Global Warming no consenses

[Black wallnut]

News release: Large list of Scientists dispute man-caused global warming!
Just more evidence on the side of there are many in the science field that do not think global warming is caused by man.

[TB Roye]

While I do not doubt man has caused some problems with the enviroment. I feel that the global warming is more from the natural cycle of warming and cooling the Earth has gone through for Billions of years. Some of our learned brethern have to justify their jobs by comming up with some of this stuff. Al Gore getting the Peace Prize, fine The Nobel Peace prize thing has turned into a Joke in a lot of instances.

Tom

[pierhogunn]

Global Warm Periods have always equaled times of peace and prosperity, the Renaissance was the last great warming period.

it's these global cool downs that screw you up

[ragswl4]

The current computer model used to predict global warming cannot accurately predict previous weather patterns when historical data is used by that model. DUH! Mankind has been recording weather patterns for probably less than a thousand years. And how old is the earth?

[p8ntblr]

I don't think there has ever been a consensus on this subject, regardless of what Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, etc would like you to believe.

[JSUPreston]

TB, I'm with you. Yes, we could and should do better jobs of taking care of the earth, but I honestly feel that we're in a cycle. Wasn't in the '70s that they were worried about a new ice age? I don't remember for sure...I was wearing diapers at the time.

[RayintheUK]

Just more evidence on the side of there are many in the science field that do not think global warming is not caused by man.

Aren't there too many "not"s in there? Thanks for the link - AT LAST, some common sense. I'm absolutely sick of the lack of balance, scientific reason and all the media hype on this "issue." In the UK, you're considered either heretic or lunatic if you don't agree with the roller-coaster method of introducing what is becoming another method of taxation - by fear.

Ray

[Black wallnut]

Aren't there too many "not"s in there? Thanks for the link - AT LAST, some common sense. I'm absolutely sick of the lack of balance, scientific reason and all the media hype on this "issue." In the UK, you're considered either heretic or lunatic if you don't agree with the roller-coaster method of introducing what is becoming another method of taxation - by fear.

Ray

Duh good catch I've just fixed it.

[Russianwolf]

Yes there are natural cycles? But I think we have helped the cycle along since the dawn of the industrial revolution. How much? who can say.


Paraphrased from George Carlin:

The Earth doesn't need saving. The earth will be here long after we are gone. We need saving. The earth will fix itself. It may take 10000 years, but the earth will go back to "normal" after we're gone.

The earth will treat us like a bad case of fleas. One day it will give a good shake and we'll be gone.

[ChrisD]

Global Warm Periods have always equaled times of peace and prosperity, the Renaissance was the last great warming period.

Dan, I'd sure love to see some evidence of that peace and prosperity thang...

[LCHIEN]

one thing that is sure is that the earth has gone through many changes and as much as we like the way it is now (current conditions lead to the ascendancy of man) its going to change. Over time many creatures have evolved and become extinct.
Natural events have been climate changers. volcanos, meteors, etc.
While we have only been here the blink of an eye in geological time, the earth is not a stable place that we think of it based on our short experience. It been cold and hot and will likely be so again. The earth will be here for millions of years more. Man might not. All we can do it try to evolve ourselves faster with our intelligence and try to beat the odds.

[Slik Geek]

Three clues that you should be skeptical that mankind has caused global warming:

The adherents appeal to a consensus to stifle debate. True science welcomes debates and alternative theories. That is how breakthroughs occur and science progresses. "Consensus" is another way of saying that the data doesn't uphold the conclusion, so you are appealing to another means of convincing people to accept your theory. (If the data makes one's point, there is no need to appeal to a "consensus"). True science appeals to repeatable, verifiable facts to make its case; not deeply held conclusions.

Articles on man-caused global warming use strong language to make their case, but are woefully weak on data. They use statements like “Over the past 20 years, evidence that humans are affecting the climate has accumulated inexorably…” (If the data doesn't make your case, insult the intelligence of those who have a different opinion). Rather than show the compelling data, they just provide compelling prose. (They do show lots of simulations, but simulations are not facts, they are one's interpretation of reality).

Believers in man-caused global warming avoid analysis (or even simple graphs) of natural cycles of warming and cooling over the past hundred years or so (or previous centuries). That simple collection of data blows big holes in their conclusions - and they find it difficult to explain away. Instead, they ignore this fundamental data and selectively choose portions that help support their conclusions. (BTW: The believers in man-caused global warming avoid showing the raw temperature data that has been collected over the past 130 years. They avoid revealing that the data they build their theories on is "adjusted" - guess which way? Hint: the adjustment aids their case that temperatures have warmed in recent years).

[jackellis]

I'm one of the skeptics, too. Having worked with computer models, I know how notoriously sensitive they are to assumptions, and how easily they can be misinterpreted. We don't have enough good data. And we sure don't understand much about the role of the oceans in regulating atmospheric CO2 content and in storing and releasing thermal energy. However for the time being, I'd have to say that battle is over.

However, I can give you a couple of good reasons why we still ought to be doing *some* of the things the global warming advocates suggest. The auto companies should be producing much more efficient vehicles because oil isn't forever. It will run out someday, even if that day is beyond our lifetimes. I, for one, also don't like the idea that we're propping up at least a half dozen morally bankrupt regimes and in the process, bankrupting ourselves. If you realized how much money you send to Venezuela and Iran with every fillup, you'd be appalled.

All the junk put cars put into the air also shows we're dumber than dogs. They know better than to foul their own nests, but we don't?

It's not unlike regulations to control sulfur oxide emissions from power plants. costs money, but anyone with asthma is probably happier now than they would have been in late 18th century England.

[LinuxRandal]

I have proven to myself that we can and do affect our climate, and can HELP ALONG global warming, but there was both some discussion and a correction by NASA some time back. NASA showed they had their data wrong, and it put the hottest time in the USA towards the dust bowl era; they also had data from having a rover on Mars, showing its temperature had increased by something as high as five degrees over the last few years. I still haven't seen evidence that Mars has a living population to contribute to their environment.
Doesn't mean that we don't waste enough resources to both be a threat to OUR national security (both due to middle east factors, and the Chinese rise of energy use factors), and help contain any excess heat the sun generates.
Yet extremes from both groups, seem to think we will believe that only one or the other is a factor.

[Tequila]

Seems to me that there's defitely some climate change caused by us. Whether it's as big an amount that some people claim or not is definitely up for debate.

I've come to the opinion that I'm pretty comfortable with the current temperatures around here. If temps are going up because of something we're doing, then I'm interested in slowing that temperature rise.

However if temps are going up naturally, and not because of something we're doing, then we're in much worse shape than the climatologists think, because they can ban everything and it'll still keep getting warmer.

Either way, it seems responsible to try and make some changes over the coming years.