I did, and I also read Louis' link. Did you?
Printable View
I did, and I also read Louis' link.
There's a lot to be said about AGH. As with abortion, guns, gays, one does not feel like writing hefty posts, again. Very briefly, I think the process is real. I think the more interesting debate is 'does it matter', and 'can we be quite certain there will be no runaway processes'. One can question the measures taken to limit AGW. Some will win, others will lose. I'd be getting worried in Australia and even Spain, and be cheering in Canada or Russia.
It is also one of the topics on which I seem to mostly agree with Furunculus. :jumping:
Indeed. And the other question that should be debated is why, even if anthropogenic heating is less dangerous or non-existent, we are not using the mere risk to drive energy technologies away from carbon anyway. Regardless of warming, we face significant strategic threats to our energy supplies through reliance on carbon. To seek to replace that reliance is good sense, and may also save the planet. The hardline denialist approach seems utterly bereft of sense because it includes this baby with their bathwater. (In the same sort of manner as the worst of the doom-mongers want us taxed back into unlit caves).
EDIT: A common acronym expressing some degree of surprise. BG
No-one doubts that climate changes, and I know that it can be catastrophic, but if this bout is not principally anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth on controlling CO2 may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides. I have grave doubts about the proposed political solution, and I do not accept that IPCC climate scientists are peerless and disinterested paragons worthy of unquestioning faith.
or in more extended form:
Quote:
Articles of faith:
1. That climate change is always happening, and the recent historical temperature record has shown significant warming
2. That climate change has frequently been both rapid and severe, which by definition makes it catastrophic to species
3. That feedback mechanisms, both positive and negative, work to accelerate or mitigate the scale and rate of change
4. That humans are a climate feedback mechanism, and will have an impact on the state of climate equilibrium
5. That CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, and that anthropogenic CO2 is by definition anthropogenic climate change
6. That it may yet come to pass that we, as a species, are proven to be responsible for causing catastrophic climate change
However:
a) the IPCC has thus far failed to conclusively demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 is principally responsible for what will be catastrophic climate change in the near future, or that the many claimed impacts which justify the title “catastrophe” are based on solid and sound science.
b) the IPCC climate change models that underpin this conclusion have insufficient data for long term projections, do not properly account for feedback mechanisms and thus fail to produce accurate projections, and contain too many errors to produce truthful projections.
c) the political solutions to the problem as presented by the IPCC are both staggeringly expensive for human society, and highly inefficient as a method achieving a non-catastrophic outcome, and thus require a large amount of certainty in (a) and (b) before implementing (c) becomes a sensible idea.
To put this another way; the IPCC solution will cost 12.9% of global GDP by 2100 (the equivalent of €27 trillion a year), at a time when tens of millions die unnecessarily each year from disease and poor infrastructure, and two thirds of the worlds current population lives in abject poverty, so, if you have little faith in the diagnosis, of what value is the prognosis, especially when the same resources applied to a different remedy could achieve a much better outcome for humanity?
The problems identified above have been compounded by the fact that parts of the IPCC process are not conducted in an open and scientific manner, they require our faith that the ‘consensus’ is correct and when they do not receive that faith the only option is to attack, to vilify, and to demean. Any public utterance of scepticism is met by the accusation of sin; “but you don’t believe in climate change, do you!” This is the real poison of the consensus as advocated through politics and eco-preaching, it is removing the responsibility of critical analysis from people, and replacing it with xenophobic faith. The healthiest aspect of the whole ‘Gates’ saga is that climate scientists have been proven not to be peerless and disinterested Gods labouring ceaselessly for the salvation of humanity, they are just as venal and flawed as the rest of us, and that trust is something to be earned not given.
This is no longer science, it is politics.
True scepticism is not immovable as climate science is advancing every day in its understanding, and a thorough review of climate science may indeed reveal that climate change is both catastrophic and anthropogenic in nature, but even were this to be the case I would not be surprised if the solution deemed necessary looked very different from that which is proposed today. We are after all a species that is the triumph of evolution and adaptation, and the technology of the 21st century will always be the best solution to whatever the sins of the 20th century might prove to be.
The ‘Gates’ saga is no bad thing, at the very least we will have a vastly greater understanding of climate change; its primary mechanisms, its feedback mechanisms, its impacts, and by extension the political measures that will effectively ameliorate the real impact. At best we may discover that stunting world growth for the next century is unnecessary, at worst that climate change is both imminent and catastrophic…….. but not principally anthropogenic!
Thank God for the ‘Gates’.
To get a sense of the relentless attack on science, some fun emails obtained from BP.
BP's criminal neglect and disregard for the environment and locals led the huge oil spill disaster. To make amends, BP pledged half a billion dollar towards research into the oil spill. This money, as it emerges from the obtained correspondence, BP tried to use to steer science, direct it favourably to its own interests.
Sadly, we live in an age of diminishing independent science. Of politics no longer content to try to spin their role within an accepted reality, but trying to obscure, confuse and change the perception of reality. Worrying developments.
Quote:
BP officials tried to take control of a $500m fund pledged by the oil company for independent research into the consequences of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, it has emerged.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show BP officials openly discussing how to influence the work of scientists supported by the fund, which was created by the oil company in May last year.
Russell Putt, a BP environmental expert, wrote in an email to colleagues on 24 June 2010: "Can we 'direct' GRI [Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative] funding to a specific study (as we now see the governor's offices trying to do)? What influence do we have over the vessels/equipment driving the studies vs the questions?".
The email was obtained by Greenpeace and shared with the Guardian.
The documents are expected to reinforce fears voiced by scientists that BP has too much leverage over studies into the impact of last year's oil disaster.
Those concerns go far beyond academic interest into the impact of the spill. BP faces billions in fines and penalties, and possible criminal charges arising from the disaster. Its total liability will depend in part on a final account produced by scientists on how much oil entered the gulf from its blown-out well, and the damage done to marine life and coastal areas in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The oil company disputes the government estimate that 4.1m barrels of oil entered the gulf.
There is no evidence in the emails that BP officials were successful in directing research. The fund has since established procedures to protect its independence.
Other documents obtained by Greenpeace suggest that the politics of oil spill science was not confined to BP. The White House clashed with officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last summer when drafting the administration's account of what has happened to the spilled oil.
On 4 August, Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, demanded that the White House issue a correction after it claimed that the "vast majority" of BP oil was gone from the Gulf.
Is the arctic ice retreating? Is there global warming?
Well, the world's arctic powers certainly seem to think so. Wikileaks shows how the arctic countries have been busy bees happily dividing between them the spoils of dissapearing ice sheets:
Quote:
Secret US embassy cables released by Wikileaks show nations are racing to "carve up" Arctic resources - oil, gas and even rubies - as the ice retreats.
They suggest that Arctic states, including the US and Russia, are all pushing to stake a claim.
The opportunity to exploit resources has come because of a dramatic fall in the amount of ice in the Arctic.
The US Geological Survey estimates oil reserves off Greenland are as big as those in the North Sea.
The cables were released by the Wikileaks whistleblower website as foreign ministers from the eight Arctic Council member states - Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland - met in Nuuk, Greenland on Thursday to sign a treaty on international search-and-rescue in the Arctic and discuss the region's future challenges.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/9483790.stm
Kewl, an American school decided that making children absolutely terrified of CO2 isn't the same as a real education, and is honest about the fact that there is no consensus, that not every scientist is 100% sure we are ALL going to DIE unless we(you) ACT RIGHT NOW. Apocalyptoloco's are naturally coughing up their lungs screaming it's no different from denying the holocaust, odd religion.
A fair point.
I wonder, however, just how well such a focus would work in practice. Invention seems to function best when prompted by market forces/obvious need (Edison's light bulb; Tesla's alternating current) or when it is a spinoff from some other compelling goal. To date, "climate change" hasn't really generated that kind of compelling response.
Yes, when we need stuff, the market is best suited to give it to us.
Other issues, however, are best solved by society(via the government or idealists). The market can't give everyone health treatment. The market cannot educate the public. The market cannot give us justice or safety.
But to be honest, I'm not sure which category climate change falls under...
Not all schools teach that god exists, but all schools do teach that we have to be absolutely terrified of CO2. Lying about the fact that there is no consensus is just as bad as not teaching the evolution-theory, even worse in fact as the hoax has much more direct impact
If you want to be taken seriously, Frags, I suggest that you quit the hyperbole.
Here are the goals from my curriculum that concerns climate change and such:
Quote:
Originally Posted by in science
Do note that "climate change" is never mentioned specifically, and these three goals are very broad. Oh, and this is for the 10th grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by in geography
As I see it, I'm not allowed to give high marks on the first goal if the student is unable to discuss at least one argument in favour of climate change as well as at least one that opposes it.
Me using hyperbole that's funny, I'm not the one saying billions will die because of mass starvation and war IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW
I can't, been dead since 2000, the other hoax did it
I can read the question but I can't read the desired answer so no no comment
As they say, follow the money....
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...-our-time.html
Do a little google for 'emmision rights', making people absolutely terrified of CO2 is big business. Mankind needs religion sadly, as a bishop told a Dutch landlord (real story) ' You keep them poor and I'll keep them stupid'
'But as the great global warming scare continues to fade away, the real problem is that our politicians have so much collective ego invested in this delusion that, even when hell freezes over, they will still find it impossible to admit they got it wrong.'
Meh when most people realise it's all a hoax said politicians have long be rewarded by the lobbyists
Interesting interview with a serious scientist, probably his last one for obvious reason, but than again maybe not as he seems too established to be ridiculed by the green rapturists. That he calls himself a heretic is very telling
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...n-2224912.html
I note the comments have been closed.
"The scientists who handle these models point out that they can accurately match up the computer predictions to real climatic trends in the past, and that it is only when they add CO2 influences to the models that they can explain recent global warming."
What a condescending prat!
Just about sums up the quality of the "consensus"Quote:
This is a very good interview and article. It's sad that someone with a sharp mind like FD has to resort to childish arguments to avoid answering straightforward questions. But he is 87 years old so perhaps his mind is going or gone. That's not ad hom, it's just what happens at that age. Be that a lesson to us all - speak/act while you're brain is still functioning properly as nature will take its course as you age.
I could be wrong that his mind is going. He could have had this flaw all his life. According to Wikipedia he is a "non-denominational Christian" and was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 2000. Neither of these things would I want on my epitaph.
How dare a Christian call himself a man of science, or a man of science not agree with the consensus?
Another setback for doomday-preachers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...e-Age-way.html
Not that it's going to stop them from repeating we are all going to diehieee IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT
Space is cool http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html
Not that it's going to stop the Green Khmer from lying about the climate but still, it's Nasa
Link the actual studies, not unintelligible crap a reporter cranks out after skimming the abstract and extrapolating it.
EDIT: No one should trust any "science" section of any newspaper, no matter how reputable. They always get it wrong, they always exaggerate, they always give half truths. Take your time on google scholar.
It's linked right in the article.
What? I have looked the page like 10 times and I still don't see where they put the link. Oh well, thanks for it. I will read it and see it. From a slight glance it is only 10 pages with one page obviously being sources. So to me this already screams, that it isn't exactly the most extensive paper considering how long the IPCC reports are.
That seemed oddly specific, is there a paper that did that?
LOL yes by saying that it doesn't seem extensive on the first glace considering the subject means "I THINK THIS IS FALSE."
That strawman was almost a bit insulting.
If you admit it is brand new scientific research than you have already failed by waving it around as a smoking gun.
Hmm Spencer and NASA data...
Must be what these links are talking about?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ture-feedback/
Looks like my cup of Confirmation bias has been refilled, so whatever.
So at least Roy Spencer is consistent:
He also states that cigarettes are not anywhere as near harmful as health experts state and is rolling in loads of ExxonMobil and Big Tobacco cash. :deal2::devil:
I'd give him my money until it hurts and then some.:dunce2:
And don't forget Intelligent Design. NASA has discovered that the scientists are lying alarmist atheists!!
Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spe...lligent_design
What's with all the strawmen? Do you guys seriously think I am that dumb?
I am not taking the "bloggosphere" seriously as 100% truth. But nevertheless those blogs raised some doubt on the article (I forget who posted it) brought up. SO I said, oh my skepticism was right because you guys dismissed it as if I have been drinking cool-aid this entire time.
Jeeze, I come around and say I am shocked the IPCC report let a blunder that big happen and you decide to take another jab at me. I'm gonna grab my Ben and Jerry's and have a nice cry while watching The Notebook.
We are not angry, just a little disappointed
It's as though I've entered a time machine and gone back 4 years, Fragony still here fighting global warming. ;)
Been working a lot.
Hi Koga!
Hah!
I'm going to go burn some trees in celebration.
I TOLD YOU GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL! NOW ALIENS WILL DESTROY US! YOU PEOPLE HAPPY?
We wouldn't be in any of this mess if only all you pesky sceptics would read the serious, leftwing, enviromentalist press: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...-civilisations.Quote:
Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report
It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.
Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.
This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University
Louis - So it wasn't a lame excuse for Jeff the mailman when Strike blamed 'some alien probe thingy that did ouch' for those suspicious scratch marks on his behind.
Humanity was heard to say at a press conference, "Bring it on."
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Forget about Men in Black. When those aliens come, I'm going to call you.
Whaddya charge for keeping them the heck away from my Texas' love interests from now on?
Louis - in a bid to keep what little of his dignity he's got left decides to not google for a 'Cowboys vs Aliens' picture.
Good God.
Wouldn't all our radio and tv broadcasts have a more significant signal.
After all by their thinking aliens would have to investigate every Venusian planet... Might explain their preference for probing :)
I'm not sure. Those signals diminish quite rapidly, while you can detect the components of the atmosphere quite far away (it's the next (or two) generation(s) technique of detecting planets with oxygen atmospheres iirc). I'm guessing that the light signal doesn't scatter as much.
Anyway, unless they use bioweapons, wiping out humanity is probably going to do massive ecological damage and the nuclear arsenal is still nasty enough to do it by itself, so I think the odds are quite low.
Haven't you seen 'The Day the Earth Stood Stll'. A big robot will arive, when it gets the go ahead it will break up in millions of nanobots. These nanobots form a swarm and destroy all human life without harming as much as a fly.
(If we do not act right now)
I wonder how much of this is on purpose. You know, to humourusly tackle all that 'Scientists of Penn State University say....', 'NASA scientist says...'
A whole lot of people have been employed by NASA over the years. Quite a few of them go on to make a living of as 'NASA scientist reveals that'. That there is no global warming, no evolution, that communism is a satanic plot against American children. And now, that aliens will destroy earth unless we tackle global warming.
Louis- ever since I was a small boy I have known, a deep feeling, like the intuition of the howling prairie wolf, that the aliens would select me out of all the people in my trailer park...
"Climategate" conclusively proven to have been a fabrication
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-manufactured/Quote:
A couple of the report conclusions are worth pointing out:We found no basis to conclude that the [Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.That’s clear enough, I think. They also said:
There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that’s not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that’s not scandalous at all; there’s always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn’t a big deal, or else they would’ve been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.
What does this mean for global warming? A lot of these attacks can be traced back to the famous "hockey stick" diagram, showing how Earth’s temperatures have been increasing rapidly in recent times. This graph is what really clinches the idea of man-made global warming, and so has been the epicenter of the manufactroversy. The fact that Dr. Mann has been cleared again, and that his data are good, shows that this graph is even more solid — or at least is not as weak as so many would lead you to believe.
And what does this mean about "ClimateGate"? That’s clear enough: all the outrage, all the claims of fraud and fakery, were just — haha — hot air. (Groan)
I would be feeling smug, except this is something which has been known for a long, long time and has already done tremendous amounts of damage to the scientific cause. The mass media won't publish this in any level of the coverage they provided to the initial allegations, as correcting when the media was wrong is borrrrrrrrrring. Instead, the doubts sown by the anti-science advocates and their apologists in politics and the media will tragically persist in many a mind for a long time to come.
However, I will feel smug if Delingpole ever has the balls to admit that he was wrong to trust the allegations, and truly wicked for promoting them as the truth. It's the very least he deserves.
CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08...first_results/
"It is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone."Quote:
What does this mean for global warming?
So I'm a little bored and read the Wiki article. The summary I got was that massive CO2 emissions saved us from another ice age and that left on their own, global temperatures would continue to cool for the next 4,000(!) years.
Isn't a glacier harder to farm than a desert?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...y-interesting/
Quote:
One would need to demonstrate:Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).
- … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
- … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
- … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
- … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr2011.jpg
Figure 2: Normalised changes in cosmic rays since 1953. There has not been a significant downward trend. The exceptional solar minimum in 2008-2010 stands out a little.
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).
good read, cheers.
I think we are finally getting at the bottom of this, thanks to Al Gore. If you aren't 100% sure we have to be absolutely terrified of CO2 you are really a racist. Must make sense somehow but I'm really bad at leftist logic. But then again that IPPC chief already compared sceptics with nazi's so it has to be true
One wonders if Delingpole ever worked in Ibiza, given the amount of foam that froths out of the poor man's mouth:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ism-says-gore/Quote:
So we see that in each case above [Gore and Krugman's comments about climate change deniers], the response of the left-liberal political/media establishment to a contentious subject in which it is losing the argument is not to fight back with better arguments but simply to close down the debate altogether with smears, lies and authoritarian bullying. Funnily enough, Stalin used a similar ploy against the scientists who disagreed with his pet genetics expert Lysenko. And the Nazis used the same technique against inconvenient Jewish physics when they wrote their pamphlet 100 Scientists Against Einstein. If this is where things are going then those of us, at least, who believe in frank debate, freedom of speech and empiricism should be very worried. We are entering dark times and worse, much worse, is still to come.
And the pot calls the eminent Dr. Kettle black. I still see no apologies for his reporting on "Climategate". I'm almost tempted to write him a letter.
Muhaha leftmensch trying to hit where it hurts, implicitely admitting it's all ideology. Splendid
Geertz immedaitely comes to mind:
It is one of the minor ironies of modern intellectual history that the term "ideology" has itself become thoroughly ideologized....Almost universally now the familiar parodic paradigm applies: "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology."
Oh dear....
Quote:
Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.
Oh dear oh dear...Quote:
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: xxxx@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS
Dear Ms. Kirby
Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.
Best regards,
Ivar Giaever
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/...Global-Warming
Oh lollipop. Not that it is going to convince people who scream we should be absolutely terrified ofcapitalismCO2 the stakes are too high.
KNOW that we are all going to die
IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW
A. You measure the average temperature of the earth with sensors and satellites. Lots of them. And we have lots of both. All over the world.
B. This guy is self contradicting. He is confident to say, "which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable,"
Then in the same article linked is quoted to have said, "We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is."
This is a joke. And I always laugh when I come in here and see the circlejerk when you get to pull out one dissenter every 2 months or so and get to claim how much of a fool the 98% consensus is among scientists.
Obviously every scientist is paid off by the gutmensch and this mysterious force paying them off is bigger and more powerful than the oil and gas companies who regularly supply politicians with hundreds of thousands of dollars while this mysterious, worldwide "green conspiracy" seems to have dropped the ball on paying off the people who actually make policies, considering that only one GOP candidate was willing to say that global warming is man made.
And .8 of a degree Celcius is actually a big deal on a global scale. It just shows how small minded those are who believe the Earth's ecosystem is some big sturdy force of nature that can't be so tainted by us humans, only the sun can influence something like the earth. Rocks that are just 10-15km wide can and have helped an extermination of the entire planet but billions of tons of carbon dioxide is nothing right?
I've said it before but it's worth repeating.
Science is never settled. It changes and evolves all the time. Theories are presented and tested, sometimes to destruction but it is never settled.
That's for religion.
Sattelites are awesome. But you still can't just decide that the earth is warming up. It has to be true otherwise it is not real. You should be happy really, as there will be no apocalypse. There will be no mass starvations, nor will global warming plunge us into WW3. If we do not act right now.
Quite right. That's why science works on the basis of consensus. When a large proportion of scientists in a field have tested and agreed on a hypothesis, that forms the basis of the consensus interpretation upon which further work and decisions are based. We do not through out the entire consensus because one or two voices of dissent appear until those dissenters bring enough solid evidence to over-turn the prevailing consensus and develop a new one.
Most scientists in the field hold a consensus that the theory of evolution is correct. A small percentage think that intelligent design is the explanation for biodiversity. Society proceeds on the basis of the consensus.
Most scientists in the field hold a consensus that electricity can be used to power electronic devices. A few think that tiny leprechauns power computers by pedalling hard on minute bicycles. Society proceeds on the basis of the consensus.
Most scientists in the field consider that anthropogenic climate change is a valid hypothesis with substantial evidence. A small percentage think that the dinosaurs did it. Society follows the oil money.
So a guy who is into solid state physics is now an expert in climatology and we are back to the basics of measuring temperature. Gee and here I thought temperature was increasing but that it was all natural. Why can't they not settle on the deniance because I'm confused.
Why don't you check the background of the knowologues behind the great scare, you will see that only a handful are from this field. The rise in global temperature, 0.2 degrees celcius in a century. How are Danish lakes doing by the way, are they still all completely dead because of acid rain? They never were completely dead of course, as acid rain also never existed, just like there is no reason to be absolutely terrified of CO2