Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

Look on the bright side , the Republicans could have been paying to listen to Ollie North after their breakfast instead of Gray .:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Your article is good, but it is only focusing on one thing that has been used to support global warming.

---

What one thing was that?

Quote:

---

I was surprised to see this thread actually, since I recalled the "humans aren't the cause of global warming" argument being put to rest a while ago.

---

You thought a newspaper article about a study on Ocean temperatures that hadnt been peer-reviewed was enough to put it to rest? Why, because the author of the study said so? Forgive me if I remain skeptical.

The Climate Science weblog will discuss the importance of this paper in more detail in a later weblog. However, the reported over 20% loss of upper ocean heat content between 2003 and 2005, which had accumulated between 1955 and 2003, is a very important observational finding. According to the paper, this cooling corresponds to -1.0 (+/- 0.3) W/meter squared global radiative imbalance over this time period.

This is a significant observation, which has important climate science implications as has been discussed in the Climate Science weblog of August 8, 2006. None of the multi-decadal global climate models predicted such a cooling.

link

Quote:

---

Also, is it just me or do people who say humans aren't the cause always follow it up with "and even if we are, there's nothing we can do about it"?

---

It's just you- they don't always say that. I personally tend to agree with that statement though. I certainly havent seen any convincing evidence to suggest that we go back to the dark ages in order to stave off impending climate doom.

Speaking of dark ages, it's interesting to note that most studies seem to suggest that the world was warmer during the medieval warm period than it is during our current one.
link-refer to the qualitative & quantitative charts.... or read the whole study. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Let me spell it out, your prediction of having to bail out millions of residents due to rising sea levels is complete and total crap. Is that clear enough for you? I thought I produced enough sources and statements to say that, but apparently I have to spell it out for you...You seem to be under the false impression that climate change = impending doom and disaster, it doesnt.

---

So, just to make sure I'm getting this straight, you don't believe any climatic shift in, say, the next century will have any effect on the seaboards? Let's break this down a little further -- do you believe that climate shift will be too gradual to have any effect, or do you believe that any shifts won't affect the seaboards?

I'm going to take it as a given that you're not making the argument that there's no such thing as climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So, just to make sure I'm getting this straight, you don't believe any climatic shift in, say, the next century will have any effect on the seaboards? Let's break this down a little further -- do you believe that climate shift will be too gradual to have any effect, or do you believe that any shifts won't affect the seaboards?

---

There will be some change- I don't believe there will be catostrophic change. Slight variations in sea level are certain to occur and have occurred- but in terms of centuries, it's measured in centimeters.

Quote:

---

I'm going to take it as a given that you're not making the argument that there's no such thing as climate change.

---

Indeed, I think that's false premise that many of the pro-global warming rank and file seem to fall for. They seem to think that the climate should be static and that any changes must be a result of our actions.

Well, there are some prominent people who agree with you, Xiahou. Rather more who don't, but that's neither here nor there; science isn't a popularity contest -- somebody's right, and the rest are wrong.

It's so hard to tell with you, though, how seriously you're taking the discussion. You've staked out positions in the past largely because of their political value. Is your current position something you truly, deeply believe, or are you reacting against Al Gore and Greenpeace? I ask because you're approaching this with such an air of certitude, when climate studies are an area where indisputable conclusions are few and far between.

Maybe I'm just jaded by our exchange over "Islamic fascism." It's also entirely possible I'm getting too old for the Backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Maybe I'm just jaded by our exchange over "Islamic fascism." It's also entirely possible I'm getting too old for the Backroom.

---

Any chance I could get a link to that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's so hard to tell with you, though, how seriously you're taking the discussion. You've staked out positions in the past largely because of their political value. Is your current position something you truly, deeply believe, or are you reacting against Al Gore and Greenpeace? I ask because you're approaching this with such an air of certitude, when climate studies are an area where indisputable conclusions are few and far between.

---

I was a global warming believer for years. When I'd hear someone speaking out against it I'd think "How can they say that? We all know it's true."- I never heard any different in school. But eventually, I started looking into what info was available and came to the conclusion that it certainly is not a sure thing. I now think man-influenced global warming is a possibility- but not even close the the level of threat that it's made out to be by certain opportunistic doomsayers who are amplified in the media. It irks me, because it means that we can't take any environmental statements we read in the news at face value anymore (maybe we never could) because of the intellectual dishonesty of a vocal few.

Quote:

---

Maybe I'm just jaded by our exchange over "Islamic fascism." It's also entirely possible I'm getting too old for the Backroom.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Any chance I could get a link to that?

---

I think he means this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

we're getting low on flat earthers, but that's about it.

---

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/index.php

They may not be scientists but there's enough nutters around. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Well, there are some prominent people who agree with you, Xiahou. Rather more who don't, but that's neither here nor there; science isn't a popularity contest -- somebody's right, and the rest are wrong.

---

I think we can agree that we cannot be certain of what's causing global warming. Humans and CO2? Then why the drop from 1940 to 1970?

To me, it seems that what's going on is natural earth changes-perhaps influenced by the sun. It's possible some is human caused, but how much is uncertain. Most people agree that completely shutting down industrialized civilization would only slow down the temp increase by 1C over 100 years at most.

The problem lies with those like Al Gore and Greenpeace- who try to make like we're going to die in 10 years if we don't listen to them. They try to convince through fear, and it gets old when they already said we'd be dead by now.

Quote:

---

So simple but obviousy of such complexity that you cannot understand it .

---

Where did I say he wasn't retired from teaching? :book:
And what is a usual amount of headlines for retired professors?
And how does the relative rate of headlines-to-retired-professors affect this story?

Quote:

---

They may not be scientists but there's enough nutters around.

---

Oh. Dear. Goodness. What was it Einstein said aobut the universe and human stupidity? I hope it's all an elaborate joke.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/index.php

They may not be scientists but there's enough nutters around. :dizzy2:

---

Now that is an absolute gem of a website. Thank you for brightening my day immeasureably!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat Earth Society FAQ

Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"

A: Well, it looks that way up close. Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: It's a conspiracy.

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA are part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture."

---

It's wonderful! Exactly the same methodology as creationists.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I must say, though I have been involved in the environmental movement for many years, I tend towards supporting Xiahou in this.

It has to be noted that Professor Gray was talking to a group of people who wanted to hear his message.

Having said that, the worst excess of many environmental groups is to stifle debate, and the climate change issue is rapidly getting to this point. The overwhelming body of scientific opinion is that human activity is contributing to a more rapid acceleration of global warming that can be accounted for from our knowledge of natural warming/cooling cycles.

However, that's pretty much where the consensus stops, and even a consensus deserves to be tested frequently and with vigour. Science requires challenge and rational debate. If Professor Gray or others provide compelling evidence, the community's consensus may change. They must be listened to and debated, not scorned. The effects of such a rapid change appear to range from extreme flooding to extreme freezing via flip-flopping. Our best models are getting better, but the very complexity of climate modelling means there will always be doubt.

Underlying this confusing uncertainty is the absolute certainty that humanity is incapable of preventing whatever is coming. Kyoto was not even a band-aid, it was a complete con and PR exercise. At least President Bush (and I don't say he did it for informed reasons, but he may well have) treated it as the useless diversion it was. Look how many countries have managed to even come close to those incredibly soft targets, apart from those that were already there.

I came to the realisation some years ago, as did many serious environmentalists, that once China and India (and all the other rapidly industrialising countries) started approaching even Europe's individual carbon footprint, let alone the USA's, we'd be royally screwed. They were never going to put back their growth for the world's benefit when their competitors (the West) had reaped the profits of cheap energy for so long. Why would they pay for our excess?

In any case, humanity has hardly ever evolved a better model of society without a catastrophe to provoke change. We're not that grown up yet to co-ordinate and build a global solution without immediate and pressing need. We can't even do it in regard to terrorism, which is actually killing people now.

If climate change causes us enough anguish, we'll do something about it. It's interesting to note that some of the biggest lobbyists for political action behind the scenes are the insurance companies who are footing the new bills. And to be brutal, no-one in the developed world actually cares a tinker's cuss about whether the Maldives or Bangladesh sink underwater. When Washington or London have new boating lakes, there may be some interest, but not until.

Having said all that, there are also huge opportunities for business to develop more efficient energy models - and then sell them to China and India. There will be a time when fossil fuels become uneconomic, and we have real issues with political dependence on the sources of our energy. We have therefore a business imperative to address the problem - not to solve global warming (which may be a nice side effect) but to be more efficient and profitable in our business.

Whatever our take on the final effects of global warming, we should not let those views interfere with improving energy efficiency, which I imagine is a desirable goal whatever one's political spectrum.

IRT topic: Well, I guess we'll never find out about the cause of global warming as long as state sponsored science declines in favor of heavily biased industry-sponsored science. Even most of the university science of today needs monetary support from companies.

Besides, “I’m sure that’s it.” is not a very strong argument.

No matter how it is, we know that we're capable of polluting significant amounts of poisonous substances to cause harm and significant enough amounts of non-poisonous substances to upset natural circulation, especially if all countries including both western countries and China and India keep expanding industrially and pollution-wise. Whether a disaster will happen now, in 50 years, or much later is the only matter that's up for debate. What we should be worried about isn't this single problem instance, but the fact that our society structures and the world community is of a kind where we can't stop anything of this type due to cultural problems, lack of trust problems, and the competition atmosphere world wide, which makes it more desirable to kill half of earth's population and one fourth of your own people in order to not be weaker than someone else could be if he would do the same thing. Society is simply built up in a system of global competition not seen any time previously in history, due to the increased globalization procedure and our still arcaic administrations, society systems and international discussion forums such as the UN (which hasn't been anything close to what it was intended to be). Earth has no own will or agenda to remain inhabitable, it's life that is at the mercy of earth not the opposite. Remember that earth wasn't inhabitable to human beings in the first billion years or more, for instance, due to exactly the reverse of CO2 pollution. The main issue that environmentalists wish to take up for discussion is thus how to change world community in a way so that this pre-programmed built-in self-destruction is avoided. It's a difficult problem but it concerns everybody, especially in the long run. Among more balanced environmentalists and experts, there are no requirements for anybody to reduce pollution until a solution has been found where all countries at the same time can agree to reduce pollution, so that being environmental-friendly doesn't weaken you politically. The Kyoto protocol was a good attempt, but since it didn't involve the third world, China, or the USA it was doomed to failure from start. I'm confident that if a new attempt would be made, that includes all these countries, it would be a lot more successful.

Quote:

---

IRT topic: Well, I guess we'll never find out about the cause of global warming as long as state sponsored science declines in favor of heavily biased industry-sponsored science. Even most of the university science of today needs monetary support from companies.

---

Well Legio , it doesn't really matter if it is state or private funding since the state can also have its own bias .
Anyhow its not unusual for someone to go against the flow , for centuries "top" scientists were insisting about strange things on some really diverse subjects . How many went to great length and much expense to "prove" that despite the more widely held views of other scientists that smoking couldn't trigger cancer , or that asbestos is really safe .:shrug:

Quote:

---

So, just to make sure I'm getting this straight, you don't believe any climatic shift in, say, the next century will have any effect on the seaboards? Let's break this down a little further -- do you believe that climate shift will be too gradual to have any effect, or do you believe that any shifts won't affect the seaboards?

---

Lets say that there will be a shift. Whos to say this will be a bad thing? It most likely will be bad for some and good for others. Global warming also causes many good things. Like more plentiful crops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well Legio , it doesn't really matter if it is state or private funding since the state can also have its own bias .
Anyhow its not unusual for someone to go against the flow , for centuries "top" scientists were insisting about strange things on some really diverse subjects . How many went to great length and much expense to "prove" that despite the more widely held views of other scientists that smoking couldn't trigger cancer , or that asbestos is really safe .:shrug:

---

Cynical, but true.

Research can take many years to achieve a firm answer, and there will usually be much argument in the process.

This has been one of my pet peeves on this whole issue. Why should I embrace a radical alteration of lifestyle in response to something that is still under contention?

Would you agree to a heart transplant because your GP says its needed -- or might you want to see a few more test results a get a second opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Cynical, but true.

Research can take many years to achieve a firm answer, and there will usually be much argument in the process.

This has been one of my pet peeves on this whole issue. Why should I embrace a radical alteration of lifestyle in response to something that is still under contention?

Would you agree to a heart transplant because your GP says its needed -- or might you want to see a few more test results a get a second opinion?

---

So the only thing that would make you change your life style in a radical manner is a life threatening disaster ?

You need to have a heart attack first. Or see overwhelming evidence. You won't stop smoking, will still eat all the fattest foods, won't give a crap about exercising, won't do anything preventitive, much less get a heart transplant. Maybe you don't need to see the levees break or the towers fall...but I'm sure you'll do something once the evidence becomes overwhelming. A good old fashioned conservative. Ok, I can work with that. Really.

What about not so radical change ? So you won't take public transport. Won't ride your bike to work. Won't walk the half mile to the store instead of driving. Won't get up an hour earlier so you can commute with your wife. Won't buy an alternatively fueled car. Won't plant a tree, much less hug one. Ok. Allright. I can deal with that. I guess.

The danger isn't emminent. While a type 4 hurricane could hit, its unlikely. And I'm sure those guys in the middle east are angry, but Rambo was over there in Rambo III. He made some pretty good friends. Blew up a couple of commie helicopters with a bow and arrow. We can hold it down. Foreigners have very weak upper bodies.

So its not a danger. Not big enough for personal radical or minor change. Where does the environment rank then ? What about stewardship of the land ? Any of that worth changing for ? Maybe not personaly actionable but how about instilling a love or even healthy respect for the environment in our children ? Is that out as well ? Too granola ? How about all the hub-bub about geo-green ? Buy in to that at all ? Where do your interests converge with environmental interests ?

Quote:

---

Having said that, the worst excess of many environmental groups is to stifle debate, and the climate change issue is rapidly getting to this point. The overwhelming body of scientific opinion is that human activity is contributing to a more rapid acceleration of global warming that can be accounted for from our knowledge of natural warming/cooling cycles.

---

I think you hit the nail on the head there. I have a newfound respect for you on this issue. It seems we disagree, but you are open to change and realize the practical difficulties of your goals (China, India). ~:cheers:

The worst thing, to me, is the greenpeace types (coughAlGorecough) who insist we radically change our lives because of heavily disputed scientific conclusions.

I also agree the answer lies in better energy sources, because we will eventually run out of oil, or go so low that it becomes economically unviable. Though I'd say let private companies research it, as the gov't rarely does things right.

Crazed Rabbit

To chime in with Banquo and CR, it's bad for any scientific issue to become polarized and partisan. It kind of kills off any change of an intelligent discussion, since the partisans become more concerned with scoring points than finding the truth of the matter.

It's a problem that applies to way more than just climate change.

Meh. :shrug:

Spam much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

To chime in with Banquo and CR, it's bad for any scientific issue to become polarized and partisan. It kind of kills off any change of an intelligent discussion, since the partisans become more concerned with scoring points than finding the truth of the matter.

It's a problem that applies to way more than just climate change.

---

I can't find the link now, but I read a story recently about a scientific journal that had several of it's editors resign after it ran a study critical of global warming. They had demanded to be able to write an accompanying editorial blasting the study and condemning it as a "mistake" for it being published and when they weren't permitted to do so they quit.

That's exactly the kind of polarization we don't need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Though I'd say let private companies research it, as the gov't rarely does things right.

---

Agreed, though governments have a role in setting the business conditions to promote innovation through research - ie R&D is remarkably expensive and potentially leads to a loss-making dead end, so the tax environment can be adjusted to support research.

In addition, in Europe a great deal of university research (which should be where pure science lives heathily, but don't get me on that soap-box) is funded by government, and this should continue - otherwise scientists whore themselves for whatever is the current grant-giving fashion, much as we see now with climate change.