backtop


Print 105 comment(s) - last by Skeptic of Ske.. on Jul 3 at 11:21 AM


Carbon dioxide, like water is essential to life on Earth and helps the planet enjoy rich plant life. However, some claim it is a threat to mankind. A report authored by two esteemed climatologists and backed by over 31,000 U.S. scientists challenges such theories put forth by the UN's "hobby climatologists".  (Source: Nedlands, AU)
New report authored by two esteemed weather scientists challenges AGW theory

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has issued a rebuttal to the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change.  The report challenges the theory that man somehow has played a major role in changing the global climate, and also challenges the need to adopt painful and costly measures to combat this perceived threat, such as giving up meat in our diets.

Where many in the AGW community would have you believe that there is a consensus over global warming theory, the reports showcases the ongoing debate on the topic and support for alternative theories.  Over 31,478 American scientists signed a petition in the appendix citing “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate."

Unlike the UN's IPCC, which is chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian economist with no formal climatology training, the NIPCC is headed by two esteemed climatologists, each with a large body of work in the field.

The first coauthor of the report is Dr. S. Fred Singer, a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Dr. Singer received a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his outstanding work in the field.  In the 1980s he continued to study the Earth's climate as the vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA).  He also taught as a professor at University of Virginia.

Dr. Craig D. Idso also coauthored the report.  Dr. Idso has a Ph.D in geography from Arizona State University.  He has extensively studied the climate as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and has published papers in the field of climatology.  He also lectured on Meteorology at Arizona State University.  His specialties include studying the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations.

Among the conclusions reached by these esteemed researchers were that:

  • Climate models suffer from numerous deficiencies and shortcomings that could alter even the very sign (plus or minus, warming or cooling) of earth’s projected temperature response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.
  • The model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth--especially for a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level--is much too large, and feedbacks in the climate system reduce it to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.
  • Real-world observations do not support the IPCC’s claim that current trends in climate and weather are “unprecedented” and, therefore, the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
  • The IPCC overlooks or downplays the many benefits to agriculture and forestry that will be accrued from the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.
  • There is no evidence that CO2-induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, either on land or in the world’s oceans.
  • There is no evidence that CO2-induced global warming is or will be responsible for increases in the incidence of human diseases or the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions.

The pair, along with the 31,478 scientists backing their assertions, are urging lawmakers worldwide to carefully consider the body of evidence against AGW theory and lack of evidence in support of AGW theory.  Cutting carbon emissions by a mere 15 percent is estimated to cost $1,600 per U.S. citizen yearly and leave the nation $9.4 trillian poorer.  Totally forgoing carbon emissions could be extrapolated to cost the average citizen over $10,500 USD yearly.  And Dr. Idso and Dr. Singer provide compelling evidence that this would be a pointless and foolhardy sacrifice as it would have virtually no affect on the climate.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Misleading article
By therealnickdanger on 6/19/2009 9:21:19 AM , Rating: 5
I believe the total number is 31,478 including Dr. Singer and Dr. Idso. The way you wrote it would imply that there were 31,480. This is iiresponsible reporting and I refuse to read anything else regarding this article or accept anything it says as remotely accurate. I stand by my preconceived mindset that all skeptics are liars for Big Oil. Kill the Kapitalists!

</sarcasm much?>




RE: Misleading article
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading article
By bdot on 6/19/2009 10:02:11 AM , Rating: 4
Considering that there is no chance the government will fund them...

I know lets pass a bill that rapes our citizens and economy while simultaneously publishing a paper discrediting the very reason for said bill.

AGW is marketing not science anymore.


RE: Misleading article
By mandrews on 6/19/2009 10:23:30 AM , Rating: 5
According to the study:
quote:
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029
persons who hold Ph.D.s, 7,153 who hold an MS,
2,585 who hold MDs or DVMs, and 12,711 who hold
a BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD
and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in
basic science.


Jason I suggest you try:
http://scholar.google.com/advanced_scholar_search

Just a few of early results from signees:
Bernard Jeffrey Anderson, PhD
"Learning causes synaptogenesis, whereas motor activity causes angiogenesis, in cerebellar cortex of …"
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/14/556...
"Single versus bilateral internal mammary artery grafts: 10-year outcome analysis"
http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract...

John C. Anderson, PhD
"Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach"
http://www.fdewb.unimaas.nl/meteor/EDEN/Mike%20Bra...
"A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships"
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252172

Russell S. Andrews, PhD
"Bedrock incision, rock uplift and threshold hillslopes in the northwestern Himalayas"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v379/n6565/ab...
"Simulation of eolian saltation"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/241...

Also, per the Dr. Idso and Dr. Singer I fail to see how their work should be less legitimate than that of NASA or NOAA researchers -- in fact Dr. Singer used to work for the NOAA. Let's remember NASA's primary climate research center -- the GISS -- is led by James Hansen a researcher shown to have grossly skewed, altered, and misrepresented data in an effort to strengthen the weak case for AGW. All researchers are funded by somebody. There's nothing illegitimate about these esteemed researchers' work.

Scientists have yet to prove that AGW exists and a growing body of evidence suggest otherwise.


RE: Misleading article
By therealnickdanger on 6/19/2009 11:12:37 AM , Rating: 4
Due to my horrid attention span, all I got out of that was:
quote:
mammary

... which leads me to conclude that the only thing that will save our civilization is boobies.


RE: Misleading article
By snakeInTheGrass on 6/19/2009 9:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
Save it? No, those boobies are a major anthropogenic cause of warming. Billions of males x the thought of boobies = AGW.

Take that, you doubters!


RE: Misleading article
By Cobra Commander on 6/20/2009 12:14:07 AM , Rating: 2
Booby never harmed anyone.
Booby feed the world!


RE: Misleading article
By spkay on 6/23/2009 4:21:27 AM , Rating: 2
<Homer voice>I Like Boobies!</Homer voice>


RE: Misleading article
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 9:40:05 AM , Rating: 3
Well millions of men playing with boobs x millions of women getting their boobs played with = far fewer cars on the road.....

We may be onto something here...


RE: Misleading article
By Hawkido on 6/26/2009 5:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh.. I've played with my wife's boobies in the car while on the road.


RE: Misleading article
By omnicronx on 6/19/2009 11:22:45 AM , Rating: 3
This article makes it out as though there are absolutely no ill effects and that we could save billions just doing nothing. Well I beg to differ, as while man made global warming may not exist, popping your head outside on a nice summers day and noticing that you are unable to see more than a few miles away because of the massive smog cloud is proof enough for me that man made emissions DO have an effect on us.

Furthermore I don't believe for one second that there are 9000 qualified persons who hold PHDs that have actually done a great deal of work on the subject signed this paper. The vast majority of those people probably read a paper by someone else in the field and are merely agreeing with them. Using the same technique, you could probably round up just as many believers.

Personally I don't believe in man made global warming, but these skeptics are making it out as though as we can do no harm to the environment, and this is just not the case.


RE: Misleading article
By mandrews on 6/19/2009 12:31:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This article makes it out as though there are absolutely no ill effects and that we could save billions just doing nothing. Well I beg to differ, as while man made global warming may not exist, popping your head outside on a nice summers day and noticing that you are unable to see more than a few miles away because of the massive smog cloud is proof enough for me that man made emissions DO have an effect on us.


Perhaps, but with proper controls even coal and oil burning plants can produce power while putting out little smog (cyclic hydrocarbons, nitrogen, and sulfur-containing compounds). At issue here is whether our government should force laughably expensive regulations upon us to try to stop the production of CO2, a colorless, odorless gas which happens to be an integral and invaluable part of the life cycle on planet that has naturally fluctuated throughout the Earth's history.

And further, the issue of smog emissions would be a moot point if America adopted clean nuclear power. But the environmental lobbies have fought that, kicking and screaming all the way.


RE: Misleading article
By omnicronx on 6/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading article
By d0gb0y on 6/19/2009 2:01:15 PM , Rating: 5
You are the confused one, confusing smog with CO2.


RE: Misleading article
By drewsup on 6/22/2009 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, none of are old enough to remember when people actually burned coal to heat their houses, run their trains, generate all their power, and how actually CLEAN the Earth is today vs. 100 years ago. We are WAY cleaner in both the air we breathe and water we use, do yourself a favor if you believe in MMGW, find pictures from the turn of the century and look how grimy everything was. Look at how dark the skies were,and while your at it, see how many people died in the smog of London in the 1950's. Like 50,000 people dead just from breathing in the fumes! there is a lot of speculation that because the sky is so clear now, that is what may be making the earth a tad warmer than a century ago, which means we only getting back to what nature would normal,(if there is such a thing!).


RE: Misleading article
By invidious on 6/25/2009 1:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is a lot of speculation that because the sky is so clear now, that is what may be making the earth a tad warmer than a century ago


So now that scientists prove that greenhouse gases aren't causing global warming now its the lack of greenhouse gases that are causing it.


RE: Misleading article
By Captain Orgazmo on 6/23/2009 1:04:10 AM , Rating: 3
The smog issue is just a smoke screen (pardon the pun). CO2 is not a constituent, cause, or any sort of contributor to smog, or any type of pollution. It is absolutely essential to life on this planet. CO2 was present in concentrations of 2000x todays values in the geologic near history (ie dinosaur times). Since then the earth has gone through many ice-age to warm period cycles, and there is no evidence whatsoever that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration was anything other than a symptom of natural global warming.

I absolutely agree that smog and all other forms of pollution need to be controlled, and one day totally eliminated. However, please explain to me how pumping CO2 into underground reservoirs (called "Carbon Capture and Storage", and my province, Alberta, has decided to spend 2 billion dollars of taxpayer money on this) will reduce any type of smog or pollution.


RE: Misleading article
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 9:41:52 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming back then was clearly caused by all the giant piles of decaying sh*t.


RE: Misleading article
By invidious on 6/24/2009 3:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
They are in no way claiming that polution isn't bad. The reason why you don't see them listing off negatives of polution is because its not the point of the paper. You can't draw conclusions about their opinions on things that they aren't addressing. Just because CO2 is related to both polution and global warming doesn't mean that every paper on global warming has to address polution as well.

And if you really think that their position is that nothing we do is bad for the environment than you should really reread the article for your own sake. And perhaps take a few classes on logic and reasoning. Their argument makes perfect sense.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/2009 11:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Scientists have yet to prove that AGW exists and a growing body of evidence suggest otherwise.


...here's your sign.

The question is how many of those scientists are actually involved in climate research.

If you can find a million medical doctors who swear that the Earth is flat...all you've done is demonstrated your ability to mobilize a million moron march. Expertise in one field of science gives you no provence whatsoever to even comment on another field of science. Biologists have nothing to say about cosmology...and physicists have no business trying their hand at heart surgery.

This is just an appeal to ignorance on the part of a group of climate change denialists. The ignorance they're appealing to is that of the general public, who as a whole are probably entirely stupid enough to hear "there's an assload of scientists who don't agree with this" and just accept it uncritically. Apparently, as is evident right here on DT, there is no shortage of such non-critical thinkers.


RE: Misleading article
By omnicronx on 6/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading article
By Schrag4 on 6/19/2009 2:40:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This is just an appeal to ignorance on the part of a group of climate change denialists. The ignorance they're appealing to is that of the general public, who as a whole are probably entirely stupid enough to hear "there's an assload of scientists who don't agree with this" and just accept it uncritically.


And I suppose the "stupid masses" (as you call them) in the AGW camp were being critical when they blindly accepted that theory? Funny how they're only accepting uncritically if they don't agree with you.

Nobody's saying the earth is flat here. Nobody's saying CO2 can't raise the temp of the earth. Many of us "denialist" just point out that all of the CO2 that we release from oil or coal was in the atmosphere at one point in earth's past, and there was much more life on this planet during that period of time than there is today BECAUSE the CO2 wasn't buried. The doomsday scenarios provided to scare us into changing our behavior just aren't realistic, and a look back several hundred million years into earth's history proves that.


RE: Misleading article
By Noubourne on 6/24/2009 3:57:42 PM , Rating: 1
Fine. Go live in the Jurassic then. Moron.


RE: Misleading article
By Regs on 6/25/2009 10:28:51 AM , Rating: 2
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill (of thinking critically) is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.


RE: Misleading article
By rett448 on 6/25/2009 5:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The question is how many of those scientists are actually involved in climate research.


Isnt ironic asking how many of those scientists are actually involved in climate research when the head of the IPCC has an economic background?


RE: Misleading article
By Hare on 6/23/2009 11:55:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
12,711 who hold a BS or equivalent academic degrees

Saying that a person with a BS is a scientist is like saying that a person who has baked cookies is a 3 star Michelin chef.


RE: Misleading article
By Boze on 6/24/2009 12:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
That's pretty ironic, and must be a sign of recent academic elitism.

Most of the greatest scientists throughout all of history had very little - and in some cases, no - formal training whatsoever. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who would not refer to Benjamin Franklin as a scientist, or Galileo, or a host of other historical scientific giants.

You don't need four years of classes and a piece of paper to be a scientist. What you do need is to be honest, thoughtful, intelligent, observant, adherent to the Scientific Method, and uninterested in influencing the outcome of your experiments.

In other words, the opposite of a quite a many of what you would consider 'true' scientists... scientists with enormous labs and obscene funding who are expected to discover a certain outcome, and may be willing to tamper with data, controls, and method to get it.


RE: Misleading article
By Hare on 6/25/2009 2:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that a person without a degree could not be one of the brightest minds on the planet. I just would not call them scientists unless they have actually performed other research/studies in addition to the mandatory stuff required for a BS. In other words, 31000 highly educated persons signed the petition, not scientists (although, I'm sure there were thousands of real scientists among these ppl).


RE: Misleading article
By coolkev99 on 6/24/2009 1:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't take a Ph.d to know that the global warming hype is a huge politically motivated steamy pile.


RE: Misleading article
By randomname on 6/25/2009 8:48:25 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like none (you listed) have their expertise in climatology or meteorology. A degree is some guarantee of expertise in a certain narrow area. It doesn't mean you know anything about some other topic. Believe me, I know (a number of Ph.D.:s who are clueless about a variety of topics).

That said, there is a huge political demand for certainty in the topic of climate change, but there are inherent large uncertainties. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act on the most likely scenario (that climate change exists and is largely man-made). Overplaying the certainty only sets one up for a backlash. On the other hand, even critics need to understand that there isn't going to be absolute certainty until after the fact. (A pair of aces isn't going to win always, but you really should pick it over any random hand.)

As to the economic challenge, if the whole world participates similarly, it will have little impact on the economic success of any nation. Nor is it likely to negatively impact the quality of life of individual people.

And cutting beef consumption is a good idea in many respects. Especially as pig and chicken meat have a much smaller footprint (in both carbon and land area).

Someone with a D.Sc.(tech) (I'm not a climate scientist, though, so the degree is pretty irrelevant here.)


RE: Misleading article
By MrPeabody on 6/19/2009 10:39:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It give no description of how it classifies scientists you notice.


Appendix 4 of the report, linked to in the article, does exactly this. In detail. For instance:

quote:
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric,
environmental, geophysical, astronomical, an biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.


It goes on. Worth a read, if this is where you take issue. At the least, I think your scare-quotes around "scientists" may be a bit unfair.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading article
By omnicronx on 6/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 12:11:08 PM , Rating: 5
Therefore let's not read the paper! The fact that SOMEONE could read the paper, and could agree with it, and could have agreed with it already before reading it, means that there is a fundamental problem here! Because reading about data that supports your position is obviously wrong!
/sarcasm

Just go RTF paper.


RE: Misleading article
By omnicronx on 6/19/2009 1:58:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The fact that SOMEONE could read the paper, and could agree with it, and could have agreed with it already before reading it, means that there is a fundamental problem here!
Actually there is absolutely no problem with this. The problem is that anyone who has never done the formal research or written a paper on the subject is not qualified to tell the public what is or is not correct, especially when they have a bias going in. All they are qualified to do is form an opinion based on the findings of the paper, as unless you have complete control over the data, how it is used and where it comes from, reading a paper makes you no more informed than anyone else reading up on the subject.

There just is not enough data for anyone to conclusively prove that global warming exists or does not exist. Now I can't say I am knowledgeable in the field, but at least I know the data to prove either theory does not exist, so I will not be swayed by a petition stating they do.


RE: Misleading article
By FITCamaro on 6/24/2009 9:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
So you admit there is not enough evidence to support it or deny it. So thus you should not support spending trillions of dollars to fight something you admit cannot be proven to be happening. As should everyone else. That is the goal of papers like this.


RE: Misleading article
By MrPeabody on 6/19/2009 1:49:21 PM , Rating: 4
Take it easy there, fellows. I haven't made any claims to the validity of the study at large. I was merely refuting Mr. Mick's aspersions of the scientists in question. I'll quote again:

quote:
It give no description of how it classifies scientists you notice.


I was merely pointing out that, in fact, the study gives a very detailed description of exactly this. Beyond that, I don't think I'm entirely qualified to evaluate the research data presented in this study, so I'll keep my own counsel.


RE: Misleading article
By nct on 6/20/2009 3:29:20 AM , Rating: 4
I am "weary" of blind acceptance of the IPCC's findings, even though many on that panel are demonstrably not qualified to have a credible opinion on climate change. But feel free to comment on an article disagreeing with it before reading through the data...that does not prove anything.


RE: Misleading article
By clovell on 6/19/2009 11:13:48 AM , Rating: 4
Facts or GTFO, Mick.


RE: Misleading article
By arazok on 6/19/2009 11:24:10 AM , Rating: 3
I could say the EXACT same thing about the IPCC report that you tree huggers run around thumping as if it were the bible.

Regardless of how many hacks may have signed this, I expect this report to be weighed equally.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading article
By arazok on 6/19/2009 12:11:36 PM , Rating: 4
The IPCC report has numerous signatories with questionable expertise on the subject. I could go even further and say that it has numerous authors with questionable experience.

So let’s just compare apples to apples for a second here and say that both reports have questionable people signing them.

If you run around with a paper, signed by thousands of hacks saying that the world is a cube, and you live by its every word. But then I come out with a paper, signed by thousands of hacks, saying that the world is not a cube, it’s a crayon. You can’t dismiss my report saying it was signed by hacks. If you do, it’s what we call “decision-based evidence making”.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/2009 12:23:05 PM , Rating: 1
...what you do is you look at the preponderance of the qualifications of the people who are signatories at a minimum. Are 90% of them (in this case) climate researchers? If so, I am inclined to agree with their claims without a whole lot of further investigation on my part, because I am a big believer in the scientific process. If 5% of them are climate researchers, I have to wonder why in the world 95% of their signatories *aren't* climate researchers, and I'm probably going to be immediately disinclined to believe their conclusions, since it would seem to be suspect right from the get-go. At that point, I'd probably look a bit into their theory myself..."hmmm...these people claim the world is shaped like a burrito...however, essentially everything else shows it is sperical (roughly)." In which case it becomes quite clear that, despite whatever number of signatories they have, their theory is most certainly not worthy of equal consideration.


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 12:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
Motoman, don't do the "group think" thing! Honestly man, read the paper yourself.
How many people support what, that's NOT the issue. The data IS the issue.

I'm not a climatologist, but I CAN read and so can you.

It's just not a defensible position, to say you go along with what you think the majority thinks. Either side will claim majority, so we have to normalize that issue out - it doesn't matter.
What matters is reading the papers and reports for yourself. And not from just one side.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/2009 12:57:49 PM , Rating: 1
...well, if I was a qualified climatologist (or something closely related thereto), I might very well dive into the data and do my own research.

But i'm not. I barely qualify as a scientist at all, having merely a bachelor's in computer science.

The way that science works is that a theory is formed, qualified people gather and evaluate the available data, and decide whether or not the theory is supported by the data. Since I'm not a climatologist, the logical thing for me to do is to decide whether or not the people publishing their research results are actually qualified to do so or not. Hence, the importance of exactly who is a signatory to a given paper.

Would you let let someone with a PhD in Electrical Engineering review the "data" about your lung cancer, and then operate on you to remove it? If it was just about the data...you would. After all, he is a scientist...and doctors are scientists, so it's all good...right?


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 1:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
But you can read, right?

The data isn't that difficult to understand. Some of it is for sure, but enough of it isn't which enables most people to get a good understanding. It's not ALL as complicated as lung cancer - in fact I don't think any of it is as complicated as lung cancer!

If you can still read a graph, that's really all it takes.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 1:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
Right, well, I'm not asking you to DO the research. That would be difficult and complicated indeed!

Reading the results is orders of magnitude easier. Trust me. The fact that you're on this board and you enjoy getting in on the issue and that you're a programmer (or was) shows you have every ability to read the results yourself.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/2009 1:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
...you really don't get this do you?

"Results" are not equal from different groups of people. They don't all carry the same weight. "Results" at the end of a paper on evolution, signed by a group of biologists and paleontologists, is a vastly more important opinion than the "results" penned by a group of theologians who "researched" evolution.

2 papers are not automatically equal. It's extremely important who wrote the paper. This is the point I am trying to make. Why are you having a hard time with this?


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 1:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Because in this case, climatologists WROTE the report.


RE: Misleading article
By omnicronx on 6/19/2009 2:11:40 PM , Rating: 1
You have absolutely no idea what the background of the people that merely read and agreed with the report are, all that you know is that well known climatologists originally wrote this report. From the description, a BSC that studies the effects of warming water temperatures and dolphins would fit into their description of 'in the field', even though someone with no background that has spent some time researching on the internet could be more knowledgeable on the subject.

I'm not saying this is the case, but I really doubt that all 32000 scientists can say they have studied the worldwide effects of c02/other gases and global warming.
A scientist localized in say california may notice vast increases in air temperature from year to year, but that could all be from el nino or el nina. These vast increases/decreases would be nowhere to be found half way across the world. So if both scientists document their findings, is either proof that global warming exists or does not exist?


RE: Misleading article
By Spazmodian on 6/19/2009 3:22:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...I think it's ridiculously more complicated than lung cancer. If climate science were simple, we'd have been able to figure out how to predict the weather with great certainty a long time ago.


It is complicated. The interactions involved are so intricate that we are really only scratching the surface.

Due to the interactions of all the many different aspects you would be REQUIRED to have scientists from practically every field of study in order to get anywhere close to a whole picture. Just as you suggest you are not qualified as a climatologist...how many climatologists are qualified to determine the reaction of plant life to any change they suggest may happen? They aren't.

The whole climate change debate is hilarious, it's like watching a 2 year old explain how a nuclear reactor works.


RE: Misleading article
By Denigrate on 6/19/2009 5:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the UN report has maybe 5% of very biased "scientists" who signed off on teh report, and the rest are hangers on who want to be "in".

AGW is junk science. Period.


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 12:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
Great post arazok.

When it is obvious that there MAY be hacks on either side we need to do what is called "normalization", which means hacks on either side of the issue cancel each other out and so don't matter because you can't tell who's hacks are better or worse.

At that point we need to do something totally HORRIFIC and DREADFUL. We need to actually READ the papers on either side and figure it out for ourselves, without brining our own belief system into the issue.

I wonder if these people are even going and reading the NIPCC report?

It has an executive summary at the beginning of the report that lasts what, 20 pages? So everyone doesn't HAVE to read all 800 pages of it, the summary captures the issue nicely.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/2009 1:00:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At that point we need to do something totally HORRIFIC and DREADFUL. We need to actually READ the papers on either side and figure it out for ourselves, without brining our own belief system into the issue.


That would make perfect sense if you're a climatologist. If you're not...

Someone could present me with all the data in the world about, say, the medical condition of a patient. X-rays, bloodwork, biometrics, etc. Not going to do me any good, and any conclusion I came to would be, at the very best, highly dubious. Might be a better idea to ask a medical doctor instead...


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 1:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
I think you can give yourself a little more credit. You're a smart guy, I remember some of your posts.

You can easily read the Executive Summary of the 800 page NIPCC report, it's around 20 pages and totally accessible for a layman.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/2009 1:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
...and it's also not the "data" - it's the conclusions reached by the signatories based on their analysis of the data. Which is exactly what you should be reading if you are a layman.

The point, though, is that if those 20 pages are accompanied by a group of signatories that have no business doing climate research, then the whole thing is highly suspect. If those 20 pages are accompanied by a group of signatories who are actively involved in climate research and very closely related fields, then their conclusions carry a lot of weight.

Frankly, if I read "The Elegant Universe" and decide that string theory is a bunch of crap...well, that opinion had better not be of any value to anyone. You had better take Brian Greene's opinions on quantum physics a lot more seriously than mine, regardless of whether or not I read the book cover to cover. On the flipside, I have no problem at all reading a manifesto from the Flat Earth Society and calling shenanigans on them. One would hope that you could see the difference there.


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 1:27:06 PM , Rating: 3
If you're going to keep stating that you don't feel you need to read anything, then I think our discussion is over.

Cheers, all the best.


RE: Misleading article
By Screwballl on 6/22/2009 10:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
Looking through the list of replies... that seems to be his whole basis... he goes on about CO2 and Methane and mostly rehashed Al Gore commentary (his whole movie was opinion and commentary, very few -if any- facts)... yet in another post he says he knows nothing about the process or subject... so this is another case of a troll.


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/22/2009 11:21:38 AM , Rating: 2
...and at which point did I say one shouldn't read anything?

It's staggering how people on DT seem to lack basic communication skills.

The entire point of my, er, point, is that it's important to take notice of who the signatories are on a paper. That's it. You people seem to be arguing that it *isn't* important who the signatories are on a paper, such that a paper signed by 1,000 fast food workers should carry as much scientific weight as a paper signed by 1,000 scientists with direct ties to the research in question.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

And as for my example above, I did read "The Elegant Universe" cover to cover. However, I am in no way a competant mathematician or physicist, so any opinion I form about string theory, having read that book, is an opinion that counts to nobody... I suppose you'd argue that if you read that book, and granted that you are also not a mathemetician or physicist, that you would magically be empowered to declare whether or not string theory is "true?"

WTF people?


RE: Misleading article
By BB33 on 6/23/2009 10:24:18 AM , Rating: 2
Moto, are you listening to yourself? you are basically saying the report is not valid at all because the ppl who signed it are not qualified to decide (not the ppl who did the study and made it) and you are not qualified to read the report since you are not a climate guru and hence can not have a stance for either side.


RE: Misleading article
By MrPoletski on 6/30/2009 9:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
Are you listening to him?

quote:
you are basically saying the report is not valid at all because the ppl who signed it are not qualified to decide


No he isn't, learn to read. He said that if it turns out they are signed by fast food workers (an exhaggeration pertaining to the fact scientist does not always equal climate expert and in fact more often does not), then the fact the authors got all these unqualified people to endorse the study is highly suspect. This would effect suspicion of the authors motives and the merit of the study itself.

That is IF it turns out to be endorsed by people incapable of properly endorsing it.

quote:
and you are not qualified to read the report since you are not a climate guru and hence can not have a stance for either side.


Again, learn to read. He said he is not qualified to go through the study and verify all of the mathematics, the models and all that shibang. He said that what the layman needs is a SUMMARY that effectively explains the studies findings. Reading the whole study would leave the layman confused as hell.

I get damn fed up of people who fail to read what's written plainly in front of them and end up thinking the person said something different. How the hell are you supposed to debate with somebody if they can't even get your posistion on a subject right? having such English FAILS as you have here means you can't argue any better than Ann Coulter.


RE: Misleading article
By DB1023 on 6/20/2009 1:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Might be a better idea to ask a medical doctor instead...

That`s exactly what was done here, except now you`re saying the results given by the "medical doctor" are in question because you haven't been given his credentials or for the 30,000 other scientists whom are qualified (according to the article) to review such papers.

Al Gore has no credentials as a climatologist yet everybody believed his story. It's total hypocrisy, the general public believes global warming because it's the trendy thing to do and everyone wants to look like they care. The fact is that any model that shows drastic human interference with climate has been disputed by people equally qualified as those who made it.


RE: Misleading article
By nuarbnellaffej on 6/20/2009 10:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Haha time cube.


RE: Misleading article
By Boze on 6/24/2009 12:59:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's because you're an idiot.

Another paper, having been written, is not automatically worthy of equal consideration. No matter how many hacks have signed it.

I can find plenty of people who will sign a document stating that the world is flat. Should that document be given equal status to the body of science that shows the world is round?

Here's your sign.


You've used this argument before, idiot. The fact is, you want global climate change to be real, for whatever reason. I don't care if its real or not real - or more accurately, I don't care or have any vested interest in knowing if its man-made or naturally occuring. I only want to know, for the sake of knowing. Because if its proven to be completely and totally false, then we can hold governments accountable across the entire globe for waste of taxpayer dollars.

If, on the other hand, scientists can conclusively prove that man has had a significant impact on climate change, and will continue to have a significant impact, then more power to our governments; they actually managed to get it right.


RE: Misleading article
By omnicronx on 6/19/2009 12:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think Mick was agreeing with one or the other, his point was this report is flawed, just as IPCC reports are flawed. Both sides will use whatever tactic necessary to get their point across, when the fact remains that there is no conclusive evidence to prove either theory. A signed document by a bunch of non believers does not change this.


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 12:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both sides will use whatever tactic necessary to get their point across, when the fact remains that there is no conclusive evidence to prove either theory.


Yes, that evil scientific data rearing its head again. Seriously, who even thinks that scientific data should be used to prove or disprove theories?

The way science works is you make a proposition, then believe in it. Data has no place in this.


RE: Misleading article
By arazok on 6/19/2009 12:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. I was making an assumption that he buys into the IPCC view of AGW, as based on his writings, he clearly believes in AGW.


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 11:56:43 AM , Rating: 5
I'm a PhD in astrophysics, currently working jointly for the Canadian Space Agency and Indian Space Research Organization on a new space telescope to be launched next year, called ASTROSAT. I have the requisite scientific training to read.

Only two months ago I was defending AGW theory whenever it came up. Shortly after that I made the DREADFUL scientific mistake of actually reading a few papers criticizing AGW theory - the point of this was so that I could be more informed (gasp) and better defend AGW theory. Well to my surprise I have discovered that the science behind AGW is not all it is cracked up to be - in fact it is non-existent.

The only conclusion I can make about supporting AGW theory, and this is speaking from experience, is that it takes a wilful ignorance of the facts, and a wilful choice NOT to read the criticisms, in order to maintain a faith in AGW theory. As a well trained scientist I can say that there is no other conclusion to make, other than to say that the supposed science supporting AGW theory has some pretty major problems to explain, at the VERY least. My personal scientific opinion on the issue is that AGW theory is total rubbish.

It is dreadful what reading papers does to your brain...it infuses this horrid thing called knowledge. I for one do all my scientific work by NOT reading papers, or visiting the library. I mean what kind of idiot thinks there's "information" in papers and books. Ridiculous I know.
/sarcasm

Jason I wonder sometimes if you have an alter ego called reader1.


RE: Misleading article
By theflux on 6/23/2009 4:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to read a more detailed post hitting some of the major points that changed you from pro to con, if you ever have time to do it.


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 12:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think this report is just skeptics grasping at straws. - Jason Mick


Yes, that's typically what all scientists call data - straws.

Who needs insubstantial "straws of data" when you have a much more reasonable and substantial belief system to fall back on. That's how we launch rockets after all, by believing they will launch!


RE: Misleading article
By Screwballl on 6/19/2009 12:30:30 PM , Rating: 3
ACTUAL scientific work such as this says so much more than a few politicians using skewed and falsified numbers to prove something that really is not there.

How about simple biology?

Plants take in CO2 and release O2. More CO2 means more O2 released (faster growth rate or larger plant), less CO2 means less O2 (slower growth or smaller plant). Simple middle school chemistry/biology.
If the amount of CO2 increases, plants take in more which causes them to respond releasing more O2 to balance it out PLUS they grow faster, which in agriculture means more food faster.

How many people took basic biology in high school? Some of us even did experiments in class pumping CO2 into a mostly sealed container with a potted plant, and within 24-48 hours, the CO2 and O2 had been balanced (within a few percentage points plus or minus) back to what we see in nature. The plants that had a weekly dose of the increased CO2 saw faster growth when compared to those left alone.

I just hope (and soon) that real and proven science takes over politics and wasted taxpayer money VERY soon before we see a dead country due to "trying to save the planet from man".


RE: Misleading article
By Motoman on 6/19/2009 1:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about simple biology?


...how about pulling your head out of your @$$ and realizing that climate change is not simple?

Sure, throw more CO2 at a plant and it grows more. If you stop there, you're an idiot. Throw more CO2 (or methane, or lots of other things) in the air and it traps more heat into the atmosphere...which when viewed as a planetary effect, raises average temperatures. Raising average temperatures increases desertification, causes species loss, melts the poles and causes land loss, so on and so forth.

If you're living above the arctic circle, you might be thinking "warmer weather..sweet!" - but when food crops are failing farther south and the bands of desrtification on either side of the equater are continually expanding, monumentally increasing poverty and starvation worldwide, the fact taht you can turn your heater down a notch in your igloo is a pretty ugly little bit of narcissism.


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 1:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
Motoman, your post here clearly shows you are the one with "your head in your ass", because every single point you brought up here is discussed in the NIPCC report.

It is not as simple as "more CO2 = more heat". If you want to shy away from reading something because you think it might be too complicated, that's fine.

But you can't possibly think it is okay to then go and make arguments from a position of ignorance.


RE: Misleading article
By deanx0r on 6/20/2009 8:30:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Throw more CO2 (or methane, or lots of other things) in the air and it traps more heat into the atmosphere...which when viewed as a planetary effect, raises average temperatures. Raising average


Then you are missing the whole point this debate is about. Does CO2 that we emit as human trap heat? if so, to which extent? Every data aspects lead us to believe that there is correlation, but not causation.

In fact you look more closely at the ice core data, the earth temperature regulates CO2, not the other way around, from the simple fact that oceans act like gigantic CO2 sink and that their absorption rate is affected by temperature.

quote:
when food crops are failing farther south and the bands of desrtification on either side of the equater are continually expanding, monumentally increasing poverty and starvation worldwide, the fact taht you can turn your heater down a notch in your igloo is a pretty ugly little bit of narcissism.


What a fallacious statement.

There is not concrete proof that global warming, anthropogenic or not, will cause your crops to fail or will expand deserts or ocean mass. Those would be the ideas of a Hollywood writer looking impress the mass public with sensationalism of biblical proportion. Read my lips: scare tactics, no scientific method applied.

And while we don't know if global warming will cause poverty or starvation, we definitively know that forcing emerging nations to use clean energies will wipe out their dreams of development that top tier nations are enjoying now. It cripples down their economy by using unreliable, inefficient technologies that are not ready for prime time.

Theoretically, as long as the sun shines, energy is a bottomless well. We are messing up our priorities by not going for the best, cheapest, most efficient, reliable, easiest to access and abundant forms of energy. Alternative energy sources such as solar or wind will take off on their own when conventional energy sources such as coal or oil will be come so scarce that these alternative sources will be a better economical decision. That's not a governmental job to pick up the technology winners. The free market will decide (if it's still free).


RE: Misleading article
By Screwballl on 6/22/2009 10:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...how about pulling your head out of your @$$ and realizing that climate change is not simple?


the pot calling the kettle black... I post real and proven science (aka biology) and you twist it into some Al Gore riddled crap filled reply.

quote:
Sure, throw more CO2 at a plant and it grows more. If you stop there, you're an idiot.
And you are the idiot for even thinking my reply was meant to "stop there".

quote:
Throw more CO2 (or methane, or lots of other things) in the air and it traps more heat into the atmosphere...which when viewed as a planetary effect, raises average temperatures. Raising average temperatures increases desertification, causes species loss, melts the poles and causes land loss, so on and so forth.


Yet my post explained all that, plants (and water) soak up most of the airborne pollutants which is how the planet has always been the one to keep itself balanced. Increased CO2, methane, carbon monoxide or whatever else is floating around is soaked up by plants and water. Al Gore and these alarmists are the ones that have it wrong. Increased CO2 and other gases as you mention, if added raw and without any increased absorption by plants and water will cause increased planetary temperatures... but with the number of large scale forests currently stable or increasing in area covered, this means not only are plants able to soak it up faster but that also means MORE plants to offset the increased CO2 and planetary gases, and keep the temperature balanced or within a few tenths of a degree of normal. More plants means more algae, more small bugs that get eaten by bigger bugs which get eaten by more small animals who get eaten by more larger animals and so on up the list. everyone benefits.
Over the past 100+ years, have we seen the state of Nebraska turn from a grassy plain state into a desert? By your deduction and reasoning, the cow farts which are concentrated Methane should have killed off the plants in the state long ago starving not only themselves but the rest of the animals and plants throughout much of the state and surrounding states... so much for "desertification".


RE: Misleading article
By Grabo on 6/19/2009 1:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
What?? Outrageous!!

Anyway, nice to see mr Slant(masher) is his good old self again, despite the name change.

Realclimate.org is a site that seems fairly solid; actual climate scientists (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10) posting often sarcastic comments to things spread under the cover of 'climate science'.

They write things about the Heartland Institute: "..especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference."

"At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this.We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk.

And some things about this report.. :

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008... >
" In fact this is such a massive regurgitation of standard contrarian talking points and discredited canards, it's obvious that reviewing this would be a herculean task (which is presumably the point - if you can't convince people with actual science, bludgeon them)."

And if you read article the link leads to you'll see the 'report' analyzed a bit more specifically.

But whatever, there is a form of stupidity that simply cannot be cured.


RE: Misleading article
By General Disturbance on 6/19/2009 1:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
When you can't defeat the message, kill the messenger.


RE: Misleading article
By Grabo on 6/19/2009 2:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
Are you insinuating I'm resorting to personal attacks because I can't find a hole in his solid arguments?
You are correct in that my argumentation against Sla- ..Ash.,,mr Andrews articles can become a bit aimed at him at times (always), but that's because he is as one-sided as they come and his tone is..well, memorable, and the environment is something I do care about.

Any mod can feel free to warn me.

You are, however, utterly wrong in not defeating the message. If you wish to refute anything I posted, do so. (But please read it before commenting).

If I misunderstood you completely, well, I apologize, and that's just the nature of textual communication I guess :/


RE: Misleading article
By Grabo on 6/19/2009 2:02:57 PM , Rating: 1
Anyway, my uprates and downrates don't seem to stick. Is there a delay to these things or does Mr Slant control them? The fact that Mick hasn't been downrated to minus yet seems to indicate he doesn't, but who knows. Maybe his powers need more time to gain in strength after the name change,


RE: Misleading article
By Cobra Commander on 6/20/2009 12:24:43 AM , Rating: 1
"ignore the naysayers", right?

The article IS misleading but that does not inherently discredit its content - it only demonstrates the author's obvious bias.

However, apparently to you, and many others, bias=ignorance.

It would be quite the shame if people stopped listening to opposing points of view simply because they disagree. Then again ignoring the opposition is the modern liberal mantra, now isn't it?


RE: Misleading article
By eddieroolz on 6/22/2009 12:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm actually one of those who don't believe in global warming.

The debate's been debated till death, so I won't go into details, but as someone who deeply cared for environment and did everything to conserve (as living in Japan required me to) I do not believe in climate change, none of it. I only try to be environmentally friendly because I recognize that the environment is a very fragile thing.

I think climate change is a bunch of bogus things made by to drive a hidden agenda. By whom, I don't know, but neither do anyone else.

Bottom line, I think the notion that 6 billion of us changes the entire climate is absurd.


RE: Misleading article
By Folk on 6/23/2009 1:49:15 PM , Rating: 1
Retired scientists are in the best position to voice their true concerns. If you're currently employed by NASA or NOAA then your future employment hinges on toeing the company line.


RE: Misleading article
By bdot on 6/19/2009 9:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
And if Al Gore didn't present it on a giant screen in a movie then its not true.

PHD = Professional Hoax Developer


RE: Misleading article
By Major HooHaa on 6/22/2009 12:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
And so the whole debate about global warming, climate change and mankind’s effect on the planet, rages on for another decade with no real solution.

My view is that the human race has altered practically every natural habitat on the planet, shaping them according to our whims and how we think a habitat should look at that particular moment in time.

We have slowly realised that all the processes and habitats on the planet are all interlinked and changes to one will affect larger things like water cycles and the like.

So the fact that we have developed practically every habitat, except the poles... I can't believe that this would have no effect on the planet.

On the flip side of the coin, there are natural processes that affect the earth. Not least is our suns activities.

Also, if we got hit by a doomsday asteroid tomorrow, then our changes to the planet would hardly be noticeable.


LOL at all you skeptics
By KaTaR on 6/19/2009 1:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that report was arranged for and published by the Heartland Institute right? Look it up.

They did the same thing with second hand smoke and tobacco regulation: paid 'scientists' to argue that smoking wasn’t harmful and opposed legislation every step of the way. They actually still do it (check their web site). Because the evidence that smoking is bad for you has become irrefutable in recent times (thanks to improved science) they have changed their argument to 'smokers pay too much taxes'.

Oddly enough, the Heartland Institute has and continues to be heavily funded by the tobacco industry. Now let’s put on our thinking caps for a second. Who has a lot of money and would suffer from efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Hmmm. Would big oil fall into that category?

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Comm...

I can sum it up for: "Exxon-Mobile funneled close to $16 million to a network of 43 ideologically and advocacy groups that seek to manufacture uncertainty about the strong scientific consensus on global warming" ...... "including the Heartland Institute ($560,000)"

Anybody know which corporations are funding the IPCC to produce their reports that global warming is happening




RE: LOL at all you skeptics
By AlexWade on 6/20/2009 9:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
You hit on a very good point, but ignored the big picture. Obviously the Heartland Institute has a financial incentive to say AGW is not real. Conversely, the many people supporting AGW also have a financial incentive for it to be real too.

What we need is science with blind funding. The point of Michael Crichton's book State of Fear was that conclusions of science tend to favor those who fund them. It was stated directly at the end. He was using global warming to illustrate this point. Unfortunately, the lemmings who blindly believe in AGW were so fumed that he sowed doubt that they missed the point altogether. (By the way, I looked up a few of his citations from the book; some were accurate, some were taken out of context and misleading.) To get the truth, science needs to be free of bias. Scientists are human, and like all humans they want to make money and their studies are going to be in line with those who pay the bills. It is just our nature. So we should not tell the scientists where the money is coming from.

Really, the best source of truth about climate change is found by bloggers who study the weather and who welcome debate even if it goes against what they believe. I really like www.climateaudit.org because it gets very technical. I also like www.surfacestations.org too.


RE: LOL at all you skeptics
By Grabo on 6/20/2009 9:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know if it's generally true that scientists tend to come to conclusions that rhyme with the views of those who fund them. I would think that their scope can become rather pinpointy into their field, and that they can certainly hold beliefs of their own, but it doesn't seem reasonable that scientists on the whole can't do science without fear of reprisal and have no integrity to speak of.

(Seems that 'suspect funding'(a lot of money, and from a definitely biased source) is generally a phenomenon of those who chant 'AGW believers, errant church, burn heretics! Burrrrrnnnnn' etc.)

Neither am I certain that 'bloggers who study the climate' are the only true sources of unbiased information.
If I'm to get educated in science, I'd make sure it's by scientists. Which is why I like www.realclimate.org, NASAs climate change site, the NSIDC etc.

So in essence I agree with you, that we need to think about where we can find something resembling truth, I do not on the other hand think scientists=politicians.


RE: LOL at all you skeptics
By KaTaR on 6/24/2009 3:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
"You hit on a very good point, but ignored the big picture. Obviously the Heartland Institute has a financial incentive to say AGW is not real. Conversely, the many people supporting AGW also have a financial incentive for it to be real too"

... OK, so tell me then, which corporations are paying the IPCC? Which individuals? I looked pretty hard and it looks to me like they are funded by a number of goverments (through the UN) and do not have to answer to any 'customer groups'. Looks very close to you 'blind funding' to me.
The NIPCC and Heartland on the other hand, is funded directly by a number of oil companies, tobacco companies, and conservative special interest groups. How you lump them together? They are completely different.


RE: LOL at all you skeptics
By KaTaR on 6/24/2009 3:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
Anything coming out of the NIPCC / Heartland Insitute and this obivously one-sided blog is not to be trusted as 'science'. Its funded by special interest groups and coportations that have a vested interest in blocking anything that threatens their source of income. The conclusions coming out of these organizations always reflect that, always. Next time something purported to be impartial 'science' comes out on this blog, I suggest you look into who created and funded the report befeore taking taking the conclusions at face value.

It's the same thing as this shameful practice:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601127&si...


how many???
By Screwballl on 6/19/2009 12:09:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Backed by 31,7648 U.S. Scientists


wow 31,7648 is a big number /end sarcasm/

I know its just a typo




who determined change is bad?
By kattanna on 6/19/2009 10:17:50 AM , Rating: 2
so who determined that the climate changing is a "bad" thing that we must now stop at all costs?

seriously? where is it stated with 100% fact that all this change is bad?




By howi on 6/19/2009 12:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Really, I think human activities may have certain level of impact on the environment but I also think that our very existence is just a tiny fraction in the overall history of Earth. There are far too many unexplored, unknown items to us in this universe.

As for Dr. S. Fred Singer, we can all read his resume here and there but check this blog back in 2006 for more details on his "connections" to the tobacco, oil industry... http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-... Granted, Dr. Singer has a point that all researches in this scale must have funding from somewhere - be it government/NGOs or industry lobbies/PR. But could both side be impartial to their findings without any agenda?




Numerical Models
By drilloil on 6/20/2009 10:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
Atmospheric Numerical Models

The prediction of catastrophic global warming is largely based upon the projections of extremely complicated atmospheric models attempting to model the entire planet with equations and data relationships that at best are only marginally understood.

Atmospheric models divide the entire earth into a 3 dimensional grid blocks and find numerical solutions to partial differential equations that are created by calculating the relationship and effects of one block to each block around it. This is further complicated by the relationship of the grid blocks that are next to “phase changes” for want of a better term. The gaseous atmosphere block’s relationship that is in contact with the ocean (liquid phase) or land mass (solid phase) or the edge of space (no phase?) is at best poorly understood. Since a minor error affects the entire calculation of the model then if one relationship on energy exchange is in error then the entire model becomes suspect. To date none of the models that laymen often use to support their conclusion has been able to history match actual results. When the models are taken back to 1900 and actual data is input virtually every model predicts that current temperatures should be 4-6 degrees centigrade higher than we currently experience. The models are then manipulated changing the equations and relationships to force a match that may or may not have scientific reality. In short one model may change the energy from the sun to a lower level in order to reduce temperature in order to get a history match, then use the model with this error to project forward leaving the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide the same, while it may be more logical to reduce the effect of CO2 to make the model history match. There are a myriad of relationships of this nature that can be adjusted in the models from changing the effect of cloud cover both a heat retention blanket or as a sunlight reflective agent. Minor changes in the equations can have a dramatic effect on the models predictions. In short, one can make these models predict anything the modeler wants and yet still appear to be reasonable, because the models are so complicated and the relationships between cells particularly at the phase transition boundaries are largely unknown.

If this isn’t complicated enough, throw in non-linear discontinuous variables such as volcanic eruptions, sunspot cycle variations, deforestation, re-forestation, etc and the models even if reasonably able to predict a linear progression now have no chance of being any thing close to reality.

Nevertheless, these model results are currently being used to scare the world into economic chaos under the presumption that they are reliable predictors of things to come. The people that apparently believe the predictions constantly find data to support their conclusion and ignore anything that doesn’t support their conclusion whether it matches the model or not. Then the model creator as stated previously adjusts the model to fit the data that makes sure to predict catastrophe.




Is it?
By DB1023 on 6/20/2009 4:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone realized that aside from AGW theory being accurate or not, and arguing over whether or not something needs to be done... No one is really doing anything about it anyway.




I'm pro-AGW and still agree
By Mint on 6/22/2009 12:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
I believe AGW is happening and think denialists have their head in the sand, but I support almost all the points brought up here. AGW is NOT going to be catastrophic in any way, and any evidence suggesting this is far too loose.

Even with that report about AGW killing 300,000 people a year, my primary response is not that the methodology is flawed (which it is), but instead I'm thinking, "That's it?" The amount of money needed to reduce AGW by 10% (and probably save 30,000) could save tens of millions of lives if used in smarter ways. It's a joke that we haven't done so already, but that's another topic...

The only point I disagree with is:
quote:
•Real-world observations do not support the IPCC’s claim that current trends in climate and weather are “unprecedented” and, therefore, the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Nobody has come up with any evidence that suggests >0.5 degrees in a century is normal or has even happened before. Of course, maybe some other IPCC weather claims are indeed bunk, in which case I agree.




By omgwtf8888 on 6/24/2009 4:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
The weatherman with all of the advanced modeling, historical tracking and computerized gadgets can't tell me what is going to happen tomorrow.

Now a climatololgist is going to tell me what is going to happen in 20,50,100,1000 years??? Heck no!

The reason there is so little consensus is because there is no way to forcast global warming or cooling.

Our estemed scientists just can't admit that anything they really do not know. There are so many variables, and so much undocumented history, that future can range from one extreme to another. Who knows maybe we need some global warming to stave off that next ice age.

Should we control pollution? YES!
Should we control population? YES!

Baby steps people... we have done well reducing pollution on cars and factories. Lets get an effective alternative source of electricity and we can take the next baby step.




Lets check the sources
By joshualross on 6/24/2009 10:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
Dr. Craig D. Idso
"Craig Idso (also referred to as Craig D. Idso) is the Chairman of the Board, founder and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an Arizona-based global warming skeptics group that has been funded in part by ExxonMobil."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_I...

Dr. S. Fred Singer
"In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred...

Credibility FAIL!




Slipping in adverts huh?
By MrPoletski on 6/30/2009 9:02:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...leave the nation $9.4 trillian poorer.


Thought you slip in your favourite IM client by 'accident'

Thought we wouldn't notice?

well I'm buying trillian now...

/sarcasm




NIPCC
By Skeptic of Skeptics on 7/3/2009 11:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
NIPCC is not independent; it is in the pocket of the oil and automotive industries. I can't take any organization seriously, if it is funded by companies that would lose profit due to the proposed Global Warming legislation. Of course, these industries would be backing an organization that attempts to refute human impact on the planet.

But I am all about the free market; environmentally conscious companies are just trying to ensure they have a future consumer base. What's wrong with a little foresight?




Talk is cheap
By AlmostExAMD on 6/19/2009 11:04:36 PM , Rating: 1
Do we sit back and do nothing?
Regardless if man is or isn't causing significant change,
Everything has an effect no matter how small it may be it adds up.
1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will be diagnosed with cancer,What is causing this?
I don't remember cancer being this rampant through out history, Do we sit back and do nothing or take action.
Doesn't hurt to clean up our act in terms of pollution,Far more money is wasted on other bullshit research,programs that do nothing.
Nothing lasts forever,To think that we don't have any impact at all on the planet is just absurd and ignorant!
I'm sure the Earth manages it'self and cleans up over time,But that's just it, TIME.
We are so rapidly changing the face of this planet that it doesn't have that time to adjust, For example look at the extinction rate that is taking place,Animals have less and less habitat left to live in as humans demolish forests to make way for houses or farmland.
The point is sea levels are rising,Mans fault or not if we do nothing there will be hundreds of millions of refugees around the globe,That will effect us all in some way. Some countries will not be able to cope with the influx of people leading to destabilisation.
The point I am trying to make is everything on this planet is interconnected,To say we have no effect in the slightest is just idiotic.




Moronic.
By astralsolace on 6/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Moronic.
By mandrews on 6/19/2009 10:29:33 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
We know you really, really, really, really don't want to change behaviors that could very well lead to calamity, Michael. We get it.


My issue is with imposing punitive costs upon citizens to combat a threat which there is substantial proof doesn't even exist. Why don't we charge the citizens thousands to fight the Yeti, Krakens, or the Loch Ness monsters while we're at it?

Also, the hypocrisy of climate alarmists is astounding. Do you practice what you preach? Have you given up meat in your diet? Do you ride a bike to work instead of drive?

quote:
Typical "Findings BEFORE Facts" garbage that the neoconservatives used to justify the Bush Administration's doctoring of scientific reports for the previous eight years. Piss off.


Err... it was Hansen's NASA that was caught doctoring reports in support of AGW theory, not the other way around. Don't try to skew the facts.


RE: Moronic.
By astralsolace on 6/19/2009 10:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Moronic.
By mandrews on 6/19/2009 12:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
Err... I see nothing here worth criticizing.

A White House aid made 181 edits to memos? Isn't that part of the job description? He deleted the sentence "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" -- so?

This sounds like paranoid conspiracy theorization, designed to trumpet the climate alarm. None of the accusations leveled against Phil Cooney accuse him of altering data in a scientific study or drawing misleading conclusions -- which James Hansen of the GISS and other scientists working under him have consistently done in support of their flawed AGW theory.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki