What Do We Think About Climate Change

Here the links to the not to be missed (even if I do not agree with some of its statements) 8 parts series on current state of Climate research at the rather greenish "Der Spiegel":

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

"Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?"

 

And what makes you think that the motives of the opponents of global warming are purer than the proponents?

Many of the opponents have an economic ax to grind. For example, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists opposes the concept of man-made global warming. However, they have an economic incentive to oppose the idea, since if the idea of man-made global warming became widely believe it might lead to curbs on petroleum usage, which in turn would be detrimental to their own industry.

Oops, I need to make a correction. I should have said that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists opposed the concept of man-made global warming. (Notice the change to the past tense.) Evidently, even they became convinced by the positive evidence, because they changed their position in 2007. According the that great font of all knowledge (Wikipedia) the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the last scientific organization of any national or international stature that opposed the concept of man-made global warming, though there are still a few organizations that take a non-committal position. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

Here is a link summarizing the situation with regard to the scientific consensus on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus. This link include a discussion of dissenting scientific opinion as well of those who take the consensus view.

Here is a list of scientists that oppose one or more aspects of the consensus view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming.

Here is a link to a general discussion on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming.

Here are links discussing, respectively, paleoclimatology and geologic temperature record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record.

 

Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock. Drill that rock.

 

It's nice to see that you have elevated your comments to a higher level.

 

I particularly liked the abdication of responsibility due to the existence of a God

nice touch

Simple reality is there is no crisis of confidence in the theory of Rapid Climate Change. That is another falsehood of the oil and gas industries PR campaign to delay meaningful change
anything to prolong there profitability including sacrificing the health and well-being of the race as a whole.
simply put they do not care about whats best for us but instead whats best for themselves

to believe in there demented attempts to spread doubt where none exists is simple naivety. In the face of a 97% consensus on the mater, the oil and gas giants simply appeal to the lowest common denominator, the uneducated masses and those who can be bribed to help spread there disinformation. The presumed questions are a simple mater of greed and have nothing to do with any unsettled science. The planet is warming and its due to an increase in green house gasses plain and simple, situation would be worse if not for all the visible pollutants reflective nature and the fact that we are at solar minimum but thats sorta besides the point. The science is in and its clear, 97% is probably the largest consensus in the history of science. Yet look at who is arguing, oil and gas reps right and left.

cheers
B

 

Alan, that story is only useful with it's own conclusion not the one you attempted to graft on it.

Buy the way, to say in April 2010 that we are debating if there is global warming or not is hum a bit green. No one cares if there is warming or cooling the only debatable thing is IF the alleged warming is caused by man or not. If it is not, and it is not, then what do you care? There is nothing you can do about it. "Studying it" will not change the warming or the cooling or the ocean rising or falling or the cockroaches becoming extinct.

The claim is that we are altering climate, not that it is warming or cooling. I thought that would be clear by now.

The claim that we are altering the climate is the only claim that can produce power shift and money changing hands. Guilt and alleged "solutions" are what is at stake.

No one cares REALY about climate or temperature variations of 1/2 a degree
Most fanatics about rising the alarm do so because they have knowingly or not an axe to grind, or a hidden agenda of some sort.

And as in the case of your story the climate will change as it always does, despite all the heated debates, and completely ignoring any human input as you would ignore an ant sneezing 100 meters away.
PS
How did your son's wedding go?

 

I don't think you should be portraying some nutball fanatic from Greenpeace as the typical face of belief in man-made global warming, as though it's all just some sort of a kooky fringe movement.

Quite obviously, he isn't typical of the scientists who believe AGW is real--or the politicians who believe it, or the normal citizens who believe it.

And I hope I never get so cynical (or paranoid) that I start believing an entire field of science is just some sort of illicit scheme to shift money and power around.

 

I can say Oregon Project ----- 31,486 American Scientists have signed the Petition Project and you have not shown 1,one, signature on the petition to be a forgery. Since the Petition signatures were re-verified in 2007 and the names placed there by the vandals of the AGW religion were removed not a single name has been questioned nor have any of the signatories who were allegedly "duped" asked to have their names removed. This is unlike the IPCC assessment reports where authors have had to sue to have their names removed because their papers and work were distorted and misrepresented.
This is also unlike the anonymous survey conducted among 10,000 scientists worldwide involved in climate research. Of the 10,000 approx. 3,100 replied and of those 82% said AGW is real. But the results of that survey have remained anonymous and we are supposed to take on faith from a bunch of athiests that the results are real. Hmmmmm. If I were to use the tactics of the "Team" I could say that only 25.42% of scientists contacted agreed that AGW is a real concern for Earth. But while technically correct that would be deceptive, kinda like saying there is an enormous concensus behind AGW.

 

Boston continually harps from the RealClimate pr machine without posting any proof. The 97% figure is bogus and cannot be backed up without torturous manipulation of numbers. He has never shown the records from the oil industry that back up his charge of a massive pr campaign. The oil industry doesn't lose with the AGW scenario, it makes more money as the petro product supply is reduced, duh! There is no empirical evidence tying C02 to warming, just ill thought out conjecture that require you to reject settled science on the lag between temp and C02 increase. The only conspiracy is between a bunch of disjointed fringe groups who base philosophy is self hatred and elitism who want to cause the human race to dwindle and devolve to about 1 billion. They are going to have to use mandatory abortion and sterilization, the ban on DDT didn't quite work out for them.

 

It's hard to believe you're actually trying to stand up for that worthless piece of crap.

The guy who chaired the Oregon Project is the same guy who churned out propaganda disguised as science for the tobacco industry, until he got so senile they couldn't use him anymore.

Your definition of 'scientists' is absurd to the nth degree. Anyone with any sort of academic degree could (and did) sign it, including veterinarians, doctors and civil engineers. And contrary to your claims, no one has ever gone through and verified all the names.

The petitition was sent out under false pretenses to begin with, with a phony scientific paper attached to it.

The article followed the identical style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal, even including a date of publication ("October 26") and volume number ("Vol. 13: 149-164 1999"), but was not actually a publication of the National Academy. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that the article was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article...is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths": F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "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." It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

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

If the science is so good, Eddy, why did they have to totally forge a scientific paper for potential signees to read? You'd think there would have been at least one real paper out there for them to use....

 

Let me get this straight. You're actually trying to claim the oil industry isn't funding anti-AGW activity? That's a matter of public record, and some of those public records have been quoted and referenced in this very thread. As a matter of fact, I posted some of them myself.

That seems to be a common theme here: people make some absurd claim; they're proven wrong; a few pages later they're right back saying it again--and demanding someone prove them wrong all over again.

Sorry; I'm under no obligation to repeat myself simply because others are doing so. If it didn't sink in first time around, it wouldn't this time either.

 

As Wiki is your source your ignorance is understandable. The project never claimed or inferred sanction from the NAS. Dr. Sietz is a past president of the NAS and is entitled to use that in his resume. That did not imply sanction except in some tortured reasoning. The type font was the same, that's hardly a nefarious conspiracy. The paper is real, and not forged, the signers, with impeccable backgrounds wrote the paper . The so called "half truths" charge is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. The signatures were verified in 2007 by volunteers despite your unsubstantiated claim. The paper never claimed publication, nor did it claim affiliation with the NAS. All the complaints about the petition imply events that never occurred or were dreamed up to diminish the impact of such a large group of scientists disagreeing with the AGW college of cardinals and their followers. The NAS has a large legal staff to address any valid complaints and to date no legal challenges have been made.

 

Now we have two of your own medicine we may apply to yourself....

 

you mean like when folks continually want to revisit the issues of volcanoes or solar influences, co2 somehow not being a greenhouse gas and continually confuse the isotopic mas balance data or do you mean like when they present a paper that is proven way wrong and then rather than acknowledge that just jump right to another paper from the oil and gas PR campaign that is just as wrong
over and over again

just curious

cheers
B

 

Without CO2, every plant in the greenhouse dies. Is that what you want?