate regs on individuals? Watch your emissions.

Did we make it cease or cause it in the first place? No!

Send your cap and trade check, payable to A. Gore and /or IPCC, for 20% more than you can afford to throw out the window, today. The Global Climate Court will find you if you don't.

We didn't warmit, or cool it. Nature did it.

You can't stop insects, yet you believe you can change the climate.

Are you willing to pay more for all resources, not just fossil fuel, for govt. to tilt at windmills. Fight the unbeatable foe. GW proponents also propose CO2 containment and sequestration as "the cure." They want you to pay for it.

How much more do you want to pay for your food, lighting, water and housing to fund these efforts? Has anyone pro-GW given you their guarantee that they'll get the results they promise for your "investment?"

Ad hom? So bringing out facts about the source of this deceptive list is ad hom? Don't think so, it was sourced from a response to someone talking about Gore and lying politicians. It was a relevant comment and shows the information you base this thread on is politically motivated and, moreover, a pile of tosh.

Basic physics? Heh.



Or perhaps a major cause. And the science clearly suggests we are.



Dude, the data doesn't show recent cooling. Even if it did, it wouldn't be of any great significance on short timescales. But I understand the complexity is a bit too much at times.

You're just making pure assertions and spreading misinformation.





As you note, we shouldn't get too excited about small moves up or down, but we do need to follow long-term trends to assess climate.



And so money is your main motivator. Nowt to do with science or evidence.



I try to.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Malynn

---

Hear.hear, my sentiments exactly, keep wallowing in your lovely oil you greasy bunch, there's plenty more where that came from...!
My hunch is that a brief warm period will be followed by an extensive cold spell, perhaps 10,000 years or more, time to make a move to the southern latitudes my friends,somewhere between 18 degrees north and south of the equator should be relatively safe, unless the local population do not take kindly to migrants that is .

You know that Hansen et al have acknowledged altering their data and resultant graphics after they were called on it, right?

How about unaltered records? Since 2004, temps are falling, to below 1980 levels! Click on this image to see current downward trends.





This link discusses his alteration of data and graphs.
Hansen Adjusts Heliogenic Trends to Show Warming Trends





The red graphs are altered, the blue are unaltered.

Talk about "facts and the source!" I guess I shouldn't have limited my liars to politicians and Gore, but should've included scientists.

650 is quite a few but how many still argue the case for the existence of AGW?

Also this is what makes science so intriguing, the fact that there is no unanimously accepted theory, there is always dissenting opinions. There are always those who think that things are not as they seem.

While it is a big deal for those who disbelieve AGW and hate Gore, as if he is some how responsible for the notion of AGW, it is not much of a story.

seems the first governments are releasing their plans of how they are going to make money out of climate change...

news.bbc.co.uk...

all this will do is make energy cost more..costs that will be passed on to the consumer.

to the people who claim these measures are good whether or not climate change is man made...do you REALLY think that oil companies will leave one barrel in the ground?..do you really think gas companies will leave one drop of gas in the ground?

of course not...all this does is make the oil and gas reserves last longer because people may use less......but...it will cost more...

all these measures will do is increase the profits of oil and gas companies over a longer period...and the same amount of CO2 will be generated because as ive already said...they will not just leave oil in the ground...they will burn every last drop of it regardless.

on another note...isnt it rather odd that our world has drastically changed over the last 100 years the internal combustion engine is basically the same?

alternative energy has been suppressed and continues to be...if governments were serious about climate change they would act differently..it would invest billions into its own alternative energy research..it would not simply tax the population.

oh...the world isnt getting warmer...just a little side note..

well...he and his friends ARE responsible for the GW scam...google 'club of rome and global warming'

So what you're talking about is that there have been minor errors in the GISS data in the recent past.

Do you know the same is true of the data you are using? The UAH satellite data has been rehashed a number of times. For a time, it was the only data showing no warming, but then Christy and Spencer found out they had fluffed the analysis. IIRC, they mixed up their + and - signs.

And we're not talking about minor changes, it changed the whole outcome of the UAH data.

And finally, there are three data sets presented, not just GISS.

The current satellite data is not much different than the surface data:



Thus, all you are doing is looking at a very short timescale and getting lost in noise. The best you can say is that current temps have plateaued, and they have done that numerous times in the last 30 years. Yet they soon started to rise again.

If temps fall or plateau for about 25 years, then we might start to wonder about the influence. At this point, you are comparing a wicked La Nina year to recent past.

The temps so far this decade are on course to be 0.2'C warmer than than the 90s, the 90s were about .1-.2'C warmer than the 80s, which were warmer than the 70s. Even this last year, a La Nina year in which we expect cooler temps, will be about 0.1'C warmer than the average of the 1990s.



I think I've found your problem. You're taking science from an not so reliable source. Since the inception of his blog, Watt has clearly shown his inability to understand basic stats and data. The source of the 4 data comparison above shows how incapable he is of understanding what he is waffling about - and tamino, a statistician with expertise in time-series analysis, has uncovered his schoolboy errors numerous times.

Just what are you trying to argue here? That temps haven't been warming for 30 years? That the GISS team fudge their data? The data that is essentially very comparable to the source you presented earlier (UAH)?

And we don't even need to rely on temperature data to be aware of the reality...

Arctic Ice:



Arctic sea ice at summer min:



Glacier thickness:



Sea levels:



Ocean heat:




And the best you have is the UAH graph that shows about 2 years of non-warming during a La Nina period, in a decade so far 0.2'C warmer than the last. lol.



Those are pretty strong and libelous words. You have no evidence of such dishonesty. Just like the UAH team you used for you data, people make errors. I don't think Christy and Spencer were lying, they just fluffed the data analysis. It happens, and it was fixed.

All you have for GISS is one silly error in sewing the data together, which affected one small part of the data, and resulted in a negligible change.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by melatonin]