Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Yobarnacle]

Would ya'll agree that :

During the last 150 years, earth’s average temperature has increased and earth has slowly become warmer, mostly between the years 1910 and 1940. Not much change occurred prior to that, from 1850 to 1910. From 1940 to 1975, there was a slight cooling trend, probably related to increased sunlight reflecting from the atmosphere, as industrialization evolved along with the air pollution that it generated following World War II. Beginning with the 1970s, the pace picked up. The average global temperature increased more rapidly—at a rate of 0.2°C (.36°F) per decade. The warmest years on record are the most recent.

Hundred years ago, the average temperature of the earth was about 13.7°C (56.5°F). Today, it is closer to 14.4°C (57.9°F).



http://www.environmentabout.com/27/h...-years-history


about the author:
Keshav Saini is an Engineer turned Environmentalist who quit his job to become an environmental activist. Environment About is his first project and an ongoing effort to spread awareness about various environmental issues.

[Yobarnacle]

yes bntii
i've heard of shooting the messenger.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Let's not do that, Ray. Although we may disagree with Yob, I don't doubt his honestly. He's posting stuff that seems to back up what he really believes....

There's two possibilities, one is that someone can actually be so completely duped by the misinformation campaign, and the other is that someone is involved in the misinformation campaign. Thing to remember is that the oil and gas industry is spending "billions" on this effort to prevent effective change and has even stooped so low as to hire the very so called "scientists" that sold out to the tobacco companies and who virtually invented the technique. Agnotology is corporate misinformation on an industrial scale.

I wouldn't put it past him to be getting paid to spread this rubbish, partly because of its prevalence in the ultra right and left wing religions and partly because he pulls so many pages straight out of the deniers book of deceit. Its just hard to think that anyone could actually be willing to benefit from the destruction of our planet like this, so one is tempted to want to believe its just ignorance. But then again, thats a whole lot of ignorance. So we're back to square one with the question, is he getting paid by the oil and gas industry's agnotology campaign

Tell me what other industry spends 146 million alone carrying 800+ lobbyists

and that doesn't even begin to touch on the billion or so being spent on these front group misinformation people its hired. People, "some folks
around here" quote regularly.

for instance, the Kotch brothers alone gave 60 million to a climate disinformation groups and another 196 million to disinformation/policy change
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/top-ten-koch-facts/


From
http://desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/lobbying.html

The gas lobby has been steadily increasing its presence in Washington, with industry sponsored groups such as American’s Natural Gas Alliance, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the American Gas Association, and the Natural Gas Supply Association pushing for natural gas to become a mandated part of America’s “Clean Energy Standard.”[1][2] With an army of roughly 800 lobbyists, the gas network is working hard to secure its reputation against a history of poor practice and the fuel’s weakened position as a clean alternative.

But as much as lobbyists have attempted to separate gas from other dirty fossil fuels,[3] [4] the industry has emerged as a heavy polluter, contributing to a dramatic upswing in greenhouse gas emissions, poor air quality, drinking water contamination and toxic wastes. Even company investors have voiced their concerns over the liabilities posed by industry’s cavalier practices.[5] And despite widespread concerns over the dangers of natural gas drilling, regulatory agencies have demonstrated a history of placing industry concerns first, over public health and safety.

so as can clearly be seen just two efforts, one private, one lobbying by oil and gas over fracking adds up to over 400 million. So the idea that some of the billions being spent on this isn't trickling down to feet on the ground misinformants isn't such a stretch after all.

Its either blind ignorance, or greed, honesty just isn't a term that seems to describe it well.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

I'm sure, probably MOST scientists are ethical, intelligent dedicated people.

But who is making these spurious graphs? I know Hansen is at NASA. He's the head honcho climatologist there.

Who gets their name in the headlines? The top global warming activist scientists. And the media exxagerates even what THEY say.

The folks actually doing research and maybe seeing their data accurately portrayed or skewed by corrections. What can they say, except parrot the party line.

So you believe Hanson made a bunch of spurious graphs, and scientists worldwide either swallowed them or were scared to disagree with him, and that's why they're telling us climate change is real?

That doesn't sound very likely to me. It would mean scientists are in fact a bunch of stupid sheep, rather than being ethical, intelligent and dedicated....

Scientists aren't famous for 'parroting party lines,' Yob. The established route to scientific prominence is by proving their peers or predecessors wrong, rather than by blindly agreeing with them.

[Yobarnacle]

that's the way it's supposed to work, Troy, but global warming is the biggest controversy ever to exist, in terms of numbers of people, amounts of money, and the enormous political clout arrayed.
I think the sytem is busted, perverted, and co-opted.

Hey, Boston! I'm posting because I believe what I say. Do you know someone that'll pay me to post? I'll take the money. I'm posting anyway. Tell them to send me a private message. I'll tell them where they can send me a check.


Your pal Hansen gets paid 100s of thousands of dollars to politically agitate for global warming. He's a government employee at NASA. Unethical of him moonlighting. Probably on OUR time, too. The hours we the tax payers pay him to be a NASA scientist, he's out preaching his propaganda! I'd call that a conflict of interests! Between the govt job, and the GW political agenda!

Me? I'm retired. So, send the people with money on over to my house. I have never been paid to shill for anti GW forces. Why should they? I'm posting for free!

[Yobarnacle]

There's two possibilities, one is that someone can actually be so completely duped by the misinformation campaign, and the other is that someone is involved in the misinformation campaign.

Which are you, Boston?

I'm a third kind, apparently beyond your conception. I intelligently and with reasons, believe what I say!

[Yobarnacle]

Troy.
Climate change is about predictions, not what's now.
The globe has warmed .8 degree C in past 150 years. That's fact.
Co2 is a green house gas, how be it a minor one, but that's fact.
Scientists won't disagree with facts.
Now comes model predictions. You can prove them wrong by wait and see. But not many climate scientists are going to risk their career by arguing the big dogs models are skewed. In what other industry can climate scientists get a job?
Scientists in other fields like solar, physics, oceanography, or geology, are dismissed as "not climate scientists".

[Yobarnacle]

One more point, Boston, regarding your doubts of my honesty and integrity.
Have you ever been employed in a position of responsibility, for 10s of millions of dollars worth of equipment, and a dozen lives more or less, in a hazardous enviroment and endeavor?
Do you think companys hire people for those kinds of positions based on a charming smile and an expensive suit?

Some bad ones slip through the cracks like Schettino of the Concordia, but eventually they screw up.

I had a sucessfull career for 43 years, of which 30 was as master.
Probably longer than you've lived!
Boston, you are still an unknown quantity.
Presumptious of you to attempt to judge me.
Especially, since the only facts you have, is I disagree with you!
Oh the poor climate scientists who want to disagree, but can't for fear they'll be trounced like others before them!
Boston parrots not only the dogma but the smear tactics of the warm-mongers leading scientist cum political activists.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by troy2000

So you believe Hanson made a bunch of spurious graphs, and scientists worldwide either swallowed them or were scared to disagree with him, and that's why they're telling us climate change is real?

That doesn't sound very likely to me. It would mean scientists are in fact a bunch of stupid sheep, rather than being ethical, intelligent and dedicated....

Scientists aren't famous for 'parroting party lines,' Yob. The established route to scientific prominence is by proving their peers or predecessors wrong, rather than by blindly agreeing with them.

thats exactly what I'm talking about Troy, who could possibly believe that kinda drivel.

a giant conspiracy going back to the roots of science itself, hundreds of years ago, involving tens of thousands of scientists and researchers, riiiiiiiiiight.

Its ludicrous in the extreme to even suggest it. So we are left with, again, the question, is this guy getting paid to spread this drivel, or is it possible someone might actually be that gullible.

oh well, lunch is over and I'm thinking its pretty obvious whats going on here.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

that's the way it's supposed to work, Troy, but global warming is the biggest controversy ever to exist, in terms of numbers of people, amounts of money, and the enormous political clout arrayed.
I think the sytem is busted, perverted, and co-opted.

Hey, Boston! I'm posting because I believe what I say. Do you know someone that'll pay me to post, I'll take the money. Tell them to send me a private message. I'll tell them where they can send me a check.


Your pal Hansen gets paid 100s of thousands of dollars to politically agitate for global warming. He's a government employee at NASA. Unethical of him moonlighting.

Me? I'm retired. So, send the people with money on over to my house.

Global warming isn't even in the quarter-finals, when it comes to controversy. What so-called controversy does exist is mostly spurious, and manufactured by the oil companies or people with a political axe to grind.

I'm reminded of Dubya once saying schools 'should teach the controversy,' when it comes to creationism vs evolution. The problem with that statement is that there's none to teach.... just science on one side, and noise on the other.

Likewise with global warming/climate change. There's no real controversy -- just a lot of noise and heat without light, mostly coming from a relative handful of contrarians and professional shills.

The number of amateurs arguing on the internet is no reflection of the true situation within the scientific community.

[Yobarnacle]

no controversy? that is EXACTLY the arrogant, ostrich can't see it so doesn't exist, ego-centric, egotistical atitude, that PROVES the scientists, politicians, and GW eco-nuts DO trash any opposing viewpoint. They can't permit opposition! Can't tolerate any opposition. Can't admit to any opposition!
So ergo, there simply ISN'T any opposition.
Troy
If you and they can't even see there is MUCH opposition, how can you claim there is any objectivity to the science you claim is exclusively on your side?

If theres no opposition, then why don't you have the legislation and social changes you want? Cause the invisible mass of people opposing you WON'T LET YOU!

I guess this threads poll is 98 to 0, .....not 98 to 93, huh?
About split in the middle in good old USA too!

[Yobarnacle]

Here are many lists of scientists posted on the web, and many of these urls don't work any more. Who pressured them to delete these lists? I started editing out the non-working urls, then it ocurred to me to leave them in. It's evidence of SOMETHING one sided happening. I don't see warnings of eminent disater due to CO@ being deleted!

Some still work. Check them out.

Letters from members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) that are not happy with the ACS official statement on climate change and the actions of the editor: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730l…

US Senate on Environment and Public Works lists 700 international scientists skeptical of global warming: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.c…

Open letter to the United States Congress: http://www.co2science.org/education/trut…

Open letter to the council of the American Physical Society by 160 physicists who disagree with the APS official statement on climate change: http://climatephysics.org/open-letter-to…

Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations from 100 prominent scientists: http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07121…

60 German scientists publicly declare their dissent of man made global warming fears: http://www.speroforum.com/a/20054/German…

60 scientists write to the Canadian Prime Minister: http://gwd.wikispaces.com/60+Scientists

Another letter to the Canadian Prime Minister: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/openlett…

206 scientists sign the Manhattan Declaration: http://climatescienceinternational.org/i…
Source(s):

The revised Leipzig Declaration: http://ww.nrwa.org/benefits/whitepapers/…

Letter to the EPA: http://sppiblog.org/news/many-leading-sc…

166 scientists challenge climate science: http://sppiblog.org/news/many-leading-sc…

115 scientist challenge President Obama on his climate views: http://www.cato.org/special/climatechang…

Skeptical scientists in New Zealand: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?op…



Some invisisible to you scientist skeptics. Some who were IPCC and changed their views once they realized the scam.

Edward Wegman, Richard Tol, Duncan Wingham, Robert M. Carter, Richard Lindzen, Vincent R. Gray, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Tom Segalstad, Nir Shaviv, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Hendrik Tennekes, Freeman Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, David Bromwich, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Sami Solanki, Jasper Kirkby, Habibullo Abdussamatov, George Kukla, the late Rhodes Fairbridge, William M. Gray, Cliff Ollier, Paul Reiter, Claude Allègre, Reid Bryson, David Bellamy.

Holland - Hajo Smit MS (Environmental Science) Meteorologist, former member of the Dutch IPPC Committee

USA - H. Michael Mogil, MS (Meteorologist) a 30-year veteran NOAA Atmospheric Scientist - certified by the American Metrological Society,

USA - Robert Defeyette MS (Physical Chemist and Nuclear Engineer) formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor in Ohio and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Italy - Dr Luigi Mariani, Professor at the Agro-Meteorological Research Group, Dept. of Crop Science at the University of Milan

USA - Dr. Nicholas Drapela (Chemist) of the faculty of Chemistry at Oregon State University states:

USA - Dr John Theon (Climatologist / Technologist), former chief of key NASA climate programs now Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist



Dr Patrick Michaels (Climatologist and Ecologist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences. Former Virginia State Climatologist.


USA - Dr. Lee C. Gerhard (Geologist), UN IPCC expert reviewer, past director and State Geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas.

Denmark - Dr. Bjorn Lomborg (Statistician), professor at the Copenhagen Business School

Dr Robert Durrenberger (Climatologist), former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A..

UK – Dr David Bellamy (Biologist, Environmentalist

Netherlands - Dr. Hendrik Tennekes (Atmospheric Scientist) a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute

Dr. Will Happer (Physicist), Princeton

Ignore them if you want.
But when you falsely claim there is no opposition?
Who's gonna believe you there IS a danger of catastrophic warming?

If you ignore scientists refuting you, how do you treat evidence and data that refutes GW?
Same way. Simply claim it's invalid and doesn't exist!

disgusting ethics in GW science.

[Yobarnacle]

Before someone idiotically brings up meteorologists aren't climate scientist, that dog won't hunt.
Of course meterologist study climates and there effect on weather.

Their reputation depends on accurate forcasts for later this week, not a hunded years from now!

Saying meteorologists don't have credibility in climate science, is like saying a heart specialist has less credibility than a medical general practicioner.
And in my book, the GP Doctor has tons more credibility than an alarm theorist and political agitator!

If we can't accurately predict short term weather, even with satelite data, doppler radar, and many decades experience by thousands of meteorologists?

How is it credible a relative few climate scientists, in a relatively new science, can make accurate long term predictions using computer models? Also consider the ones we hear about are also political activists. Hansen in particular.

As soon as they begin political agitation, their credibility as a scientist slides all the way down past zero, into negative credibility!

Hansen is a GW shill! Proven and self admitted.

But you tarnish as shills, all others that dare to disagree, including me, without a shred of proof.

Ya'lls objectivity and love of truth is truly awe inspiring!

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

Which are you, Boston?

I'm a third kind, apparently beyond your conception. I intelligently and with reasons, believe what I say!

Ditto! I am neither a dupe or a duper; not even super duper!

[Yobarnacle]

a giant conspiracy going back to the roots of science itself, hundreds of years ago, involving tens of thousands of scientists and researchers, riiiiiiiiiight.

Nope. Going back to Hansens 1988 testimony before congress his predictions.

"While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist
who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over
to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and
said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything
going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and
was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said,
"Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the
question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs
along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across
the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds
won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said,
"There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to
crime when the heat goes up."

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...ther-salon.pdf

And before you say the web site is unreliable?

First deny Dr. Hansen made this prediction!

He re-affirmed this prediction in 2001!