What Do We Think About Climate Change

Give us an example. That should be easy. There must be many.

Jimbo

 

ward, what is interesting about 775, if I may inquire?

 

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

What the science says...Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what is most interesting is response rates compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively published research on climate change responded yes.

It's just a natural cycle

The skeptic argument...
"Climate records of the past show a roughly 1,500-year cycle. It was first discovered in ice cores in Greenland. Then it was seen in ocean sediments in the Atlantic. And now it's found everywhere including stalagmites in caves. It shows warming and cooling that could well account for the current warming." (Fred Singer)

What the science shows......

The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance.

 

No, "the people involved in research on these subjects" have not been complaining for decades. The people involved in research overwhelmingly support the conclusion that global warming is real and has a human cause. A relatively small group dispute the results of the research, and the ones who normally get quoted are mostly paid shills instead of legitimate scientists.

You like to be precise. So let's be precise about the Oregon Petition: not a dime was spent on research or collection of data. The so-called "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature" you're so impressed with is just that. It's a summary of papers on the subject published by others, and is neither complete nor accurate.

It was worded and formatted to look like an official statement from the national National Academy of Sciences. In response, the National Academy of Sciences released the following statement:

"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The claim on their website that "Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals" is a flat lie, unless they're somehow trying to claim that changing its name turns it into a new project.

The reality is that the Oregon Petition was funded by Exxon Mobil, through the George C Marshall Institute. It's amusing that while you're rejecting legitimate scientific research and conclusions left and right, you're apparently swallowing their little piece of propaganda hook, line and sinker.

If you were as knowledgable as you think you are, you wouldn't even be trying to defend the Oregon Petition. So why don't you give it a rest, and stop telling me how ignorant I am? Instead, answer this question: Why would governments all over the world push a false climate change theory for decades? What good does it do them? What is their objective in doing so?

Please don't answer with something inane like "power simply for the sake of power"....we're talking about governments that can't work together on the simplest of trade agreements most of the time. Yet people believe they're somehow engaged in a worldwide scientific conspiracy?

 

I won't answer any more childish "Argument by Authority"
challenges, which is what your appeal to consensus really is.

On your other point, it IS NOT an uncontested fact that we have been warming in both hemi's, meaning globally:


Look at the satellite temp data graphs of the two hemispheres here. The satellite temperatures show that the northern hemisphere has warmed by a mere 0.147C degree per decade since satellite temperature recording began in early 1979, well below the lower limit of IPCC expectations.



But the southern hemisphere has only warmed an insignificant +0.013C over the same period, completely contradicting IPCC expectations.

On the broader point that Fred Singer was making, all the observed warming is well within the range of natural climate variability. Shall we revisit the absolutely overwhelming evidence of a global Medieval Warm Period? I'll remind you that virtually the only evidence in refutation of a global MWP is found in the works of Mann, Briffa, Hansen and Jones, and they (works and men) are under a cloud lately. In September 2009, Briffa finally (after 12 years of legal wrangling) released the Yamal data and it was fairly damning to the bold assertions in MBH-98 WRT the MWP since they basically threw out all the data that disagreed with their assertions using a "careful selection process" though what that process consisted of was never revealed(of course).


Jimbo

 

The AGW scare fits an agenda, simple as that. The agenda is to bring the world into a global 'socialism for profit' sort of governance and economy which will PERMANENTLY benefit the big financial interests who pull the strings behind the scene with every major government on earth and also at the UN. In fact these interest created the UN in the first place. Why do you think every major political figure in the last 50 years has belonged to certain 'secret societies'? Every single president, Democrat or Republican. Most Sec's of State (including the current one). Even freakin Jimmy Carter!!


At the very top, there really is no political Right or Left; in the end they are all after the same thing; money and power. A small group of unelected people around the world run the whole show, and this is (the latest iteration of) their vision.

On the Oregon Petition, If you won't check out the "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature" then the issue is settled. I'll just continue to use their excellent compilation of cited papers and bibliography in my replies (there are HUNDREDS cited there) to smash all the AGW 'scientific' arguments to pieces anyway, and you'll be none the wiser.

I personally did not get any money from Exxon-Mobil. and neither did any of the publishers of the papers, so the same information presented by me instead of OISM should be OK, right? After all, OISM simply presents a review of the published literature, the proven science.

Jimbo

 

" Why would governments all over the world push a false climate change theory for decades?" - I'll take that one!

*Number one - Power. If elected officials are needed to clean up some
percieved mess, they will be voted in again! Who are you gonna hire to take
care of the horrible situation the big, mean, businesses caused but compassionate, earth-loving, open-minded, Pelosis?
*Number two, but WAAY beneath number one - Fear. Fear that the legacy they leave is one of not caring if something anthropogenic does happen to the environment.
*Number three - Ignorance. "Everbody else is doing it". This is caused by one of the major fallacies I have demonstrated guides you.
*Number four - Power, but from a different angle. Third-world dictators and warlords would like more bling, please - "send money because anything wrong with our Eden is the West's fault".
*Number five - Money. GE's CEO (not one that actually built the company), for example, is giving expert testimony to a ravenous audience that we better use his tech to save the world. Al Gore is now a billionaire (yes, that is a "B") due to AGWBS. Everywhere one looks (every rock one turns over) there is another upstart poised to cash in on the green revolution. (The irony is that green it will be right up to the point that without benevolent Uberpower, a void will be filled. Let's see, Iran? China? Stateless Muslim extremists? WHO DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO BOW TO?)
Number six - Guilt. Did we make that south-Pacific atoll sink? ****, send 'em money. Oh, the polar bears - don't ya jus' wanna hug 'em?

 

Obama, Jimbo's fast - he got two posts in in the time it took me to write that...

 

Yep; no surprise here at all. Scratch a climate change denier, find a PCT (paranoid conspiracy theorist). Happens all too often.

Tell me, Jimbo, what do you like to call this shadowy group that's secretly pulling the strings of business, education, science, media, and government all over the world? The Illuminati? the Bilderbergers? The Freemasons? The New World Order? Or are you a classic purist, who sticks with The Elders of Zion?

 

wouldnt they be better keeping the status quo to remain in power?

its already there making money why take a chance on an unknown replacement

i can cite hundreds of papers too whether the authors want me to or not to make a point that they may disagree with

as i've said, scientist don't agree with other scientists, they agree with the science

just out of curiosity jimbo whats's your take on evolution?

 

There are groups trying to influence world events - just not as powerful as Jimbo seems to believe. Your attack has no relevance, Mr. Ad Hominum.
Just sat down and saw a bit of a show called Ecopolis. In it, Nobel prize-winner Daniel Kannan investigates how to save the world. The first thing I heard was that "by 2050, we're going to be driving cars with algae in the tank, or we'll be walking." Never mind the statement, itself, but concentrate on the notion that we are running out of oil. Estimates 20 years ago were that we would be out next year... why not just go ahead and let us run out? You'll then have what you want, will you not? Use the last of the fossil fuels then green it will be!

 

Hardly an attack; just a simple observation. It's hard to misinterpret "A small group of unelected people around the world run the whole show, and this is (the latest iteration of) their vision." The only question left is what label Jimbo pins on them.

Regarding your comments on energy, you're right about predictions of running out of oil being nothing new. I once saw a reprint of a tire ad from somewhere around WWI, that predicted the world would run out of oil shortly (I forget the predicted date). The point of the ad was that if everyone switched to the advertiser's pneumatic tires, the better mileage would stretch the available oil supply by several years.

But of course we're never going to run out of fossil fuels, as such. What'll happen is that what's left will simply keep getting harder to find and more expensive to produce, until we turn to alternatives out of sheer necessity. It would be nice if we had some alternatives in place before we get to that point.....

 

with reference to posts #3806 and thereabouts... Nevertheless the evidence strongly indicates, certain organisations seek POWER, absofrikinlootly - absolute power - and the best/easiest way to be powerful, is to control money and money supply...

Now before you dismiss this as another "masalai-****"?, do yourself the courtesy of having a bit of a think, and do some digging around some of the not so rabid websites that you seem all to eager to dismiss... There are far too many people driven by control and domination, to be able to, out of hand dismiss this postulation...

 

I know it's a highly contested point, but we don't have unequivocal evidence that fossil fuels came from fossilized biomass at all. The first problem is location. Nobody has come up with a plausible mechanism that put all this goop, which is lighter than water, so far below the water table. Secondly and more importantly, the quantity of oil already harvested coupled with known reserves to too great to be attributable to biomass. And the numbers are not even close; we've harvested ~19 cubic miles(do not quote; I'm going from memory here!) of oil so far and they think the total reserves are something like 100 cubic miles. The thing is even the 19 cubic miles is more biomass than ever lived on earth!

That it was from fossils was only ever a guess, nothing more. They guessed this way partly because it was once believed that only living things could 'fix' carbon (I never knew it was broken ), but that belief has been shaken by recent discoveries. But how could life have evolved without abiotic fixed carbon, anyway?

Jimbo

 

It is sad seeing this thread has recently come back again into disqualifications and personal attacks, bringing nothing useful to it. I think it's important to avoid such attitudes and just keep on posting and debating relevant information on the subject.

Proponents of the AGW say we are experiencing historically totally anomalous temperatures making ice melting etc, particularly in Greenland. Would any of such proponents or defendants please comment this graph taken from NOAA ice core data from Greenland?



There are more interesting graphics like this one here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

Cheers.