Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Troy
Climate science isn't the SUPREME science. Actually, it's the newest and least understood, least developed of sciences.
None of the "sciences" is autonomous. There's no borders. Studying the atmosphere includes studying it's physics, chemistry, and meterology, to name a few obvious. Climate scientists don't drill ice cores. Geologists and Cryologists and Physicists do. Oceanographers and Marine Biologists study the oceans.
Seems to me, all most climate scientists do, is make over simplified computer models, and politically agitate for fear doom based scenarios.
Their most damning, self incriminating claims are:
The science is settled, and other fields of science can't credibly participate.
Don't BELIEVE em!
Hang em!


Hi Frosty

 

Cap and trade was between companies during acid rain. The money stayed here!

Carbon cap and trade is between nations. Are you SURE you want the USA paying trillions to other countries for the privelege of "poluting" with CO2? Which isn't a polutant.

I have read every post in this thread at least twice. The concerns I raise, some have been raised before. Debunked? Never have they been answered, except by accusations of they're shilling and chanting "CO2 is a green house gas". That's why I keep bringing them up.

If I were to accuse anybody and everyone who disagreed with me, of being a hired puppet and a blithering idiot! I would have just as much authority as anybody else amongst the warmers making this claim.
In effect, ZERO! LOL.
The fact someone disagrees with you doesn't discredit them!
Despite the claims of warmists that it does!

 

Troy
You accuse conservatives of becoming a party of fear and conspiracy mongers. You can't believe scientists have a fear agenda. Please read the following with an open mind.

Pdf here
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762v3

Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions?:

Richard S. Lindzen, 29 Nov. 2008.
American atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From Harvard, he received an A.B. in Physics in 1960, followed by an S.M. in Applied Mathematics in 1961 and then a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics.

"We have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation." - Richard Lindzen


"When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.

Science is primarily a successful mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority.

It is my impression that by the end of the 60's scientists, themselves, came to feel that the real basis for support was not gratitude (and the associated trust that support would bring further benefit) but fear: fear of the Soviet Union, fear of cancer, etc.

However, between the perceptions of gratitude and fear as the basis for support lies a world of difference in incentive structure. If one thinks the basis is gratitude, then one obviously will respond by contributions that will elicit more gratitude. The perpetuation of fear, on the other hand, militates against solving problems.

However, the end of the cold war, by eliminating a large part of the fear-base forced a reassessment of the situation. Most thinking has been devoted to the emphasis of other sources of fear: competitiveness, health, resource depletion and the environment.

The 60's saw the first major postwar funding cuts for science in the US. The budgetary pressures of the Vietnam War may have demanded savings someplace, but the fact that science was regarded as, to some extent, dispensable, came as a shock to many scientists. So did the massive increase in management structures and bureaucracy which took control of science out of the hands of working scientists.

Fear has several advantages over gratitude. Gratitude is intrinsically limited, if only by the finite creative capacity of the scientific community. Moreover, as pointed out by a colleague at MIT, appealing to people's gratitude and trust is usually less effective than pulling a gun. In other words, fear can motivate greater generosity.

Science since the sixties has been characterized by the large programs that this generosity encourages. Moreover, the fact that fear provides little incentive for scientists to do anything more than perpetuate problems, significantly reduces the dependence of the scientific enterprise on unique skills and talents.

One result of the above appears to have been the deemphasis of theory because of its intrinsic difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals.

In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.

This new paradigm for science and its dependence on fear-based support may not constitute corruption per se, but it does serve to make the system particularly vulnerable to corruption. Much of the remainder of this paper will illustrate the exploitation of this vulnerability in the area of climate research. The situation is particularly acute for a small weak field like climatology. As a field, it has traditionally been a subfield within such disciplines as meteorology, oceanography, geography, geochemistry, etc. These fields, themselves are small and immature. At the same time, these fields can be trivially associated with natural disasters. Finally, climate science has been targeted by a major political movement, environmentalism, as the focus of their efforts, wherein the natural disasters of the earth system, have come to be identified with man's activities - engendering fear as well as an agenda for societal reform and control.

The temptation to politicize science is overwhelming and longstanding. Public trust in science has always been high, and political organizations have long sought to improve their own credibility by associating their goals with 'science' - even if this involves misrepresenting the science.

Given the above, it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a large scale.

Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty, it is entirely possible, in today's scientific environment, that many scientists feel that it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of models. "

 

A warm-monger unwittingly confirming the points in previous post.

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

 

But SOME INDEED have evil intentions toward us.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
and Al Gores business partner.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, in French Programme des Nations Unies pour l'Environnement, PNUE) is an international organization that coordinates United Nations environmental activities, and assisting developing countries. It was founded as a result of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in June 1972 and has its headquarters in the Gigiri neighborhood of Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP also has six regional offices and various country offices.

The World Meteorological Organization and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
And elects the IPCC Bureau members. Mostly from their own UNEP membership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Environment_Programme

Bureau members elected 2009

The composition of the newly elected TFB is as follows: Co-Chairs Krug and Hiraishi; Washington Zhakata (Zimbabwe); Emmanuel Mpeta (United Republic of Tanzania); Zhou Linxi (China); Sirinthotutep Towprayoon (Thailand); Leonidas Girardin (Argentina); Sergio Gonzalez Martineaux (Chile); Art Jaques (Canada); William Irving (USA); Robert Sturgiss (Australia) shared with Leonard Brown (New Zealand) in turn; Rizaldi Boer (Indonesia); Detelina Petrova (Bulgaria) shared with Sadeddin Khefran (Syria) in turn; and Jim Penman (UK).


http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12384e.html

William Irving, EPA

https://portal.acs.org/preview/appm...=CNBP_024481&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1

See any friendlies?

 

Seems to me you don't know much about what they do, then. In the first place, climate change only accounts for about 10% of what climatologists do....

Nor have I seen any climatologists claim that the science is settled and other fields can't participate.

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100821184447AAZApZV

Climatologists, according to Trevor.

 

So other scientists CAN have a valid opinion, after all?

 

From Dr Richard S. Lindzen, MIT

 

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha now thats more like it, makes my morning actually, thanks GTO. Ever laugh so hard your face hurts ? Even spilled my coffee, yikes, can you draw any funny pictures to go with that ice melt thing ??????

OK I've had about as much fun as anyone desearves in one morning, I gotta get some work done, but thanks and cheers, fantastic stuff, should keep a grin on my face all day. Can't wait to tell some of the guys about the thinks melting ice drives climate change idear

Ahahahahhahahhaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahaahahhahahhhhahah

 

One opinion piece claiming climatology may be vulnerable to corruption is hardly a credible indictment of the field, or those who work in it.

Let's get back to my original premise: your belief that climate change is a fraud doesn't hold up, unless the vast majority of scientists worldwide (not just climatologists) are fools, dupes or conspirators.

I don't buy it.

 

ahahahhahaahahahahahahahahahah

Lindzen takes huge amounts of money from the oil and gas industry to write pro petroleum articles

but that can't top

thinks ice melting drives temps.

Holly molly that's going to carry me through the whole day ;-)

Ice melting is a feedback change in albedo, it melts "because" temp increased :idea::idea::idea::idea::idea::idea: its kinda like suggesting that water vapor drives temp. once again its the complete lack of comprehension thats so damn funny, how do people pretend to believe or not believe in something they don't even remotely understand ?

oh well have a great day peeps
cheers
B

 

Boston

PROVE Lindzin takes petrol money. Not just quote a bunch of sites that CLAIM he does. He says he doesn't. PROVE IT, or wash your mouth out with soap.

If we threw in a dungeon, every warm monger scientist that takes money from the ecology nut lobbyists, there wouldn't be any left on the GW side. They ALL take money.

The greens dole out 78 billion in prizes to their darlings. Your daddy HANSEN got over a million himself!

Before you throw rocks, check out the glass house YOU live in!

As to who doesn't understand the science? YOU don't!

 

Boston
What's YOUR degree in?
Do you have a degree?

 

Troy

You don't have to buy it. The simple fact they ARE using fear to push Global Warming gives GREAT credence to Lindzins "opinion" they are using fear to push it.

And no matter how many scientists I quote, you respond with "that doesn't count"!

Well. We are not going to allow cap and trade, or any kind of carbon tax in the USA. We will continue to use petrol and coal. If you think you are doomed, I'm sorry you can't sleep well because of it. I don't believe in doom science or it's predictions. So, I sleep fine.

Guess we'll just have to show you at the ballot box, we aren't just an insignificant few.

(I predict republicans win , house, senate, and president.)