[nonhuman]

Apparently the whole scientific consensus behind global warming is a myth, and the report last month by the UN claiming that it's almost certain that humans are responsible is a sham. According, at least, to this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965 .

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

It seems that one Professor Ian Clark, 'an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa', is essentially backing up what 'the conservatives' have been saying all along: that the scientific consensus is artificially generated by ignoring dissent. The problem, of course, is that it's hard to believe anyone once politics become involved. I for one, remain skeptical of any situation involving politics.

[ironknee]

i think cats are responsible with all the cars they drive...damn cats

[nonhuman]

My cat rides a bike.

[ironknee]

sweet

[nonhuman]

Back on topic...

Anyone have any response to the fact that an actual scientist in an actually relevant field is challenging the supposed consensus?

[Atomic Rooster]

I think the sun is getting bigger. Isn't that what happens before a supernova?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I think the sun is getting bigger. Isn't that what happens before a supernova?

our sun does not have nearly enough mass to supernova....

In about 5.5 billion years or so the sun will become a red giant though, its outer regions will be just about where earth's orbit is now, maybe a bit smaller. If the earth isn't swallowed whole then our magnetic field will be stripped away, along with our atmosphere. Leaving us in an extremely warm situation....but....I don't plan to be around in 5.5 billion years.

[OldManMac]

So you have one scientist who disagrees with the United Nations. No big deal; he's entitled to do that.

[tie]

I am a scientist and I think the sun is going to supernova. You can quote me on that. I'm sure Drudge will run it, too.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by tie 

I am a scientist and I think the sun is going to supernova. You can quote me on that. I'm sure Drudge will run it, too.

Unless you agree with everyone else you aren't entitled an opinion.

[Chuckit]

If you can find me any theory in any field that has literally nobody questioning it at all, I'll eat my hat. That's not what consensus is.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So you have one scientist who disagrees with the United Nations. No big deal; he's entitled to do that.

The link is a spot on a documentary on the opposite of Gore's position. It premiers this week on BBC.

There was a scientific panel of a number I don't recall and then a list of actual climatoligists, etc that signed on in support of it. They were prominent and the list was at least 40 long on what I'd read.

Before you go and quote the UN 2000, it has been pointed out already that that is the entire study group but only a small fraction of them are actual scientists.

That said, anyone that dismisses this out of hand without a viewing is blatantly partisan.

I've not seen it my own self and have no pre-conceived opinion of it other than my view that Gore's film is largely politically motivated. This may be the same…

But until I see it I will not be so foolish to say it's wrong

I found this as a synopsis:

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun's radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

[Atomic Rooster]

"Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us"

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | International | The Observer

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

I'm so freaking confused!!!

It's hard to riot with Michelin Man parkas on.

This should keep us warm though.

[Doofy]

· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Could happen if the Gulf Stream is konfabulated by the Greenlandic ice shelf fekupidness.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

Nothing new here...although the "rapid warmings and coolings" bit is more-than-slightly misleading. To the best of our knowledge climate changes in general were far and away slower than what we've been observing; the ones that were very quick seem to have been caused by rare catastrophic occurrences that had equally-catastrophic results for life on earth at that time.

And I find the "third world" argument for reducing emissions rather amusing. So is the Kyoto Protocol just a sneaky Socialist plan to redistribute First-World wealth, or is it "stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease"? I mean, as arguments those don't seem terribly compatible now, do they?

greg

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Anyone have any response to the fact that an actual scientist in an actually relevant field is challenging the supposed consensus?

Umm, so?!? What's your point?

Consensus = majority in agreement
Consensus != everyone in agreement

It's quite possible to have one, two, even twenty major climatologists disagreeing over the general scientific beliefs of the other several thousand major climatologists who are in agreement regarding global warming.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, so?!? What's your point?

Consensus = majority in agreement
Consensus != everyone in agreement

It's quite possible to have one, two, even twenty major climatologists disagreeing over the general scientific beliefs of the other several thousand major climatologists who are in agreement regarding global warming.

I realize that. However, if you'd actually read the article I linked to you'd realize that he's not just disagreeing with the consensus, he's saying that the consensus doesn't really exist. He's saying that the perception of a consensus has been artificially created for political reasons by suppressing and dismissing dissenting opinions. I don't know about the scientific community, but that sort of bullshit definitely happens here in this forum all the time.

[Moderator]

it must be the gays. they are causing global warming with all that friction.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I realize that. However, if you'd actually read the article I linked to you'd realize that he's not just disagreeing with the consensus, he's saying that the consensus doesn't really exist. He's saying that the perception of a consensus has been artificially created for political reasons by suppressing and dismissing dissenting opinions. I don't know about the scientific community, but that sort of bullshit definitely happens here in this forum all the time.

Scientists can be a pretty vocal bunch when they want. If the consensus *among climatologists* didn't really exist wouldn't there be a lot more stories like this from a lot more climatologists claiming their views are being suppressed?

Note I specified climatologists. We have hard plenty of "they are suppressing the truth" claims from individuals all over the scientific and non-scientific spectrum. But, in this matter there voices don't carry as much weight as that of climatologists because it is their area of specialty. (I am thinking in particular of the person who was quoting Charles Townes and his scepticism on global warming as somehow legitimate because Townes had a Nobel Prize in Physics: Well, it's not. His specialty is particle physics and electro-optics (laser beams) not climatology. So, Townes may be a really smart guy but not when it comes to climatology.)

[yakkiebah]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Channel 4 Thursday 8 March at 9pm

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun's radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

This is going to be interesting and will heat up the discussion on global warming even more.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Scientists can be a pretty vocal bunch when they want. If the consensus *among climatologists* didn't really exist wouldn't there be a lot more stories like this from a lot more climatologists claiming their views are being suppressed?

Note I specified climatologists. We have hard plenty of "they are suppressing the truth" claims from individuals all over the scientific and non-scientific spectrum. But, in this matter there voices don't carry as much weight as that of climatologists because it is their area of specialty. (I am thinking in particular of the person who was quoting Charles Townes and his scepticism on global warming as somehow legitimate because Townes had a Nobel Prize in Physics: Well, it's not. His specialty is particle physics and electro-optics (laser beams) not climatology. So, Townes may be a really smart guy but not when it comes to climatology.)

See, that's the thing. Just because it's not his specialty doesn't mean he doesn't know what it's talking about. There have been quite a few major breakthroughs in mathematics, physics, and technology at the hands of untrained amateurs, to say nothing of those with formal training in other areas. I'll readily admit that it makes sense to give more weight to what a climatologist says about climate, however it's irresponsible to ignore what another brilliant scientist says just because you don't think he's qualified. For all you know climatology is his hobby and he knows as much about it as anyone else. Plus, with a scientific background in a different field, he'll still have some understanding of the underlying science behind climatology. That combined with the different perspective he brings as a particle physicist could lead him to some breakthrough conclusion that's been escaping those who are fully immersed in the field. Certainly we can't take that on faith, but if global warming is as big a threat as some say it is (and I, for one, think that it is), doesn't it behoove us to consider all the possible options and not throw any opinions out if there's any chance they might have merit whatsoever?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Plus, with a scientific background in a different field, he'll still have some understanding of the underlying science behind climatology.

How the **** does that work? Because I have some foundation in computer science, that makes gives me an understanding of the weather?

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Certainly we can't take that on faith, but if global warming is as big a threat as some say it is (and I, for one, think that it is), doesn't it behoove us to consider all the possible options and not throw any opinions out if there's any chance they might have merit whatsoever?

To investigate possibilities is good; to throw out the most likely possibility until we've disproved the literally infinite number of other ideas is not. The latter seems to be what people are generally advocating. It's not, "Hey, here's an interesting idea." Instead it's, "Hey, forget all that man-made global warming hoo-hah — here's a different idea!"

[besson3c]

Does this documentary mean the end of gut feelings and knee jerk reactions?

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Scientists can be a pretty vocal bunch when they want. If the consensus *among climatologists* didn't really exist wouldn't there be a lot more stories like this from a lot more climatologists claiming their views are being suppressed?

Note I specified climatologists. We have hard plenty of "they are suppressing the truth" claims from individuals all over the scientific and non-scientific spectrum. But, in this matter there voices don't carry as much weight as that of climatologists because it is their area of specialty. (I am thinking in particular of the person who was quoting Charles Townes and his scepticism on global warming as somehow legitimate because Townes had a Nobel Prize in Physics: Well, it's not. His specialty is particle physics and electro-optics (laser beams) not climatology. So, Townes may be a really smart guy but not when it comes to climatology.)

This film is based on the research of climatoligists and other atmospheric scientists… and not just 1 or 2 of them. It is exactly their point that there is no consensus among those in their field.

I guess the real question is how many does it take to make the 'consensus' no longer so in pubic eyes?

[olePigeon]

I think it's bullcrap to say that opposing scientists are being "silenced." Scientific research needs opposing views. Skepticism is critical in the development of scientific research. The most important factor of scientific theory is the possibility of disproving it. That is why Global Climate Change is a theory, and why Intelligent Design is not. If there are scientists with credible data, testing, and observations that supports their theories, it's important that they're heard; especially with something as important as the entire global climate of this planet.

Whether this particular group is right or wrong (or both), it's good for the community anyway.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think it's bullcrap to say that opposing scientists are being "silenced." Scientific research needs opposing views. Skepticism is critical in the development of scientific research. The most important factor of scientific theory is the possibility of disproving it. That is why Global Climate Change is a theory, and why Intelligent Design is not. If there are scientists with credible data, testing, and observations that supports their theories, it's important that they're heard; especially with something as important as the entire global climate of this planet.

Whether this particular group is right or wrong (or both), it's good for the community anyway.

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How the **** does that work? Because I have some foundation in computer science, that makes gives me an understanding of the weather?

He's a physicist not a computer scientist. Let me rephrase my earlier statement to specify physical scientists. I'm sure that as a particle physicist, the math involved in climatology is not beyond him. There may even be a lot of analogous behavior in the two fields, since neither of us is qualified to comment on either field, neither of us is qualified to say that his background in particle physics isn't sufficient for him to form good opinions on climatology. He's obviously a smart guy who's capable of understanding highly complex ideas and applying them to real world situations.

To investigate possibilities is good; to throw out the most likely possibility until we've disproved the literally infinite number of other ideas is not. The latter seems to be what people are generally advocating. It's not, "Hey, here's an interesting idea." Instead it's, "Hey, forget all that man-made global warming hoo-hah — here's a different idea!"

Who's advocating throwing out the most likely possibility? I'm advocating dispassionate, objective, scientific thought. Yes, it may be man-made. But some people, some of whom are even qualified to speak about such things, disagree. I'd like to hear what they have to say as well. Just because it seems to be very likely that it's man-made, doesn't mean we should completely ignore the possibility that it isn't.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think it's bullcrap to say that opposing scientists are being "silenced." Scientific research needs opposing views. Skepticism is critical in the development of scientific research. The most important factor of scientific theory is the possibility of disproving it. That is why Global Climate Change is a theory, and why Intelligent Design is not. If there are scientists with credible data, testing, and observations that supports their theories, it's important that they're heard; especially with something as important as the entire global climate of this planet.

Whether this particular group is right or wrong (or both), it's good for the community anyway.

It's not bullcrap at all. It happens all the time in science. In just about every field there are prevailing theories that most people subscribe to. Every so often, someone comes along and suggests something different. The mainstream crowd pretty much always fights tooth and nail to discredit that new idea without actually addressing it's scientific merit or lack thereof. A lot of the time that new controversial idea turns out to be right (or more right than the old, mainstream idea), but it often takes decades before the scientific consensus reflects that fact.

It's happened before in just about every field of science. The problem is that once people get behind a particular theory, they start to take it personally. It becomes their theory, and for it to be discredited seems like a personal attack. So they irrationally defend it against the scientific evidence. Careers can and have been ruined because someone advocated an unpopular, but correct, alternate theory. Usually it doesn't really matter that it can take decades to resolve these issues. But usually these issues aren't something that could potentially pose a great threat to humanity.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Unless you agree with everyone else you aren't entitled an opinion.

Actually, according to Drudge absolutely anyone is an expert provided they don't believe in human-caused global warming. They don't need qualifications. Whereas the real climate scientists are all part of a vast liberal conspiracy.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by tie 

Actually, according to Drudge absolutely anyone is an expert provided they don't believe in human-caused global warming. They don't need qualifications. Whereas the real climate scientists are all part of a vast liberal conspiracy.

As far as I can remember, every related story that Drudge has linked to has led to a story that either quotes or was written by a reputable climatologist.

If they don't buy into global warming, they're not a real scientist (says a guy on the Intarwebs)?

[ironknee]

where does this anti-global warming come from?

i mean why so negative? is it a bit religious? a bit political? or something more?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

where does this anti-global warming come from?

i mean why so negative? is it a bit religious? a bit political? or something more?

What anti-global warming? Global warming is a fact. That it was caused by human activity is not. I happen to think that human activity probably does play a role and that we should be working to cut our emissions. However as a scientist, I don't usually satisfy myself with 'well I think it works this way' as an answer.

There is doubt in the scientific community about the issue. There is evidence that would seem to support the idea that humans aren't responsible for global warming. As such, I think it's our responsibility to continue questioning what we know. I also think it's our responsibility to work to reduce our emissions just in case (and also because they have other proven negative effects besides maybe causing global warming).

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

where does this global warming come from?

i mean why so negative? is it a bit religious? a bit political? or something more?

Fixed.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What anti-global warming? Global warming is a fact. That it was caused by human activity is not. I happen to think that human activity probably does play a role and that we should be working to cut our emissions. However as a scientist, I don't usually satisfy myself with 'well I think it works this way' as an answer.

There is doubt in the scientific community about the issue. There is evidence that would seem to support the idea that humans aren't responsible for global warming. As such, I think it's our responsibility to continue questioning what we know. I also think it's our responsibility to work to reduce our emissions just in case (and also because they have other proven negative effects besides maybe causing global warming).

great! global warming is not the issue...and i agree with you that reducing emissions is a good thing...

i heard from a conservative guy that he suggested the sun was getting hotter

burning fossil fuel can't be good for our health could it?

[ironknee]

jerry falwell suggested that global warming is an attempt to take the focus away from god to man.

do you agree?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

As far as I can remember, every related story that Drudge has linked to has led to a story that either quotes or was written by a reputable climatologist.

Not the case -- there was some random Russian guy in one of the other half dozen threads.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

great! global warming is not the issue...and i agree with you that reducing emissions is a good thing...

i heard from a conservative guy that he suggested the sun was getting hotter

burning fossil fuel can't be good for our health could it?

It's been observed that Solar radiation has been increasing. It's also been observed that there's been a corresponding increase in global temperature on Mars accompanied by the melting (well, sublimation, really) of Mars's polar ice caps. This is fact.

The question, as with anthropogenic global warming, is how much that is to blame for our current warming trend.

Amazingly enough, things like the climate are incredibly complex and somehow manage to actually have more than one cause behind them. Both the people who see the evidence of Solar activity causing warming on Mars and immediately conclude that humans play no part in the warming here, and the people who believe that humans are primarily to blame for the warming on Earth and ignore the possibility of other contributory causes, are only serving to confuse the issue for the public and make it harder for any progress to be made in any direction.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It's been observed that Solar radiation has been increasing. It's also been observed that there's been a corresponding increase in global temperature on Mars accompanied by the melting (well, sublimation, really) of Mars's polar ice caps. This is fact.

The question, as with anthropogenic global warming, is how much that is to blame for our current warming trend.

Amazingly enough, things like the climate are incredibly complex and somehow manage to actually have more than one cause behind them. Both the people who see the evidence of Solar activity causing warming on Mars and immediately conclude that humans play no part in the warming here, and the people who believe that humans are primarily to blame for the warming on Earth and ignore the possibility of other contributory causes, are only serving to confuse the issue for the public and make it harder for any progress to be made in any direction.

that sounds so silly...you don't really believe that do you?or do you?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

that sounds so silly...you don't really believe that do you?or do you?

What? That more than one factor are contributing to global warming, humanity being only one of those? Or that the increase of the average temperature on Mars resulting in the sublimation of the frozen carbon dioxide at the poles might, just possibly, share a common cause with the similar warming trend we're seeing at the same time here on Earth?

The first is certainly true. The second is possibly true. I try to maintain a healthy skepticism about all new theories.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

European climate is incredibly mild for this latitude. We are completely at the mercy of the Gulf Stream - it's the *only* reason the Norwegian coast remains ice-free in winter, for example.

And the El Niño phenomenon shows just how fickle such large oceanic currents can be...

[RIRedinPA]

If I recall correctly there were scientist of the period who disagreed that the Earth was round, quite a few who opposed a heliocentric view of the solar system, thought Einstein was dead wrong about relativity and so on and so on. Mere oppositon didn't prove them wrong though.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

European climate is incredibly mild for this latitude. We are completely at the mercy of the Gulf Stream - it's the *only* reason the Norwegian coast remains ice-free in winter, for example.

And the El Niño phenomenon shows just how fickle such large oceanic currents can be...

I'm aware of the mechanics.

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.

So, 13 years away. Make a note in your diary to check back here and write "Doof, you were right to laugh".

What next? "The whole planet will freeze to death by Tuesday week!"?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What's a "Tuesday week?"

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

What's a "Tuesday week?"

The Tuesday one week after the next Tuesday to arrive.

[goMac]

So a small divergent group of scientists believes that a large consensus doesn't exist.

Riiiiiight.

[nonhuman]

At this point I'm just going to have to say that Global Warming (at least as concerns the lay-people that espouse it) has no more scientific merit than Intelligent Design. Supporters of both ideas refuse to actually confront criticisms against them and merely dismiss them as irrelevant and 'obviously' wrong since they don't go along with their preconceived notion.

I say this, of course, as someone who recognizes the existence of global warming and thinks it likely that humans are largely to blame for it. I, however, take a scientific approach to it and am therefore required to consider what evidence there may be against it as well as the evidence there may be for it. If you're unwilling to even acknowledge the possibility that you're wrong, then you're no better than the people who try to get 'Creation Science' taught in biology classes.

[Atomic Rooster]

I find it laughable that Christians who literally believe in goofy stuff like "The Rapture" but completely deny what may be the signals of the beginning of said event. (Statement not meant for sane Christians.)

I mean the whole idea of global warming seems to be mainly divided by relgiousnous republican maximus and normal people.

Frankly I'm so tired I hope It brings on the end of mankind because they have shown they are not the stewards they should be for our children's children's children.

The Earth will then heal itself.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I find it laughable that Christians who literally believe in goofy stuff like "The Rapture" but completely deny what may be the signals of the beginning of said event. (Statement not meant for sane Christians.)

I mean the whole idea of global warming seems to be mainly divided by relgiousnous republican maximus and normal people.

Frankly I'm so tired I hope It brings on the end of mankind because they have shown they are not the stewards they should be for our children's children's children.

The Earth will then heal itself.

[pooka]

I'm not much of a right winger and I don't believe in a magic man who lives in the clouds. The slight bit of concern I used to have about the environment quickly shifted to indifference once folks who are incapable of balancing a checkbook started lecturing me about my impact on the world. Now I find myself going out of my way to irritate and enrage the "Greenies" as much as possible. I blame society for my cynicism.