Is Manmade Global Warming Real?


#1

This is an offshoot of the thread How much of a sin is it to deny climate change? In which littlebum2002 says:

I was reminded by another poster that this was off topic after I replied with the following:

Lets have a good clean debate. No hitting below the belt, no arguing against a person rather than his position, and please lets try to keep from getting this closed and people banned.


#2

A volcano releases more greenhouse gases in a matter of minutes than all of humanity does in a decade. When mapped against sunspot activity, global temperatures rise and fall almost in lockstep with the rising and falling of sunspot activity. When you look at the studies that “prove” man has caused global warming, the global mean temperature (I forget the specific term, but that sprung to mind–it’s the base temperature global warming alarmists believe we ought to be at) is based on average global temperatures from something like 1950-1970 (I haven’t discussed this stuff regularly in years and forget the exact span, but it’s essentially a 20-40 year period). This tiny sliver of data for a miniscule number of years is supposed to give us the ideal global temperature for the rest of eternity, and any variations to it can only be caused by man. Also, while discussing man-made global warming, any discussion of temperatures prior to that is disallowed, specifically because those temperatures and trends don’t line up with the alarmists claims. It’s also forbidden to discuss just how many of their catastrophic claims from the last 30 years have come true (approximately zero). Lastly, remember that, according to the global warming cabal, even though a handful of developing nations pollute far more than the US (China, India and possibly Brazil), the US is the sole nation responsible for global warming and should be expected to foot the bill to pay for the sins of everyone else.


#3

I’m of the opinion that God only knows.


#4

[quote="Gordon_Sims, post:2, topic:273586"]
A volcano releases more greenhouse gases in a matter of minutes than all of humanity does in a decade.

[/quote]

Volcanic emissions: 0.2 Gt per year.
Human emissions: 26.8 Gt per year (2003).

Source

A good article on Earth's CO2 budget

[quote="Gordon_Sims, post:2, topic:273586"]

When mapped against sunspot activity, global temperatures rise and fall almost in lockstep with the rising and falling of sunspot activity.

[/quote]

Sunspots: spaceweather.com/glossary/images2009/zurich_strip.gif
Temperature: globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

[quote="Gordon_Sims, post:2, topic:273586"]

When you look at the studies that "prove" man has caused global warming, the global mean temperature (I forget the specific term, but that sprung to mind--it's the base temperature global warming alarmists believe we ought to be at) is based on average global temperatures from something like 1950-1970

[/quote]

Bzzzt. Wrong. The graph above goes back to 1880.

[quote="Gordon_Sims, post:2, topic:273586"]

Also, while discussing man-made global warming, any discussion of temperatures prior to that is disallowed, specifically because those temperatures and trends don't line up with the alarmists claims.

[/quote]

Somehow, there is a NOAA website where you can download 92 different temperature reconstructions, going back to at least 800 AD.

Then, you have the ice core data which go back thousands of years (the best one goes back 385950 years).

[quote="Gordon_Sims, post:2, topic:273586"]

It's also forbidden to discuss just how many of their catastrophic claims from the last 30 years have come true (approximately zero).

[/quote]

Where and by whom is it forbidden?

[quote="Gordon_Sims, post:2, topic:273586"]

Lastly, remember that, according to the global warming cabal, even though a handful of developing nations pollute far more than the US (China, India and possibly Brazil), the US is the sole nation responsible for global warming and should be expected to foot the bill to pay for the sins of everyone else.

[/quote]

And this is a strictly political matter.


#5

Arrhenius' 1896 paper predicting a CO2-driven global warming (if you put the title into google, you can get to a scanned original). I'm still waiting for someone to debunk it :)

History of research into a CO2-driven warming from a book aptly titled The Discovery of Global Warming.


#6

A couple of years ago I read an article about some glacier in Peru whose retreat was being blamed on man-made global warming; the "proof" was that more and more ancient plant beds were being newly uncovered each year as the ice retreated (this started in 2002). Carbon dating indicated that most of these plant beds have been buried for at least 5,000 years.

Think about that for a minute. What that really says is, the earth today is still not as warm as it was 5,000 or more years ago (i.e. the ancient plant beds are only just being uncovered, the plants themselves are not yet regrowing). Was mankind also responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago? I highly doubt it; mankind was no more responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago than for the subsequent cooler temperatures.


#7

When experts disagree, us non experts have no way to know.

My brother is a meteorologist for NOAA in Boulder Colorado. He does not think it is possible for global warming to be man caused.

What makes me skeptical is how people are exploiting global warming for financial gain.

Peace
David


#8

[quote="Erich, post:6, topic:273586"]

Think about that for a minute. What that really says is, the earth today is still not as warm as it was 5,000 or more years ago (i.e. the ancient plant beds are only just being uncovered, the plants themselves are not yet regrowing).

[/quote]

Strictly speaking, it means that this particular place was warmer 5,000 years ago than today. Extrapolating from this one place to the whole world may, or may not, be correct.

[quote="Erich, post:6, topic:273586"]

Was mankind also responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago? I highly doubt it; mankind was no more responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago than for the subsequent cooler temperatures.

[/quote]

*Non-sequitur. * You assume that the warming 5000 years ago and today were caused by the same factor. So, can you identify what caused the warming 5000 years ago and what is also at work today?


#9

[quote="David, post:7, topic:273586"]

What makes me skeptical is how people are exploiting global warming for financial gain.

[/quote]

People (pharma companies) are exploting cancer for financial gain. Should we conclude that cancer does not exist?


#10

[quote="kama3, post:9, topic:273586"]
People (pharma companies) are exploting cancer for financial gain. Should we conclude that cancer does not exist?

[/quote]

Your analogy does not follow, for 2 reasons:

  1. There is not widespread disagreement in the medical science community as to the very existence of cancer, there is a consensus. That science is virtually proven and that debate has settled. Indeed, cancer has been known to doctors for hundreds and hundreds of years. What was not always known about cancer was how to treat it.

There really aren't many holdouts in the medical community that are denying the plausibility of cancer, as among concerned opponents of global warming hysteria in the scientific community. The debate on anthropogenic global warming is no more settled than the debate between theists and atheists on the existence of God. Many opponents of global warming solutions will concede that the world may be warming, but what they are stuck on is whether humans are the primary cause. Like it or not, the data conflicts and is therefore inconclusive.

Before we begin trying to combat the supposed problem of climate change (about which, as an aside, I have my own doubts), it should be agreed by meteorologists that there is EVEN a problem to begin with. Treatment is meaningless without a problem. If the world is warming naturally, if there is a geological or solar cause, chances are that there is no need for us to spend any money doing anything about it.

  1. Pharmaceutical companies derive their profits from proven, documented treatments. The money is a testament to the effectiveness of the treatments. Proponents of anthropogenic climate change often profit by less than ethical means, among them by becoming cozy with governments, and exploiting government policies designed to combat the issue in order to gain an edge over their competitors. They profit not from the production of innovative world-changing solutions, but from filling the marketplace vacuum caused by the demise of their competitors.

#11

[quote="Deus_lo_vult, post:10, topic:273586"]
Your analogy does not follow, for 2 reasons:

  1. There is not widespread disagreement in the medical science community as to the very existence of cancer, there is a consensus. That science is virtually proven and that debate has settled. Indeed, cancer has been known to doctors for hundreds and hundreds of years. What was not always known about cancer was how to treat it.

There really aren't many holdouts in the medical community that are denying the plausibility of cancer, as among concerned opponents of global warming hysteria in the scientific community. The debate on anthropogenic global warming is no more settled than the debate between theists and atheists on the existence of God. Many opponents of global warming solutions will concede that the world may be warming, but what they are stuck on is whether humans are the primary cause. Like it or not, the data conflicts and is therefore inconclusive.

Before we begin trying to combat the supposed problem of climate change (about which, as an aside, I have my own doubts), it should be agreed by meteorologists that there is EVEN a problem to begin with. Treatment is meaningless without a problem. If the world is warming naturally, if there is a geological or solar cause, chances are that there is no need for us to spend any money doing anything about it.

  1. Pharmaceutical companies derive their profits from proven, documented treatments. The money is a testament to the effectiveness of the treatments. Proponents of anthropogenic climate change theory often profit by less than ethical means, among them by becoming cozy with governments, and exploiting government policies designed to combat the issue in order to gain an edge over their competitors. They profit not from the production of innovative world-changing solutions, but from filling the marketplace vacuum caused by the demise of their competitors.

[/quote]


#12

When you look at the studies that "prove" man has caused global warming, the global mean temperature (I forget the specific term, but that sprung to mind--it's the base temperature global warming alarmists believe we ought to be at) is based on average global temperatures from something like 1950-1970 (I haven't discussed this stuff regularly in years and forget the exact span, but it's essentially a 20-40 year period). This tiny sliver of data for a miniscule number of years is supposed to give us the ideal global temperature for the rest of eternity, and any variations to it can only be caused by man.

I guess you did not read my statement.

The only two scientific principles that prove humans cause global warming are

1) the greenhouse effect, the idea that gases like CO2 and water vapor released into the atmosphere cause heat to remain trapped and warm the earth, and

2) the physics principle that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2.

The reason so many people deny climate change is the exact reason you showed: They think temperature charts, tree rings and ice cores are the proof of anthropogenic global warming. They are not. These two principles alone prove global warming. If CO2 released in the atmosphere indeed warms the earth, and burning hydrocarbons indeed releases CO2, then, by simple logic, burning hydrocarbons warms the earth. If you want to prove man does not cause global warming, then you must prove one of these two wrong, either of which would earn you a nobel prize.

Since neither of these has been proven wrong in 150 years, I assume you mean that you agree man is responsible for warming the earth through burning hydrocarbons, but that you believe such warming is negligible.

This is where those fancy charts you are referring to come in. Ice cores, tree rings, global temperature averages are being used to estimate HOW MUCH warming man is causing on the environment. Your argument (i assume) is that the temperatures we are predicting are not much different, if not equal, to what we are experiencing, therefore the influence man is having on the change in climate is NEGLIGIBLE (not non-existent, remember, unless someone disproves the 150-year-old Greenhouse Effect principle). If you want to use charts and weather averages to debate HOW MUCH influence man is having, I will be happy to do so, since I believe man has a considerable effect. But you are using them to do something they are not intended to do: disprove a basic scientific principal.

Assuming you are correct (that tens of thousands of climate scientists who study this every day of their life for their profession have all, somehow, independently incorrectly interpreted the data), you still cannot use data charts to prove burning hydrocarbons does not release CO2, or that CO2 does not warm the earth. Those are basic scientific principles which are proven or disproven in a lab. That is the equivalent of saying that, if Newton's calculations of gravity were wrong, gravity does not exist. The data charts only tell us (or, more accurately, we think they tell us) HOW MUCH effect the CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere is on warming the globe.

If, however, you still wish to claim that humans are not warming the globe at all, I must refer you to my previous statement. Which is false? Do CO2 and other gases not cause the atmosphere to warm up? Or does burning hydrocarbons not produce CO2? Since either of these can easily be proven or disproven in a lab, do you have documentation of someone disproving one or the other?

Lastly, remember that, according to the global warming cabal, even though a handful of developing nations pollute far more than the US (China, India and possibly Brazil), the US is the sole nation responsible for global warming and should be expected to foot the bill to pay for the sins of everyone else.

Another flawed argument. You are arguing that, because a politician wants the wrong country to fix climate change, climate change must not exist. Political actions have nothing to do with proving or disproving scientific principles.

Barack Obama has incorrect views on many things. Barack Obama believes in gravity. Thus, gravity is false. Obviously, this is incorrect, as is your assertion that the actions of a politician have any influence on the accuracy of a scientific principle.

Again, once we can all agree that CO2 released by burning hydrocarbons is warming the atmosphere (or someone announces they have won the nobel prize for proving otherwise), I would be more than happy to discuss how much effect this CO2 is having on the climate. Until then, I am trying to argue how much an elephant weighs with someone who insists it isn't there. I will also be willing to discuss the Greenhouse Effect with you if you have reason to think John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius were mistaken when they proved this principle in the late 19th century.

It is possible, as one poster claimed, that only God knows. However, 3000 years ago only God knew the earth was round and revolved around the sun. Just because God is the only living thing that knows doesn't mean we can't find out. Imagine if Pythagoras had said "Only God (or, more appropriately, Gods) knows if the earth is round, so let's stop trying to find out"


#13

No, on to whether or not man's impact on the climate is significant enough to warrant concern.

Think about that for a minute. What that really says is, the earth today is still not as warm as it was 5,000 or more years ago (i.e. the ancient plant beds are only just being uncovered, the plants themselves are not yet regrowing). Was mankind also responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago? I highly doubt it; mankind was no more responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago than for the subsequent cooler temperatures.

Recently there was a forest fire in California. Authorities say this fire was caused by an arsonist. Your logic would say that is impossible. Since there are records of forest fires millions of years ago, and we KNOW humans did not cause those, logically it is impossible for a human to cause a forest fire.

Of course, this argument is absurd. Just because a man caused ONE forest fire, it does not mean that man causes ALL forest fires. So is the argument that, in order for man to significantly change the weather, we must be responsible for ALL weather changes. If forest fires can be caused by man, even though they occurred before men, so too climate change can be caused by man, even though it existed before man. Whether or not the climate changed before man came around is just as irrelevant to anthropogenic global warming as whether or not forest fires occurred before man existed would be in the arson investigation.

Of course, I am not disproving your belief that man is not significantly impacting the climate, I am simply disproving the idea that whether or not climate cycles occurred before man burned fossil fuels is somehow relevant to the discussion.

Climate change has, indeed, always existed: varying CO2 levels in the atmosphere have always impacted our climate, raising and lowering global temperatures by about 1 degree every 1000 years. However, the same temperature has increased about 1 degree in the past 100 years, 10 times faster than any natural warming or cooling we have on record.

My brother is a meteorologist for NOAA in Boulder Colorado. He does not think it is possible for global warming to be man caused.

Many meteorologists do, in fact, question global warming. It is a case where someone's knowledge and experience work against them.

I am an engineer. Let's say I am testing a motor. It would be impossible for me to predict if the motor will fail today, or tomorrow. But if you asked me if the motor would fail within a year, I could certainly say "yes". (It's a cheap motor). One could look at this logic and say: If I cannot predict if the motor will fail tomorrow, how can I possibly predict if it will fail a year from now? The answer is simple: I only have a 50/50 chance of predicting whether the motor will fail today, but I know that if the motor runs continuously for 365 days, one of those it will almost certainly fail.

Meteorologists predict the weather for the next day, week and month. It is an extremely difficult task. Predicting the weather only 24 hours ahead is hard enough, and when they try to predict a week or month early, they are almost always wrong, due to the unpredictability of weather patterns. Therefore, the meteorologist say to themselves: "I cannot predict the weather a week in advance, how can someone POSSIBLY predict it a year in advance?" But that is where climate science comes in. A Climatologist can use the history of the climate to predict the overall changes in climate a year from now, but could not tell if it would rain tomorrow to save his/her life.

A good quote I have seen is:
"Climatologists tell you what wardrobe to buy, meteorologists tell you what to wear tomorrow"

Whether or not people are exploiting climate change for monetary gain is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is occurring. It isn't even worth discussing. If all companions stopped making money off global warming tomorrow, would that mean AGW is suddenly real? Of course not. I am as disgusted as you all are at people like Al Gore using the scare to fleece governments out of money. But that does not mean I'm going to deny science.


#14

You say experts are disagreeing. They really aren't. Sure, there is SOME disagreement, but the OVERWHELMING majority of experts agree man is responsible for severe climate change. Most polls I have seen say that between 94-98% of actively publishing climatologists agree with AGW. I see only 3 possible explanations:

1) These tens of thousands of climate scientist have all independently done research, and all independently come to the same wrong conclusions. Somehow, every single one of them missed the arguments made by "Erich" and "Gordon Sims" which seem to quickly prove AGW is false. In 30 minutes of searching on the internet, these people have come up with proof against AGW that climate scientists have missed in decades of research.

2) there is an enormous global conspiracy among these tens of thousands of climate scientists. No one has come out against this conspiracy, and we have no evidence of it.
or

3) human caused climate change is real. The very small handful of climate scientists who disagree with it either have made research mistakes, or have been paid off by oil companies.

I think we can write off #2. First of all, very few scientists would be paid off to fake science. People become scientists for love of knowledge, not money. Second, if ANYONE is getting paid off, it's the scientists getting paid by oil companies to deny global warming, although I very much doubt this is happening either. There isn't enough money in climate change. I guess some could be paid off by governments, even though I can't fathom why a government official would risk getting caught paying off thousands of scientists just to prove AGW, which would give little or no benefit to a politician. Maybe Al Gore's company is paying off some, although I think paying off tens of thousands of climatologists would be rather expensive.

So #1. That a handful of bloggers on the internet have discovered evidence missed by tens of thousands of climate scientists. Possible, sure, but unlikely. Why? Because most "evidence" found on the internet against AGW is simply wrong. "Kama3" easily disproved the common misconception about volcano CO2 emissions, the comment about sunspots, and the comment that all global temperature data is from the last 50 years. I also disproved the idea that natural global warming disproved anthropogenic global warming.

I personally think the main problem is a lack of research done by individuals on the subject, and an artificial trust all humans have in others who agree with us. Gordon Sims heard someone say that volcanoes release more CO2 than humans, and believed it, despite the fact that 30 seconds of research would have proven it wrong. The same goes for Erich's comment that natural global warming disproves AGW. If he did any research at all, he would know that all climatologists are aware of natural global warming, and agree man is warming the climate in conjunction with natural warming.

But he heard this idea, wanted to believe it, and therefore didn't research it. Although I personally made up the forest fire analogy (and think it is a very good analogy, personally), it would not take much research to see that recent global warming is drastically different than any natural global warming in the last few millennia.

Before we begin trying to combat the supposed problem of climate change, it should be agreed by meteorologists that there is EVEN a problem to begin with. Otherwise, treatment is meaningless without a problem.

Climatologists, first of all. And they do agree. 97% of climatologists agree man is responsible for global warming. Is 97% not a consensus?

The debate on anthropogenic global warming is no more settled than the debate between theists and atheists on the existence of God

Really. Do you have any evidence that this "debate" is anything more than a handful (Say, 5% of climate scientists) who disagree with the findings? People keep discussing this "debate", but it doesn't exist. Virtually all climate scientists agree with AGW. 3-5% of scientists does not consist of a "debate" in my opinion. Maybe you disagree. Or maybe you have evidence that more than 3% of climate scientists are questioning AGW. Please let me know.


#15

[quote="littlebum2002, post:14, topic:273586"]
Sure, there is SOME disagreement, but the OVERWHELMING majority of experts agree man is responsible for severe climate change.

[/quote]

2008 was the year when any pretense that there was a "scientific consensus" in favor of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration in March of that year, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artifact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Yes, climate change has, indeed, always existed... it's called "weather"


#16

[quote="littlebum2002, post:14, topic:273586"]
You say experts are disagreeing. They really aren't. Sure, there is SOME disagreement, but the OVERWHELMING majority of experts agree man is responsible for severe climate change. Most polls I have seen say that between 94-98% of actively publishing climatologists agree with AGW. I see only 3 possible explanations:

1) These tens of thousands of climate scientist have all independently done research, and all independently come to the same wrong conclusions. Somehow, every single one of them missed the arguments made by "Erich" and "Gordon Sims" which seem to quickly prove AGW is false. In 30 minutes of searching on the internet, these people have come up with proof against AGW that climate scientists have missed in decades of research.

2) there is an enormous global conspiracy among these tens of thousands of climate scientists. No one has come out against this conspiracy, and we have no evidence of it.
or

3) human caused climate change is real. The very small handful of climate scientists who disagree with it either have made research mistakes, or have been paid off by oil companies.

I think we can write off #2. First of all, very few scientists would be paid off to fake science. People become scientists for love of knowledge, not money. Second, if ANYONE is getting paid off, it's the scientists getting paid by oil companies to deny global warming, although I very much doubt this is happening either. There isn't enough money in climate change. I guess some could be paid off by governments, even though I can't fathom why a government official would risk getting caught paying off thousands of scientists just to prove AGW, which would give little or no benefit to a politician. Maybe Al Gore's company is paying off some, although I think paying off tens of thousands of climatologists would be rather expensive.

So #1. That a handful of bloggers on the internet have discovered evidence missed by tens of thousands of climate scientists. Possible, sure, but unlikely. Why? Because most "evidence" found on the internet against AGW is simply wrong. "Kama3" easily disproved the common misconception about volcano CO2 emissions, the comment about sunspots, and the comment that all global temperature data is from the last 50 years. I also disproved the idea that natural global warming disproved anthropogenic global warming.

I personally think the main problem is a lack of research done by individuals on the subject, and an artificial trust all humans have in others who agree with us. Gordon Sims heard someone say that volcanoes release more CO2 than humans, and believed it, despite the fact that 30 seconds of research would have proven it wrong. The same goes for Erich's comment that natural global warming disproves AGW. If he did any research at all, he would know that all climatologists are aware of natural global warming, and agree man is warming the climate in conjunction with natural warming.

But he heard this idea, wanted to believe it, and therefore didn't research it. Although I personally made up the forest fire analogy (and think it is a very good analogy, personally), it would not take much research to see that recent global warming is drastically different than any natural global warming in the last few millennia.

Climatologists, first of all. And they do agree. 97% of climatologists agree man is responsible for global warming. Is 97% not a consensus?

Really. Do you have any evidence that this "debate" is anything more than a handful (Say, 5% of climate scientists) who disagree with the findings? People keep discussing this "debate", but it doesn't exist. Virtually all climate scientists agree with AGW. 3-5% of scientists does not consist of a "debate" in my opinion. Maybe you disagree. Or maybe you have evidence that more than 3% of climate scientists are questioning AGW. Please let me know.

[/quote]

That's not accurate. Funding for scientific research is disproportionately allocated according to the hypotheses of individual climatologists. It's a bit like watching a conservative or liberal news channel that is sympathetic to your own philosophy, just to validate your own preconceived notions. A lot of governments (as well as corporations like General Electric and organizations like the UN), particularly the Obama administration, have a political stake in substantiating the anthropogenic hypothesis, so, decisions about the awarding of grant money that should be made absent political considerations are inevitably marred by them.

Climatologists trying to prove that global warming is caused by humans receive dramatically higher percentages of all grant money. Money talks, and that's why it appears as though the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is caused by humans. I don't need to have a scientific degree to grasp common sense.

I'm admittedly sympathetic to people like Gordon Sims, but I usually don't resort to mounting scientific objections or prognostications to justify my doubts on the anthropogenic hypothesis because I admit I'm out of my element when it comes to geology or climatology.

If you like I can link you to MANY dissenting, peer reviewed studies that strongly question the anthropogenic hypothesis.


#17

2008 was the year when any pretense that there was a "scientific consensus" in favor of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration in March of that year, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artifact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Where is this paper? No link?

So you are taking the stance that tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world have all conspired to alter data to make climate change look real.

Climatologists trying to prove that global warming is caused by humans receive dramatically higher percentages of all grant money. Money talks, and that's why it appears as though the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is caused by humans. I don't need to have a scientific degree to grasp common sense.

Scientists research to find truth, not to get grant money. Why would a scientist care if he gets money for an experiment which is deigned just to get more grant money? It
's not like the scientists are personally benefiting here. This is what you are basically saying:

"A scientist is faking research to get more grants to fake more research". I fail to see how the scientist benefits in any way, since he would be much better off doing real research to find real outcomes and getting just as much grant money from someone else.

So scientists who claim the world is flat receive much grant money? Of course not. Is it because governments are corruptly faking evidence of a round earth? No, it's bc a scientist who says the earth is flat is not likely to be a good scientist.

When we know that Cco2 warms the earth, and we know the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing 10 times faster than even before in tens of thousands of years, and we know temperature is increasing ten times as fast as it ever has in tens of thousands of years, and we know the reason for the increase of that CO2 is man burning hydrocarbons, I can understand the reluctance of the government to fund a scientist who says man's impact on the environment is negligible, just like I can understand how they would reject funding for someone trying to prove the earth is flat.

How many scientists have come out against AGW? I would love to know the numbers. And I would love to see those papers as well.

I am sorry, but I refuse to believe that tens of thousands of scientists are in some huge global conspiracy. I never believe in conspiracy theories, since they are always hogwash. It's why I didn't believe the entire Hawaii department of health was lying about the validity of Obama's birth certificate, why I don't believe the Bush administration blew up the WTC, etc.

The numbers speak for themselves. The temperature is rising ten times faster than any increase in tens of thousands of years. And if you are going to claim that data is faked, you better show proof.


#18

[quote="littlebum2002, post:17, topic:273586"]
Where is this paper? No link?

So you are taking the stance that tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world have all conspired to alter data to make climate change look real.

Scientists research to find truth, not to get grant money. Why would a scientist care if he gets money for an experiment which is deigned just to get more grant money? It
's not like the scientists are personally benefiting here. This is what you are basically saying:

"A scientist is faking research to get more grants to fake more research". I fail to see how the scientist benefits in any way, since he would be much better off doing real research to find real outcomes and getting just as much grant money from someone else.

So scientists who claim the world is flat receive much grant money? Of course not. Is it because governments are corruptly faking evidence of a round earth? No, it's bc a scientist who says the earth is flat is not likely to be a good scientist.

When we know that Cco2 warms the earth, and we know the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing 10 times faster than even before in tens of thousands of years, and we know temperature is increasing ten times as fast as it ever has in tens of thousands of years, and we know the reason for the increase of that CO2 is man burning hydrocarbons, I can understand the reluctance of the government to fund a scientist who says man's impact on the environment is negligible, just like I can understand how they would reject funding for someone trying to prove the earth is flat.

How many scientists have come out against AGW? I would love to know the numbers. And I would love to see those papers as well.

I am sorry, but I refuse to believe that tens of thousands of scientists are in some huge global conspiracy. I never believe in conspiracy theories, since they are always hogwash. It's why I didn't believe the entire Hawaii department of health was lying about the validity of Obama's birth certificate, why I don't believe the Bush administration blew up the WTC, etc.

The numbers speak for themselves. The temperature is rising ten times faster than any increase in tens of thousands of years. And if you are going to claim that data is faked, you better show proof.

[/quote]

  1. Your argument assumes that all scientists, or at least a clear majority of scientists, are ethical scientists whose conclusions are not influenced by preconceived notions. I wonder then, why any good scientist worth his salt is trained on the importance of ethics, and a cardinal rule of the scientific method is to maintain an appropriate level of professional distance from the results of an experiment, that is, not to invest any emotion or profit in the particular outcome of an experiment.

The sanctity of scientific ethics can become compromised when you have people with vast sums of money who are willing to stake that money on the outcome of scientific research, and thereby manipulate from the outside. Such is the potential vulnerability of scientific integrity in a freemarket, capitalist system.

Not all scientists withstand the temptation toward academic dishonesty. But examples of this happen every day. Why did Phil Jones have to fudge his research, if he's on the right side of the debate? You tell me. I don't know. But my point is, it happens. Not all scientists are as interested in the truth as you or I am. Some of them just want money and accolades from people who are all too ready to agree with them.

  1. The fact that I have knowledge of vastly influential parties on your side of the debate using unethical means to silence the opposition does not mean I endorse the belief in a hypothetical conspiracy. For instance, I don't doubt the sincerity of YOUR belief in manmande global warming. I do know however, that parties more powerful than you have a vested interest in manipulating the scientific discussion.

I acknowledge that even people who held vindicated, factual beliefs ahead of proven discoveries have used violent or underhanded means to silence the opposition. For example, police who have unlawfully harassed their suspects before the discovery of evidence proving the guilt of the suspect. My knowledge of underhanded tactics on the part of anthropogenic theorists is not a commentary on a conspiracy endorsed by all proponents of the theory.

In other words, I don't doubt the sincerity of all scientists endorsing the anthropogenic theory, but I do believe that influential power brokers are NOT beneath resorting to dishonesty to promote that theory, and it has been documented. I do believe that you sincerely believe that man is causing global warming, but the actions of many on your side of the debate cause me to have doubts about the veracity of manmade global warming.

  1. I'll get back to you on the studies, I'm going to have to do a little research...so, I guess I'm asking you to take me at my word and give me some time to collect my sources, which is asking a lot from you, because you don't know whether I can be trusted to get back to you.

#19

[quote="Inego_de_Loyola, post:31, topic:273338"]
Please for the sake of argument provide an exact working definition of the Greenhouse Effect. and maybe then explain it as well you can in layman's terms to make sure everyone here knows what we're talking about. One of the reasons I ask is because I believe I may have conclusively disproved it but I may be relying on a faulty definition.

[/quote]

Please littlebum, I'm still waiting on this. :(

You are complaining that no one is willing to argue against your premises. I am willing and I have asked only one thing before I do.


#20

"Global Warming" is wishful thinking of which many so-called "scientists" are guilty.

*The Global Warming Hoax is Now Killing People
Alan Caruba Monday, February 13, 2012 *

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44602


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.