What happened to global warming?

[grbeck]

Ok so what are we going to blame the wrming on since the humans have to prove that they are the ones doing it and until then its not our fault?

 

Did you read the post? The earth hasn't been warming for the past 15 years.

 

And the earth has warmed and cooled on its own several times over the centuries, when Henry Ford's ancestors were pushing wooden carts and living in primitive cabins.

 

The simple fact is that the climate is always changing.

[grbeck]

15 years is a pittance. These are trends that have been rolling for over 100 years. Just look at the ice sheets. All of a sudden we have countries fighting over who owns what up North. Do you remember any of that happening 15 years ago?

 

If if 15 years is a "pittance," then why did those scientists believe that they had to massage the data to hide the lack of warming? You can't have it both ways here.

 

Of course, if we are taking your argument at face value, then we should look at climate throughout the centuries, and then we discover that the earth has warmed and cooled on its own many time. These trends have been "rolling" for much longer than 100 years.

Edited March 10, 2010 by grbeck

[Trimdingman]

Take away the so-called "green-house effect", and CO2 is just a harmless, and actually beneficial man-made by-product. Cars used to emit more carbon monoxide, or CO, which is a deadly gas, and many other toxic substances before the use of catalytic converters. Now car exhaust is mostly CO2. The environmental activist crowd did not applaud this new invention, as you would expect. A better environment was not their true agenda. Now they have come up with this cockamamie hoax about carbon dioxide being harmful. Plants "breathe" carbon dioxide. So many people now believe in this new religious cult that they will not accept any proof of what a big hoax it is. It is not healthy for your mind to have false beliefs. Don't fall into the trap of "better safe than sorry". You will never be 100% safe. It is better to be as free as possible for the short time we are here.

[goinbroke2]

15 years is a pittance. These are trends that have been rolling for over 100 years. Just look at the ice sheets. All of a sudden we have countries fighting over who owns what up North. Do you remember any of that happening 15 years ago?

 

And THAT there is the exact problem with your "proof".

 

The fact that ice melts means the earth is getting warmer, but DOES NOT MEAN IT IS CAUSED BY HUMANS! THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TO EQUATE WITH EACH OTHER!

 

This is typical of the smoke and mirrors put out by the bedwetters, try to equate a common thing with their story so one is confused with the other. In the last 6 months it has been getting warmer (summer is coming) that doesn't mean MAN is heating the earth up at the rate of a few degrees a month! Or the earth has been cooling over the last 15 years doesn't mean MAN MADE THE EARTH COOL for the last 15 years.

 

It's been warming since the mini ice age, LONG before the industrial age and the scapegoat CO2.

 

Before the mini ice age the earth was.....you guessed it,,WARMING! During the ice age, the earth was cooling..and then warming as it came out of it. Again, before SUV's!

 

Any person doing tracking/data acquisition/diagnosing, who refuses to allow others to double check their claims or "adjusts" data to fit the answer they want is suspect.

 

As far as the money equation, your right money talks, and with good reason. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to follow that bigger money causes more scrutiny.

 

An example;

You take your car to the garage and they say you need a plastic push pin for your bumper, it's 10 cents and they'll instal it for free. Do you say "sure go ahead" or do you take it to another shop for another estimate on price and if it really needs it?

 

Then, you take your car in and they say it needs $7,000 worth of engine/tranny repairs. Would you raise an eyebrow or want a second opinion? Then they say you can't have their data to prove or disprove their claim of your motor/tranny issue. PLUS, all the mechanic's in the shop all "peer reviewed" the job and agreed it is required. THEN you find out that some of the data is "homoginized" to better fit the parameters of the diagnosis.

 

Your right, money is a huge fricken deal! If I have to replace the engine and tranny on my car, then I'll have to do it, but I want to make damn sure I need it first! If the earth is in trouble from man we will have to do something, but I want more proof than "we MUST be doing something", that's not exactly scientific.

 

The "scientists" had an agenda to get larger and larger grants. They could only do this by making bigger and wilder claims. Then the people who would be effected most wanted more proof and then lacking that started fighting back. So is oil involved? Dunno, but if I was them I would be! Losing business to mass hysteria is bad for companies! LOL!

[mustang_sallad]

And THAT there is the exact problem with your "proof".

 

The fact that ice melts means the earth is getting warmer, but DOES NOT MEAN IT IS CAUSED BY HUMANS! THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TO EQUATE WITH EACH OTHER!

 

This is typical of the smoke and mirrors put out by the bedwetters, try to equate a common thing with their story so one is confused with the other. In the last 6 months it has been getting warmer (summer is coming) that doesn't mean MAN is heating the earth up at the rate of a few degrees a month! Or the earth has been cooling over the last 15 years doesn't mean MAN MADE THE EARTH COOL for the last 15 years.

 

It's been warming since the mini ice age, LONG before the industrial age and the scapegoat CO2.

 

Before the mini ice age the earth was.....you guessed it,,WARMING! During the ice age, the earth was cooling..and then warming as it came out of it. Again, before SUV's!

 

Any person doing tracking/data acquisition/diagnosing, who refuses to allow others to double check their claims or "adjusts" data to fit the answer they want is suspect.

 

As far as the money equation, your right money talks, and with good reason. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to follow that bigger money causes more scrutiny.

 

An example;

You take your car to the garage and they say you need a plastic push pin for your bumper, it's 10 cents and they'll instal it for free. Do you say "sure go ahead" or do you take it to another shop for another estimate on price and if it really needs it?

 

Then, you take your car in and they say it needs $7,000 worth of engine/tranny repairs. Would you raise an eyebrow or want a second opinion? Then they say you can't have their data to prove or disprove their claim of your motor/tranny issue. PLUS, all the mechanic's in the shop all "peer reviewed" the job and agreed it is required. THEN you find out that some of the data is "homoginized" to better fit the parameters of the diagnosis.

 

Your right, money is a huge fricken deal! If I have to replace the engine and tranny on my car, then I'll have to do it, but I want to make damn sure I need it first! If the earth is in trouble from man we will have to do something, but I want more proof than "we MUST be doing something", that's not exactly scientific.

 

The "scientists" had an agenda to get larger and larger grants. They could only do this by making bigger and wilder claims. Then the people who would be effected most wanted more proof and then lacking that started fighting back. So is oil involved? Dunno, but if I was them I would be! Losing business to mass hysteria is bad for companies! LOL!

 

 

Your analogy comparing a mechanic who stands to earn 10 cents to the oil industry who stands to lose billions of dollars is pretty ridiculous, you've got blinkers on.

[grbeck]

Your analogy comparing a mechanic who stands to earn 10 cents to the oil industry who stands to lose billions of dollars is pretty ridiculous, you've got blinkers on.

 

Wrong. If the 10 cents represents 90 percent of the mechanic's income, and losing it would seriously harm his or her standard of living, then that is what matters, not how large or how small it is in relation to someone else's income.

 

Based on your logic, I can afford to lose my job, because I don't make nearly as much money as Bill Gates. My income is nothing next to his.

[goinbroke2]

That's not the way I was looking at it. My viewpoint was that of the country or average human. If you tell a country something and it will cost 1 million, yeah whatever. Tell a country they must pay half the GDP! Then see how much investigation is put into something. That was the angle I was talking about on why money is important.

 

The other side of the money thing was covered quite well by Grbeck. In other words...you were wrong both ways.

[xr7g428]

The oil companies stand to lose nothing. The ideal scenario for the oil companies is that their existing inventory lasts longer and sells for much higher prices per unit. This is exactly what cap and trade does. The oil companies also get their initial inventory of credits for free. This is basically a free handout of billions of dollars to the oil companies. IF you talk to any trader they will tell you that as long as prices go up they can make a fortune. Cap and trade is a recipe for continuously rising prices.. From the perspective of big oil, you can pass any law you like so long as they get to write the fine print. Big oil is lobbing FOR cap and trade. Regulation always works to support the largest companies and to limit the access to the market of small companies. Regulations are barriers to entry. Think abourt how hard it is to start a car company. No one can meet all of the regulations on day one. This protects the big companies, and hurts the little guy. Look at any highly regulated industry and see if you see any small companies entering the sector.

[mustang_sallad]

That's not the way I was looking at it. My viewpoint was that of the country or average human. If you tell a country something and it will cost 1 million, yeah whatever. Tell a country they must pay half the GDP! Then see how much investigation is put into something. That was the angle I was talking about on why money is important.

 

The other side of the money thing was covered quite well by Grbeck. In other words...you were wrong both ways.

 

I'm not trying to say we shouldn't take these studies seriously. It is indeed a huge burden on our economy. My point was that the oil industry has a massive motivation to prevent any changes towards an economy that involves burning less fossil fuel. The money backing the oil industry's side of the story outweighs that backing the side of concerned scientists by many orders of magnitude. Who's voice gets heard? The completely unqualified voices who find details they don't understand but that they can take out of context in such a way to sway the population in their favour, rather than allowing the general population to see an unbiased scientific analysis broken down in such a way for them to understand. I have not seen any credible science behind the views opposing those of the IPCC. All you hear is "We're so small, the planet is so big, how could we possibly affect it?" That is not science. That is a gut feeling that may have been reasonable 2000 years ago.

[grbeck]

I'm not trying to say we shouldn't take these studies seriously. It is indeed a huge burden on our economy. My point was that the oil industry has a massive motivation to prevent any changes towards an economy that involves burning less fossil fuel. The money backing the oil industry's side of the story outweighs that backing the side of concerned scientists by many orders of magnitude.

 

The "oil company money is behind the skeptics" is a strawman argument, designed to divert attention from the holes in the theory of manmade global warming. It's an attempt to shut down the debate instead of discussing the issues.

 

Somehow, all of that oil company money didn't prevent Al Gore, a former vice president, from speaking out on the issue, making a documentary about it and winning an Academy Award for said documentary. It hasn't prevented several A-list entertainers from jumping on the bandwagon, not has it prevented the current president of the United States from pushing for cap-and-trade legislation. The idea that oil industry money somehow outweighs all of this, or that it is preventing the other side from getting out its story is simply not plausible. In fact, given the widespread and often unquestioning coverage of global warming alarmists, and the initial reluctance of the mainstream media to cover climategate, it could be described as laughable.

 

The idea that oil companies will shrivel up and die because of legislation designed to discourage fossil fuel use could charitably be described as naive. That is not how businesses work. Large corporations don't sit around and wait for death when they realize that the market for their chief product will be going away.

 

Tobacco companies didn't die when we began waging war on tobacco. They merged with other companies, or bought them. What shareholders care about is THE VALUE OF THEIR INVESTMENT. They don't care what the company makes, or the corporate name or logo on the letterhead.

 

Think of Studebaker in the early 1960s. It exited the auto business in 1966. The people who cared were dealers and auto enthusiasts. The shareholders were GLAD that Studebaker abandoned the auto business. The value of their shares in Studebaker actually INCREASED after Studebaker shut down the South Bend operations in late 1963 and the Hamilton, Ontario plant in 1966.

 

Exxon shareholders don't care if Exxon makes money by finding, pumping and selling oil or by designing and building windmills and solar panels. They just want the company to make money, period. The long-term value of Exxon shares - which is what really matters here - isn't necessarily going to go away if we pass legislation to discourage fossil fuel use, unless Exxon management simply follows the same business plan, which is highly unlikely.

 

The completely unqualified voices who find details they don't understand but that they can take out of context in such a way to sway the population in their favour, rather than allowing the general population to see an unbiased scientific analysis broken down in such a way for them to understand. I have not seen any credible science behind the views opposing those of the IPCC.

 

Considering that the completely qualified voices have been found to have engaged in shady practices and massaged the data, which anyone who understands how science works will realize is a major dent in their credibility, I'd say that it's the unqualified voices have the upper hand in the debate right now. And please note that the earth has not warmed for the past 15 years, which is contrary to ALL of the models used by proponents of the theory of manmade global warming. That is huge blow to their credibility, which is why several scientists were frantically trying to massage the data.

 

All you hear is "We're so small, the planet is so big, how could we possibly affect it?" That is not science. That is a gut feeling that may have been reasonable 2000 years ago.

 

If you think that is the gist of their argument, then the problem is that you haven't been paying attention, not that they don't have any credible arguments. And your argument was that we have been producing lots of carbon dioxide, so it must somehow affect the environment, which is why the earth must be warming. That's a gut feeling, too, not science.

[stephenhawkings]

Take away the so-called "green-house effect", and CO2 is just a harmless, and actually beneficial man-made by-product. Cars used to emit more carbon monoxide, or CO, which is a deadly gas, and many other toxic substances before the use of catalytic converters. Now car exhaust is mostly CO2. The environmental activist crowd did not applaud this new invention, as you would expect. A better environment was not their true agenda. Now they have come up with this cockamamie hoax about carbon dioxide being harmful. Plants "breathe" carbon dioxide. So many people now believe in this new religious cult that they will not accept any proof of what a big hoax it is. It is not healthy for your mind to have false beliefs. Don't fall into the trap of "better safe than sorry". You will never be 100% safe. It is better to be as free as possible for the short time we are here.

CO2 is deadly too numbskull.

[xr7g428]

CO2 is deadly too numbskull.

 

Never have so few words more completely described such an utter lack of understanding of an issue. Bravo!

 

Please give an example of anything that is not deadly in some way.

 

And by the way, the absence of CO2 will kill every living thing on the planet. At just 380 parts per million, we are a lot closer to no CO2 than we are to a "deadly" concentration of CO2. If you want to find high levels of CO2, all you have to do is exhale.

Edited March 11, 2010 by xr7g428

[suv_guy_19]

Considering that the completely qualified voices have been found to have engaged in shady practices and massaged the data, which anyone who understands how science works will realize is a major dent in their credibility, I'd say that it's the unqualified voices have the upper hand in the debate right now.

 

I would say that a statement like that is so baseless and false it doesn't even deserve a response...but, I'll give it a try. Quite frankly, you aren't being truthful. You are taking some out of context emails between a few scientists, and some questionable things that those few scientist did, and juxtaposing that on the entire climate science research community. The reality is, though there are some sceptics, there are very few climatologists and meteorologists who disagree with the AGW theory. Sorry, but you don't have the upper hand.

[grbeck]

I would say that a statement like that is so baseless and false it doesn't even deserve a response...but, I'll give it a try. Quite frankly, you aren't being truthful. You are taking some out of context emails between a few scientists, and some questionable things that those few scientist did, and juxtaposing that on the entire climate science research community.

 

Sorry, but when the proponents are show to have massaged data in an attempt to hide a temperature decline that blows a major hole in their hypothesis, it is a major problem to their credibility. That's not baseless and false; it's an accurate appraisal as to what has happened. YOU aren't being truthful, or at least not well informed.

 

The reality is, though there are some sceptics, there are very few climatologists and meteorologists who disagree with the AGW theory. Sorry, but you don't have the upper hand.

 

The appeal to numbers is a mark of desperation. This is supposed to be science, not a popularity contest. It only takes one scientist to prove or disprove something.

 

Your case is sinking faster than The Titanic. and your side is on the defensive. Hence, the attempt to paint all skeptics as being shills for the oil industry (never mind that this only shows an ignorance of how industry will respond to an attempt to phase out fossil fuels), the appeal to numbers and the frantic attempts to minimize the damage the recent revelations have done to the case for manmade global warming.

Edited March 11, 2010 by grbeck

[suv_guy_19]

The reality is that there are plenty of skeptics, and the appeal to numbers is a mark of desperation. This is supposed to be science, not a popularity contest.

 

When talking about science, it's important to find out what the scientists think. The scientists, the vast majority, disagree with your position. Nothing is sinking.

 

Oh, and I don't think you're oil shills...I think you're truthers.

[stephenhawkings]

Never have so few words more completely described such an utter lack of understanding of an issue. Bravo!

 

Please give an example of anything that is not deadly in some way.

 

And by the way, the absence of CO2 will kill every living thing on the planet. At just 380 parts per million, we are a lot closer to no CO2 than we are to a "deadly" concentration of CO2. If you want to find high levels of CO2, all you have to do is exhale.

maybe if you put a plastic bag over your head you could find out the threshold of deadly CO2 concentrations, than you wouldn't have to waste valuable oxygen, at least you would be using your head for a change.

 

sorry the smart ass monkey climbed on my back and wont get off.

 

nothing to see here global warming is a myth or religious according to TRIM much like communism.

[Edstock]

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." Abe Lincoln

 

Great piece stephenhawkings !

[grbeck]

When talking about science, it's important to find out what the scientists think. The scientists, the vast majority, disagree with your position. Nothing is sinking.

 

Oh, and I don't think you're oil shills...I think you're truthers.

 

Which, again, shows how poorly informed you are on this topic. As with the subject of firearms and their use, you need to listen to the better informed people who have a much more sophisticated understanding of the subject.

 

I do agree, however, that we must listen to what scientists say.

 

Such as this one:

 

One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism. (emphasis added)

 

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

 

Here are more scientists expressing their views:

 

Last week the United Nations concluded its surprisingly divided global warming conference in Poland. Far from a consensus on anthropogenic global warming, dissidents far outnumbered those beating the drum for curbing carbon emissions. Last year’s conference included over 400 preeminent scientists who objected to the “consensus,” and this year’s conference included a growing list of over 650.

 

Let's listen to what these scientists have to say:

 

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming,” said U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“I am a skeptic…. Global warming has become a new religion,” said Nobel Prize Winner for Physics Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…. As a scientist I remain skeptical,” said atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, PhD in meteorology. Simpson is a former NASA scientist who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“Warming fears are among the worst scientific scandals in history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists,” said Japanese scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The (U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds,” said Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University.

Edited March 11, 2010 by grbeck

[grbeck]

maybe if you put a plastic bag over your head you could find out the threshold of deadly CO2 concentrations, than you wouldn't have to waste valuable oxygen, at least you would be using your head for a change.

 

sorry the smart ass monkey climbed on my back and wont get off.

 

nothing to see here global warming is a myth or religious according to TRIM much like communism.

 

Maybe when the smart ass monkey does climb off your back, you can actually respond to the point made.

 

So far it's xr7g428 "1" and stephenhawkings "0".

[suv_guy_19]

Which, again, shows how poorly informed you are on this topic.

 

 

You haven't shown anything other than your refusal to accept the consensus opinion. You haven't demonstrated that I know very little about firearms either, but that's another unrelated issue that you are, for some unknown reason, bringing into this topic.

 

I mean, when I see things like this:

 

(I personally know him)

 

It's really not a hard choice to decide who to believe, and who I should be listening to lectures from regarding the scientific method.

[mustang_sallad]

This is supposed to be science, not a popularity contest. It only takes one scientist to prove or disprove something.

 

Yes but it takes the entire scientific community to review the work of any one scientist and approve its validity. I'll side with the community and not the outliers, thank you very much.

[suv_guy_19]

Yes but it takes the entire scientific community to review the work of any one scientist and approve its validity. I'll side with the community and not the outliers, thank you very much.

 

Exactly the way I now feel. Until recently, I wasn't sure about all of this...but then I came to the conclusion: who am I to question almost the entire climate science community? Could they be wrong? Sure. Is it likely, given the evidence and the near consensus....no...and even if it is wrong, models will be adjusted. People who call it a religion are the same people who dislike science in general and are simply trying to discredit the science.

[xr7g428]

Yes but it takes the entire scientific community to review the work of any one scientist and approve its validity. I'll side with the community and not the outliers, thank you very much.

 

This is not the way the scientific method works. It takes only a single repeatable experiment to prove a hypothesis wrong. Lindzen at MIT has done exactly this by measuring the actual effect of CO2 in the atmosphere and has found tit to produce about half of the hypothesized warming and less than 1 /5th of what the models were predicting. And if you would read the science in the IPCC you would see that the effect of CO2 is actually only expected to increase temperatures by less than 1/2 or 1 degree. All of the additional warming is supposed to come from unproven theories about "forcings". Lindzen looked for those forcings and found that there were powerful feed-backs that limited warming, that were more powerful than the none existent feed-backs that were supposed to be creating the warming. Of course you would say that the climate chair at MIT must be a hack...

[xr7g428]

People who call it a religion are the same people who dislike science in general and are simply trying to discredit the science.

 

No, people who love science know that turning it into a religion will destroy the credibility of science for generations.

 

Until recently, I wasn't sure about all of this...but then I came to the conclusion: who am I to question almost the entire climate science community?

 

This is statement of faith. the whole point of science is that it can all be changed by a single person who is right.

 

Had you been alive at the time of Galileo, you would have been a faithful believer of a totally incorrect view of the entire universe.

[suv_guy_19]

No, people who love science know that turning it into a religion will destroy the credibility of science for generations.

 

Right....:rolleyes:

 

This is statement of faith. the whole point of science is that it can all be changed by a single person who is right.

 

Yes, it's a statement of faith in the scientific method which has been used in climate science.

 

Had you been alive at the time of Galileo, you would have been a faithful believer of a totally incorrect view of the entire universe.

 

I wouldn't know, because I wasn't alive then. The scientific method did however prevail in that case.

Edited March 12, 2010 by suv_guy_19