Well believe whatever, I guess. On page 34 of that IPCC report, you see a mean little graph with rising avg temps: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/SYRspm.pdf Or you can, accept that the IPCC report was not scientifically sound (per some prof at MIT's Sloan school): http://www.heartland.org/environment/jun01/ipcc.htm Which, I guess, doesn't mean that the IPCC is wrong, but just that the report is flawed so we still cannot draw a conclusion from it.
man the last thing that will happen is global cooling, the weather channel jusr said that the temp has risen a lot.
Or you can, accept that the IPCC report was not scientifically sound (per some prof at MIT's Sloan school): http://www.heartland.org/environment/jun01/ipcc.htm This is from the above report: "Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, told a standing-room only audience at a briefing sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition in the U.S. Senate Environment Committee Room, that the IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. " How ironic since the Cooler Heads Coalition is a subgroup of the National Consumer Coalition, which is made up of industry and conservative sponsored faux consumer groups. One of the "guiding principles" of the NCC is: "Government policies that restrict consumer choice and stifle competition harm consumers by substituting policymakers’ values for individual values and raising the costs of goods and services to consumers. " In other words, what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Some of the groups making up the NCC include: Americans for Tax Reform run by Grover Norquist Capital Research Center, which counts among its Board of Trustees one Edwin Meese, disgraced Reagan Attorney General and now serving the Heritage Foundation. Citizen's for a Sound Economy, which includes on it's Board of Directors Walter Williams, the conservative economist who subs for Rush sometimes, C. Boyden Gray, andDavid Padden who also serves on the Board at the Cato Institute. Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose Board members also serve at the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Frontiers of Freedom Institute, which is funded primarily by Exxon-Mobil. I could go on. The fact that the above report was held in a Senate Hearing Room should mean nothing as Rooms are used for political get-togethers after the regular committee work is done. I bet there were no Democratic Senators at the meeting. Finally, the good doctor from MIT has written numerous policy papers for the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute. He charges $2,500 a day to consult for fossil fuel companies. Some of his trips to Washington to testify before committees have been paid for by Western Fuels — a coal mining company. He is a paid lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry. Here's the skinny on some of the other scientific deniers of Global Warming: FRED SINGER. Singer trades on his academic credentials as a Professor in the University of Virginia and a former director of the US Weather Satellite Service. Despite this he has not had a single article accepted for any peer-reviewed scientific journal for 15 years. Singer's main line of argument is that satellite temperature measurements show no increase in global temperatures. He shows no interest in accepting recent explanations for this discrepancy. He admits to having received direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. Exxon is also among the funders ($10,000 in 1998 alone) of his academic sounding front organization the "The Science and Environment Policy Project". Singer also has close links with the Rev Moon (leader of the Moonie cult) and his rabid right wing newspaper the Washington Times in which his articles regularly appear. He also writes for the far-right climate denying Hoover Institute, and the New American, journal for the extremist John Birch Society. PATRICK MICHAELS Dr. Michaels is a Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute's Environment and Natural Resources Program. His research has received direct funding from, among others, Western Fuels ($63,000) German Coal Mining Association ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and Cyprus Minerals ($440,000), a major funder of anti-environmental campaigns. Tom Wigley, one of the leading IPCC scientists, describes Michaels work as "a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation". Michaels produces a newsletter "World Climate Report" sent free to every member of the Society of Environmental Journalists. ROBERT BALLING. Dr. Balling published an influential denial book "The Heated Debate" in 1992 which was translated into Arabic and distributed to the heads of OPEC. Between 1991 and 1995 he (and his accomplice Dr Sherwood Idso, see below) received $300,000 in funding from coal and oil organizations, amongst them the British Coal Corporation ($75,000), the German Coal Mining Association ($80,000) and the Kuwaiti Foundation for the Advancement of Science ($48,000) There is defintiely an undercurrent of political dogma and economics driving the naysayers.
No I just didn't remember the field within science that the majority were from. All 70's expertise is in science. Or it could be the same evidence. For example: warming warms the poles, hence warming, which currently are too cold to snow. A small change in temp can affect that, increasing snowfall and starting the glaciation you see in an Ice Age. Warming = cooling. SO - there is data that the world is warming, there is data that the world is cooling. See?
I think this is pretty funny. You see the same charges of reduced confidence levels in any situation where claims are made to a 'scientific consensus.' In fact (you guys are going to think I'm crazy) but my original thesis was on the similarities between the 'consensus' within the scientific community about global warming (specifically the effects of the original IPCC report) and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (specifically the EPA Report which summarized several studies and was NOT peer reviewed as normally defined - sound familiar to what Lindzen is saying?). Further I explored both the financial motives behind doomsaying and the chilling effect an announced 'consensus' has on research. In the end the evidence in support of warming was so overwhelming, even excluding the IPCC Report, that I cut it out and went with the ETS consensus, which was much more in doubt. Warming is happening folks. It may not kill us tomorrow, but it coming and we need some action.
hmmm... I'm wondering how many of you argue vehimently actually know time series statistics/econometrics, the unit root problem and small sample problem, not to mention the problem of noise reduction, control group, and ultimately the possibility of spurious regression if you want to contribute it to industrial activities.... Politics.
I'm not saying that HayesStreet's theory is necessarily wrong. What I AM saying is that we really don't know as much as some scientists would lead us to believe. How long have we had the technology that allows us to see the ozone layer? Did we ever see the ozone layer without a hole in it? I think the answers to these questions would be pretty instructive. Another point is that a lot depends on how resiliant you believe this planet is. Despite our best efforts, we haven't destroyed it yet. Trust me...we've tried.
Yes, its a large range. Partly from reading different sources. Partly from significant deviation. Its dificult to assign blame when you can't separate the causes except in labs that can't recreate the exact conditions.
I personally believe that strongly, but I am surprised by the uncertainty in the scientific community.
Two books are instructive here: Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris by Richard Kluger The Heat Is on: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-Up, the Prescription by Russ Gelbspan The first is a great history of tobacco and smoking that also tells how the tobacco companies pushed psudo-science and funded "legitimate research" that ended up supporting their position and thus confounding and confusing folks while giving their water carriers language to make the case against the public health concerns of smoking and second-hand smoke. This is a strategy those who tend to profit from the current greenhouse gas sector of the economy seem to have employed. The second is a book that has been attacked fiercely by those who have a stake in the denial of global warming. However, these attacks have only come in regards to the science Gelbspan quotes while the real focus of the book shows the concerted effort to counter scientific findings that support global warming through misinformation and PR strategies that play up the real uncertainties within climatology without putting those uncertainties in context or accepting new data that removes those uncertainties. Both are worth the read.
Somewhat related, but... Ice Age? Tens of thousands of years ago? Neanderthals? Large time scales? Dare I say....EVOLUTION?!? I didn't think conservatives bought into the idea that the earth was anything more than a few thousand years old, much less the theory of evolution or anything related to it. Just kidding, just thought I'd land a light jab just for fun. (a light jab is all the firepower I've got)
Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! Excell... (echo) I've managed to shut down another thread! And I didn't even need administrative priviliges to do it either!
