The thing is, the side we are hearing in the media is the side that includes the vast majority of the scientific evidence generated by the vast majority of scientists in the field, who agree that AGW is a big problem that will only get bigger as we ignore it.
So since we addressed them years ago, does that make it case closed? No new science or revelations to consider?
I agree that some of them haven't behaved in an ethical, I will also point out the people who hacked those emails didn't either, that said there is still a lot of other evidence out there supporting the idea of anthropogenic warming. The evidence called into question, rightly so, only forms a small part of the evidence supporting the theory. We've already had and still continue to have an ongoing multi-trillion dollar redistribution of wealth. At the moment a lot of that wealth is going out of country and to many country who aren't exactly the most trustworthy. Any major change in industry will redistribute wealth so a switch to non-emitting renewable energy sources will just as a switch from steam engines to internal combustion redistributed wealth. That is the nature of progress and in the long run this will benefit us greatly even without global warming. Damaged science how? Scientific scandals and debunking isn't new and science is always being scrutinized and revised. Remember the two Utah scientist who claimed to have discovered cold fusion? Since you brought it up if science was so close minded and corrupt as you portray it then Global Cooling would be still the prevailing theory. As I said before there is always uncertainty about science and I agree with you that it needs to be conducted openly with a healthy dose of skepticism. The situation now though is that this is an area where science directly affects policy. IN this case given what the science is currently showing us why risk not doing anything when there are tons of benefits even if it does end up that the anthropogenic global warming is wrong.
I certainly have no more intention of deferring to B-Bob on the question of Anthropogenic Global Warming than I do to you. Both of you guys are as biased and slanted on this issue as anyone can ever possibly be. You can be certain that I have no more confidence or trust in either of you two on this topic than I do in Al Gore, Michael Moore, or Phil Jones over at the CRU. But for the record, at no point have I insisted that the warming since the last ice age has been steady. This is just a straight up fabrication that you are offering here. Bob's hypotheses about the exact timing of the shorter term warming and cooling events you mentioned are just that - hypotheses and nothing more. But whatever the shorter term variations were that occurred from 12,000 years ago until now, there were constant variations and changes. On that point I do concur. Your self-serving choice of 1700 as the year that you begin you most recent analysis of a warming trend should also be noted. How convenient that you did not choose the year 1000, or some time around then. Of course, if you had chosen this earlier date, you would have needed to take into account the medieval warming period, which would have required you to observe that temperatures are actually cooler now than they were then. In that case, you would not have been discussing a warming trend, but a cooling trend. If you were willing to be honest about it, that is. Which, unfortunately, AGW advocates so frequently are not.
false false and false.. all the above statements are false. The only scientists you are hearing from are the ones funded by Grants from various govt and the IPCC.
No it just means repeating it to hardcore denialists whose belief is born out of politics is pointless - when one thing is debunked you just move on to the next one. This board is replete with examples of basso or somebody trumpeting "professor so-and-so says THIS!!!! OMG!!!!" then somebody prints the professor's retraction or disavowal of the very same statement. Does basso say "wow, well I genuinely believed this professor, i hereby recant?" No...of course not. YOu guys just bring up the next flunky from Western Sheepf-ck State U, publishing in third rate journals and funded by BP, and cite him as your scientific muse. Shut up already. In general of course, GW denialists and those that love them on this BBS have no problem espousing illogical contradictory positions - GW denialists like to simultaneously argue that (1) GW is not happening and we are in a new ice age (2) GW is happening anyway but it's not manmade (3) GW is being caused by solar flares or (4) GW is happening but we can't stop it. It's impossible for all of the above to logically be true, yet the same individuals propound all of the theories simultaneously. Why? Because they are doing it for politics, not becuase they are making an informed judgment. Look - I've said this many many times - I'm not wedded to any scientific agenda. I would be happy if global warming was false or magically reversed itself - it would be a great relief. Most scientists would probably concur. Losing a bit of grant money > catastrophic climate change However, as a rational observer, I believe guys like James Hansen and the scientific mainstream on this, they have the credibility and have been able to outline a relatively logical consistent theory since day 1, something that the GW denialists have never been able to do.
LOL at your being a rational observer. Your mind is set and is closed on any data that contradicts what you believe. That is fine if you choose to believe so. But I have provided lots of compelling data, articles and links to other sources that make very valid points. Your responses all have resorted to mockery and name calling. You have answered nothing and provided nothing of value to debate. Who says they are the scientific main stream? Just because some news station gives them coverage? Because that news station is owned or affiliate with GE? who has a whole lot to gain from this. Anyways I am not going into conspiracies here but there are different motives involved and the science is far from being clear cut or settled. I have never once on here argued or stated for a fact Global Warming definitely isnt happening. But the science behind that man is causing it is bogus and its starting to get out there. Why do you think we haven't heard anything about Copenhagen lately? Why is Global warming last on Americans priority list? It is because the truth is slowly getting out there. I have described in very easy to understand terms about the whole argument Global Warming supporter base their whole scientific argument on and that is more CO2 = HIGHER TEMPERATURES. what have you ignored this data that CO2 has been rising but TEMPERATURES HAVE BEEN IN DECLINE???? The whole relationship between CO2 and Temperatures is broken right there. Now could it be that these people could just be wrong. Again the founder of the Global Warming theory Roger Revelle himself admitted he could have been wrong about the whole thing. If he can admit to that then why cant you? Just because you heard some news report or Al Gore or whoever say its true. Well if that is how you choose to believe then okay. But don't resort to the name calling or mockery. You are only making yourself look bad. Thanks
All I had to do was go to the Roger Revelle wiki page to see the level of distortion you are urging. A few things became apparent: 1. He died in 1991 when he made this alleged statement that he was unsure if drastic measures were justified then. Guess which way the TWENTY YEARS worth of scientific data since then has pointed. 2. According to the page, even up unto his death he recommended drastic steps well beyond anything like cap & trade etc being discused today. I'm forced to believe that you are simply being disingenuous and irrational in your rather inaccurate paraphrase above. Basically you are cherry picking an ambiguous phrase from somebody whose view on GW was ENTIRELY inconsistent with your own Denialist hypothesis and holding him up in a classic "appeal to authority" argument - all to justify your preexisting political argument. THen you are waving your "Electrical Engineering" Associates degree around as if you yourself are some sort of theoretical genius. My god. Regardless If you want to hear my/others thoughts. the search function is available to contributing members - most of your diatribe has been thoroughly addrssed ad nauseum in previous posts.
And Exxon-Mobil, BP, Chevron, car companies also buy a lot of air time too. While yes GE which owns a media company has a stake but its not as though those who have a huge stake in the status quo regarding energy policy aren't also throwing their money around in the media. Anyway this goes back to a common defense that gets thrown up in these types of debate that the minority viewpoint is just being dismissed and can't get out. That is often true but at the same time there is often a good reason why the minority viewpoint is dismissed especially when it comes to science. The minority viewpoint isn't necesarrily right by virtue of being the minority viewpoint.. So you state you are open minded but then you state that you think one side is bogus. Have you considered that is perhaps why you are being mocked? And as I stated earlier it is a known fact, and has been known for a very long time, that atmospheric CO2 does cause higher temperatures. The climate is very complex and CO2 is being removed from the climate all the time time and also other factors mitigate temperature but the link between CO2 and higher temperatures is a fact and proven through experimentation. In regard to how much that is contributing to our climate there is still much debate. That said as noted earlier here temperatures are not declining compared to historical temperature recordings. There are peaks and valleys but the trend line still shows overall we are warmer than we were a few decades ago. And again who is citing Al Gore? You keep on bringing him up yet none of those you are debating appear to do so. Anyway in science there is always the possibilty of being wrong, or at least incomplete, consider that Newton's laws have been superceded by Einstein's theories. That is the nature of science and few scientists will say that their theory is the end all of a particular subject. What you are doing though is misunderstanding science to make a rhetorical point. Yes the theory very well could be wrong but just the possibility of that skepticism doesn't overthrow the theory. Further we are debating an issue that is ultimately about policy than it is about science. If the theory of global warming had no policy implications I strongly doubt you would be so vociferious in your objections. I will reiterate that in regards to policy we have to consider the possibilities and if the possiblities indicate that there is potential of a problem it makes sense to address it. Especially when the side benefits can justify themselves.
True on your point of the big corporation like Exxon Mobil. But by your very arguement The majority viewpoint isnt nescearrily right by virtue of bein hte majority viewpoint let's not forget most people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe at one point. Bad analogy but you get the point.
Proven how? Through what kind of experimentation? By whom and where? This is not a proven fact at all. Also there was less CO2 during the middle ages and most scientists agree that was the warmer period than it is now. CO2 = higher temperatures is not a proven fact is definitely up for debate.
True but you do not want to address policies based on bad science. What impact can we have if we don't even know what we are trying to fix is true or not. How would you even come up with policies for something you don't even know. Anyways i thank you for your level headed response. You are one of the few that actually took the time to respond and discuss rather than attack.
1) Yes twenty years of what science? Of science driven by political motivations? Roger Revelle developed his theories on Global warming and it still the same theories that are being used as a core today which has not been proven by any means. 2) My father personally knew Roger Revelle at UCSD and Scripps Institute of Oceanography. I read several of Roger's papers on various topics most of them not related to Global Warming. The man was a smart guy and most of his close colleagues and friends who have talked to him about the topic said he had serious regrets and doubts and that we may have been over reacting towards the end of his life.
Of science driven by scientific motivations. A temperature reading is a temperature reading. And then you turn around and cite Exxon-Mobil funded research in response. Pathetic. Then the fact that the vast majority of his research aside from one semi-ambiguous statement that was by its own words expressly limited to a period in time 20 years ago speaks for itself. But it won't for you because you are a hardcore GW denialist who doesn't give a **** either way.
Just from this statement alone it shows how simple minded you are. A temperature reading is not just a temperature reading. If you want to go off that fact alone then fine. Temperature readings have been showing the temperature is cooling in the last decade - FACT But if you actually took the time to read, research and question you will know it's not that simple. I have said in a previous post I don't like to reference the fact that these temperature readings have been showing the earth is cooling in the last 11 years simply because a temperature reading is not just a temperature reading. If you actually read a research paper on the topic (I have read several on this topic and even some from Roger Revelle himself) you will know it is not that simple. How do you even measure temperature on a global scale? Think about it. A temperature within the same city can vary greatly. Out here in San Diego the coast is often 10 degrees lower than the inland and the mountains can vary by another 20 degrees or so. This is all within 20-30 miles it can vary that drastically. So just for San Diego what temperature do i use? That is the problem I have with all the research papers i have read including the ones by Roger Revelle. His aides, colleagues all have admitted there is not a consistent control. The method of gathering temperature readings is flawed. And this happens on a GLOBAL scale when they use temperatures to report. They change and move thermometers around they remove and add and use different readings. The data set is often not that large and they will use one thermometer reading to inference a large area. The most recent paper I read in fact only used two data points for all of california. Well Hmmm I would say the temperature in SD is quite different than the temperature say in central California. By doing this you no longer have consistent data. You can skew and manipulate data. Which is why a temperature reading is not just a temperature reading. There is so much more that goes into it. LOL... SamFisher you really are quite a drone.. When did I ever cite Exxon-Mobil funded research???? You crack me up and you obviously have no reading comprehension skills. I have been trying not to do any personal attacks here since it will be counterproductive but you really are something. The topic at hand was the skewed coverage NBC (owned/affiliated by GE with lots to gain) has a special interest in all this. Another poster then mentioned well ExxonMobil also buys up time slots/lobyists or whatever. I simply said yes I am aware that happens and of course it does in politics. That is not something I am blinded to unlike you I can see both sides. I conceded that fact. But hmm no where did I mention any research funded by ExxonMobil. Also I am not looking at any one persons research. You obviously don't have a open mind and only resort to name calling and personal attacks like a immature child. It is called Global Warming theory for a reason. It is not a fact but a theory. It is a science and in science you need to do research. By no means has anything been a proven. Just think for a moment Isn't there a possibility that you could be wrong? I can admit I could be wrong. But I am not making a bold claim that man is causing the earth to warm. So far the science does not show anything is conclusive. This is my point here. I am not some blinded "GW denialist" (which by the way "denilaist" is not even a word which further shows your limited vocabulary and intelligence) that you like to claim. It is the science and research is flawed and isnt even close to being settled or conclusive. We have politicians NOT scientists here jumping to conclusions and wanting to create policies based on something that is not conclusive. Why do you think more and more scientists are starting to back off their statements or softening their tone? This is happening right now in Copenhagen. If these scientists are not even sure how can you be? You are someone who hasn't read a research paper on the topic or be able to even comprehend one if you did be so sure? Only thing you know about the topic is what you heard on TV. But you obviously cant comprehend anything cause you are so closed minded and obviously don't have any scientific background at all so I am done responding to you. Have a good day. I do appreciate the people who took the time to want to discuss and not resort to immature name calling.
If you check my posts from farther back in the thread you’ll see that I agree with some of what you’re saying, but you’re losing me in several key areas. I agree that there is a group of scientists and NGOs that has been overstating the case for manmade global warming for well over 10 years at least. I see that as more of a NGO driven, political correctness gone crazy, type of group think, however. I believe that this group has not only been overstating what we know about global warming, but that they’ve also been trying to essentially demonize geoengineering and shut it down as well. (See my previous posts on this). HOWEVER, I don’t see any evidence that the government is involved in this or how it would benefit them, and I do believe that manmade global warming is likely happening, even if some of the evidence being used to support it is tainted. Yes, academia has its issues - see Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a start – and I do think that that is part of the problem here. An important point that needs to be remembered, however, is that we don’t need to be 100% certain that man is causing global warming. You’re an engineer so you will have taken project management classes and you’ll be familiar with risk analysis. Risks are things that are possibilities, not certainties, but you still take actions to limit the possibility that they will happen, and/or limit the damage that will occur if they do happen. We don’t need to be anywhere near 100% certain that manmade global warming is happening to justify doing something about it, in other words. Also note that we are running out of oil and will have to switch to alternative energy sources in the foreseeable future in any event, so any steps we take to move away from burning fossil fuels accomplishes two things at once and will not be a wasted effort if it turns out that manmade global warming isn’t happening.
