Not at all. But jump in head first as usual, lol. There is historical data that warming is happening, sure. If you'd read my post instead of knee jerking (with the emphasis on jerk) you'd see that. To say the "historical data" establishes how fast this will happen, whether it is man made or not, and what the impacts will be is, to be fair, utterly false and purposely misleading. It's the exact problem a growing number of scientists who were part of the IPCC are having with the final report. Yep, go back to sleep. The best way to determine something is to ask questions. Why anyone would put the question of consensus aside is hard to understand since the whole of the IPCC credibility is staked on consensus, genius.
"Growing number" - well this should be easy since it's empirical. Growing means increasing right? Do you have the numbers on the net support for the IPCC's report over time? Can you show me a groundswell of GW denialists who were former IPCC members. I am not talking btw about somebody who claims surface albedo will differentiate the temperature by .5 degrees over a shorter time period or something like that - I'm talking all in GW-denial.
The thread is about the IPCC's conclusions on global warming. Further, Max said: "What do we do with this? The people quoted in this story are a helluva lot smarter than I am. I'm led to believe this issue is "settled." That man is causing global warming and that it will be catastrophic...perhaps sooner than later." Those are the exact issues I outlined above, not people who say 100% that GW isn't happening at all. Maybe you should read the thread starter before you start mouthing off and trying to bully people with strawmen. The original article states: The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. To be fair, there were many more scientists involved overall in the IPCC (not just the policy report summary), but in comparison to even several thousand as part of the original IPCC, 650 is not a small number.
I seen a study that says 90+% of humanity beleives in some 'God' type figure Can we definately conclude that God Exists? I can tell you the percentage of people that KNEW the world was flat was pretty high too Rocket River . . .just a casual observer in the Lab Coat battles
How many of those 650 scientists were on the IPCC though - that's what I asked. This list is just 650 random people many of whom are arguably not scientists or at least not in a field that would get them in the IPCC's door. YOu claim that a "growing number" of IPCC people are running for the exits - I see the same GW Deniers cited time and time again. PS - where the hell are these scientists and what are their names. I am clicking through the links in this Inhofe thing and it takes me to random blogspot links or other weird non-science sites like this. http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808...ured-at-international-scientific-meeting.html dating back to August under the link "see full report here" This does not seem like something that merits yours or Max's imprimatur.
The point is. . . the nature of Science is to Grow and contract an Idea starts out small . . . grows to universal acceptence then a New Idea comes alone .. . and the previous one becomes smaller and so on . . and so on ie Phrenology was started by some crackpots it grew to be a widely accepted ideal then some new crackpots said Phrenolgy was a bunch of poppy **** which then becamse the knowledge of the day In the world of Pure Science the size of the counter argument or number of those arguing it . .. it irrelevent only the quality of the Argument So . . pointing out it is only 600 scientist . . . is irrelevent Attack the Data . .not the Scientist . . .not the number of scientist ATTACH THE DATA! Rocket River
I wish we could reframe the 'global warming' issue as one of trashing and thrashing the earth; our home. I don't see how making tons of waste can be good for our planet or us. I tend to think global warming is a polemic that doesn't allow people to come together and try to clean the planet up.
"GW deniers" is another strawman. Why don't you cut it out? It doesn't strengthen your argument as you are well aware and is fairly annoying. As for the total number of the 650 who were members of the IPCC, I don't know. I do know from the first IPCC release onward it has been presented exactly as you do, which is that no reproach or inquiry was/is welcome. We know that many scientists have disputed that conclusion and that those number include scientists that participated in IPCC (ie those who are also included in the numbers when someone writes "thousands of scientists conclude"). Certainly, let's get better data on who and how many. But let's also stop being dismissive since there are serious questions about everything that comes after "it's getting warmer."
OK I'm looking at this list from INhofe of 400 "prominent" scientists and I see quite a few people who don't fit that definition by any means: Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont. * Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta (* Note: Swaters later recanted his signature on the open letter) Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist This is just a small sample too of people who are obvously not prominent climate scientists at first glance. There are probably many more people w/fancy sounding tenures on this list who are complete lunatics or otherwise dubious.
I have a feeling that I agree with your feeling about global warming (see my earlier post) but your arguments are crap. Phrenology was widely accepted? Come on!
Economist can Thrash through Stats for statistical Errors or biases - don't matter what the stats are. computer Scientist can tell a bad computer model . . . bad programming [garbage in garbage out] Chemist . . .should know something about chemical interactions . . even if they happen in the clouds you dismissing a meteorologist? Rocket River
Hey anyone who says global warming is not happening let me ask you. Do you believe water shortages in the future are real? Do you believe farmland is shrinking? Do you believe the population is increasing? If so then you also agree that we should do whatever we can to avoid these problems. Those solutions are right in step with the global warming people so get on board for the big win!
No it's not a strawman - it's the the term used to refer to the cottage industry surrouding GW denial which usually features the same few people making the same few arguments. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Global+warming+denier
yes because Meterology and climate science are different things. Meteorology is largely focused on weather in every day parlance but in theory can focus on anything to do with atmospheric science. Climate science is far more focused on the relevant issues to this discussion. The rest of your post, with all due respect, sucks.
Here's another funny post about the GW deniers and their Snopes-like rapidly growing number - which is fabricated. http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/30/global-warming-deniersdenied/ Hayes are you ready to rely on 650 scientists? When it gets down to 250 wll you abandon ship? 200? 150? 100? I need a chart guys of how many scientists you need since numbers are so important according to you guys, Inhofe, etc.
Climatology is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time,[1] and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences. Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting. Meteorological phenomena are observable weather events which illuminate and are explained by the science of meteorology. So . .One studies Weather. .. another the history of Weather You trying to tell me. . .that someone who studies the weather could not POSSIBLY have anything to say about the historical perspectives of weather? Rocket River
This quote I found to be rather bothersome: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Does this mean that scientists could be 'pressured' by lobbyists to give a certain type of feedback on GW? I have heard of plenty of cases in the past where scientists publicly spoke out against powerful interest groups then immediately lost their grants/funding. If so, then it's going to be difficult to determine where the top scientists really stand on this issue.
I'm late to the party on this one, but here's my two cents: People have been arguing whether man is causing this or not for how many years now? If it was simply approached from a "Didn't your mother teach you better? Don't be wastful! Clean up after yourself!" aspect, we'd be a LOT farther ahead than we are today. Instead, we've wasted years upon years arguing whether it's all our fault or a natural occurrence which, in my opinion, are two separate issues, and not much has gotten done. Two things are going on here: 1) humanity is wasteful, and needs to do something about it and 2) global warming is happening. We can definitely do something about one of those things and hopefully, that one thing will improve the other. Thankfully, the greener amongst us has prevailed and people are more mindful today than they've ever been. I don't care whether we are causing it, per se. I just want us to be clean and responsible and stop trashing the planet.
