Global warming proved to be a scam?

[Accountable]

Nothing new CAN ever happen .......... again.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

See, this is what I am talking about. How can you guys expect me to take you seriously or think you are supporting a correct side (skepticism) when you can't even come up with a few arguments against the basic theory of climate change.

Why doesn't the green house effect work? What is causing the current climate change, if it is isn't humans?

 

[nova]

A good quick overview by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the guys who produces the UAH satellite temperature data.

Global Warming Skepticism 101 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

1. Skeptics deny global warming. No, we deny that warming has been mostly human-caused.

2. Skeptics are paid by big oil. The vast majority of skeptics have never been paid anything by Big Oil (me included).

3. Skeptics don’t publish in the peer reviewed literature. Wrong…but it is true we do not have nearly as many publications as the other side does. But it only takes one scientific study to destroy a scientific hypothesis, which is what anthropogenic global warming theory is.

4. Skeptics are not unified with an alternative explanation for global warming. Well, that’s the way science works in a field as immature as climate change science. The biggest problem is that we really don’t understand what causes natural climate variability. Kevin Trenberth has now famously admitted as much in one of the Climategate emails, where said it’s a “travesty” that we don’t know why warming has stopped in the last 7 to 10 years. For century-time-scale changes, some believe it is cloud cover being modulated by cosmic ray activity, which is in turn affected by sunspot activity. A few others think it is changes in the total energy output of the sun (possible, but I personally doubt it). In my opinion, it is internal, chaotic variability in the ocean and atmosphere circulation causing small changes in cloud cover. Since clouds are a natural sunshade, changing their coverage of the Earth will cause warming or cooling. The IPCC simply assumes this does not happen. If they did, they would have to admit that natural climate change happens, which means they would have to address the possibility that most of the warming in the last 50 has been largely natural in origin.

5. But the glaciers are melting! Many glaciers which have been monitored around the world for a long time have been retreating since the 1800’s, before humans could have been responsible. A few retreating glaciers are even revealing old tree stumps…how did those get there? Planted by skeptics?

6. But the sea ice is melting! Well, the same thing happened back in the 1920’s and 1930’s, with the Northwest Passage opening up in 1940. It was just as warm, or nearly as warm, in the Arctic in the 1930’s. Again, this is before humans could be blamed. There were very low water levels in the Great Lakes in the 1920’s too, just as has happened recently. We have accurate measurements of sea ice cover from satellites only since 1979, so there is no way to really know whether sea ice cover is less than it was before.

7. But we just had the warmest decade in recorded history! Well, if thermometer measurements had started in, say 200, AD (rather than in the 1800’s), and it was now 850 AD, the same thing might well have been said back then. The climate system is always warming or cooling, and the Industrial Revolution (and thus our carbon dioxide emissions) just happened to occur while we were still emerging from the Little Ice Age…a warming period.

8. But the Antarctic ice shelves are collapsing! Well, sea ice around Antarctica has been expanding since we started monitoring by satellite in 1979….so which do we use as evidence? There is no convincing evidence of warming in Antarctica, except in the relatively small Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the ocean. Just as glaciers naturally flow to the sea, ice shelves must eventually break off. It is very uncertain how often this happens through the centuries, and what has been observed in recent years might be entirely normal. Similarly, it was warmer in Greenland in the 1930’s than it has been more recently.

9. But the sea levels are rising! Yes, and from what we can tell, they have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. Again, the more recent rise might be just a consequence of our emergence from the Little Ice Age, which bottomed out in the 1600’s.

10. But we keep emitting carbon dioxide, which we know is a greenhouse gas! Yes, I agree. But the direct warming effect of moré CO2 is agreed by all to be small…and I predict that when we better understand how clouds change in response to that small warming influence, the net warming in response to more CO2 will be smaller still. This is the “feedback” issue, which determines “climate sensitivity”, the area of research I spend most of my time on. I and a minority of other scientists believe the net feedbacks in the climate system are negative, probably driven by negative cloud feedback. In contrast, all twenty-something IPCC climate models now exhibit positive cloud feedback.

11. But we can’t keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere forever! No, and we won’t. Assuming fossil fuels will be increasingly difficult to find and access in the coming decades, the continuing demand for energy ensures that new energy technologies will be developed. It’s what humans do…adapt.

12. But we shouldn’t be interfering with nature! Actually, it would be impossible to NOT interfere with nature. Chaos theory tells us that everything that happens, naturally or anthropogenically, forever alters the future state of the climate system. I predict that science will eventually understand that more CO2 is good for life on Earth. This doesn’t mean it will be good for every single species…but when Mother Nature changes the climate system, there are always winners and losers anyway. In the end, this is a religious issue, not a scientific one. Interestingly I have found that the vast majority of scientists also have the religious belief that we should not be impacting nature. I believe this has negatively affected their scientific objectivity.

 

[Tim]

A good quick overview by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the guys who produces the UAH satellite temperature data.

Global Warming Skepticism 101 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

How can you take any scientist seriously when he rejects evolution as the basis of human origin? :24:

 

[dt3]

How can you take any scientist seriously when he rejects evolution as the basis of human origin? :24:

Werner Von Braun believed in creationism, and he got us to the moon. :dunno

 

[nova]

How can you take any scientist seriously when he rejects evolution as the basis of human origin? :24:

The better question is why do you discount everything a scientist who is well respected in his field says, because of what he believes in a completely unrelated area?

Science isn't a religion where you have to believe all of it to a be a member and do good work...

Werner Von Braun believed in creationism, and he got us to the moon. :dunno

Thats so totally a lie. You can't do good work in a field of science if you don't subscribe to evolution... :sarcasm

 

[retro]

The better question is why do you discount everything a scientist who is well respected in his field says, because of what he believes in a completely unrelated area?

Science isn't a religion where you have to believe all of it to a be a member and do good work...

with the fanaticism involved in defending global warming, I'm beginning to think that it actually is a religion

 

[nova]

Hey for your next act, maybe you can discount what this guy says about polar bear populations because he belives in ghosts or cross dresses or something equally as ridiculous...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/taylor_polar_bears.pdf

Dr. Mitchell Taylor
Northern Associates
66 Cottage Drive West
Neebing, Ontario, CANADA
P7L 0A9
(807) 964-2678
<mktaylor23@gmail.com>
BS Kansas State University
MS (Biology) Kansas State University
PhD (Ecology) University of Minnesota
Post-Doctoral University of British Columbia
Lecturer University of British Columbia
Assistant Professor Michigan State
University
Polar Bear Biologist Government of the Northwest Territories Government of Nunavut Territory
Manager Wildlife Research Government of Nunavut Territory
Northern Associates Consulting Partnership

Dr. Taylor has worked on polar bears for the past 30 years, and was the polar bear biologist for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Territory, Canada for over 20 years. Dr. Taylor has been a continuing member of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group and Canada’s Federal Provincial Polar Bear Technical Committee. Dr. Taylor has published over 50 scientific papers on polar bear related topics, has worked in the field on most of the world's polar bear populations. Most recently (2007) Dr. Taylor assisted with field sampling (mark-recapture) the Davis Strait population (one of the most southern of all polar bear populations) and is a co-author on Canada’s COSEWIC polar bear draft status report.

Dr. Taylor recently retired from government service and is currently based at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Canada.​

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist: FCPP - Frontier Centre for Public Policy

 

[Goat Whisperer]

A good quick overview by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the guys who produces the UAH satellite temperature data.

Global Warming Skepticism 101 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Once again, so utterly dodging. No one has responded to my challenge to just bring some arguments against the actual theory itself. Saying skeptics are smart or individual peices of evidence that just back up the theory, but don't prove it, are wrong, will never prove global warming to not be real.

 

[Guyzerr]

Once again, so utterly dodging. No one has responded to my challenge to just bring some arguments against the actual theory itself. Saying skeptics are smart or individual peices of evidence that just back up the theory, but don't prove it, are wrong, will never prove global warming to not be real.

For the umpteenth time nobody said it wasn't real. They have been saying there isn't enough proof that humans are the only cause of it.

 

[Accountable]

Once again, so utterly dodging. No one has responded to my challenge to just bring some arguments against the actual theory itself. Saying skeptics are smart or individual peices of evidence that just back up the theory, but don't prove it, are wrong, will never prove global warming to not be real.

But then wouldn't you just dismiss those arguments as inexpert and uneducated, pointing out that hundreds of professionals in the field have researched and found otherwise?

This obsessive need to win can keep you from being happy with your life.

 

[nova]

Once again, so utterly dodging. No one has responded to my challenge to just bring some arguments against the actual theory itself. Saying skeptics are smart or individual peices of evidence that just back up the theory, but don't prove it, are wrong, will never prove global warming to not be real.

Let me see if you'll finally read this...

NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WILL EVER MAKE THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT IS PATENTLY ABSURD!!!!

Whats next? Are you going to start demanding that people argue against the existence of gravity and then use people's refusal to prop up your belief that Newton was right and Eistein and all the other myriad of gravitational theories is wrong?

All you want is to be able to argue against a ridiculous straw man that nobody is willing to set up because its absolutely stupid. The point you continually refuse to acknowledge is that the disagreements are all in the details and not anywhere else...

 

[Minor Axis]

Wow, perhaps the biggest scam in recorded history?

THREAD RESURRECTION!

Get a grip people, it's here.

Great Newsweek Article: Are You Ready For More?

What stands out in this article is that while the world prepares, the U.S. has done nothing starting under "W" (10 years ago) to deal with the REALITY because the Republican Party refuses to acknowledge it or acknowledge that the human race can do anything about it. Translation: Don't make me pay for it. European coastal countries are spending billions each year dealing with higher oceans.

However the article also slams Democrats who are now balking on the subject. It might have something to do with the country being broke. Just get your visit in to Manhattan and Miami real soon.

 

[Accountable]

I've noticed that it's getting warmer here. It started around late February, early March.

 

[Dana]

I've noticed that it's getting warmer here. It started around late February, early March.

oh oh me too but i figured it was just summer :ninja

 

[Accountable]

Waitaminnit! That means it's nationwide! :eek