The New Global Warming Thread

[Lucky Shot]

While that's what it says, I question if we are not experiencing the same effect at lower evolutions. The sun has the biggest impact on the earth's climate and way too many people seem to treat solar activity as a constant.

Note also, Mr Deathknight from Mosely's Article that the earth was warmer 11,000 years ago.

Julie Brigham-Grette, a geosciences professor at the University of Massachusetts, said the findings were consistent with research from Alaska showing that forests had extended farther north during a period, warmer than the present, that peaked around 11,000 years ago.

It was natural then, it's natural now.

Lucky Shot

[deathknight]

Not saying you are wrong, just felt that that needed to be there for fairness to the article.

[Lucky Shot]

Not saying you are wrong, just felt that that needed to be there for fairness to the article.

I was fair to the article, or maybe your gunning to try and get a second thread closed?

Lucky Shot

[deathknight]

I'm not trying to do anything but join the discussion. And I don't think it's out of line for me to quote from an article you posted. If it was, I apologize.

[CingularDuality]

And I don't think it's out of line for me to quote from an article you posted.

It absolutely was not out of line.

However, I hope your not offering the "everyone has a bias" argument to discredit the mountains of peer reviewed science which shows human activity as a primary cause of Global Warming.

This isn't exactly my favorite topic, but would you care to share some of these scientific reports that demonstrate that humans are the primary cause of Global Warming? I haven't seen a single one.

[TheFatKidDeath]

It absolutely was not out of line.



This isn't exactly my favorite topic, but would you care to share some of these scientific reports that demonstrate that humans are the primary cause of Global Warming? I haven't seen a single one.

Certainly. Here's one I found very quickly. From the Union of Concerned Scientists, a very well respected mainstream scientific organzation. The report is from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) -

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in recognition of the problem of global warming. Through the IPCC, climate experts from around the world synthesize the most recent climate science findings every five to seven years and present their report to the world’s political leaders. The IPCC has issued comprehensive assessments in 1990, 1996, and 2001; its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is scheduled for release in 2007."

Information about the report can be found here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...ghlights2.html

Also, their peer-reviewed process:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...Review_Process

[Kerostasis]

You realize that if "recognition of the problem of global warming" is in the IPCC's founding mission statement, its really hard to argue they have an objective view on the subject, right? If Global Warming wasn't an imminent crisis, they would cease to exist. What incentive do they have to promote any research that runs counter to their default assumptions?

[War.mongeR1]

I don't know why everyone's so worked up over global warming. Infact, I welcome it. Because without it, we wouldn't have the innevitable massive global cooling. And without that, how in the heck am I going to live out my BF2142 fantasies?! How?! And besides, maybe it's due time the earth's population gets thinned out a bit anyway. We're getting way too crowded. Besides, we humans are responsible for everything bad, so we deserve it. Right?

[Lucky Shot]

The UN also is now reporting that the violence in Darfur is due to Climate Change.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0

Lucky Shot

[TheFatKidDeath]

You realize that if "recognition of the problem of global warming" is in the IPCC's founding mission statement, its really hard to argue they have an objective view on the subject, right? If Global Warming wasn't an imminent crisis, they would cease to exist. What incentive do they have to promote any research that runs counter to their default assumptions?

Smoke and mirrors argument. You seem more concerned with exposing some perceived bias than debating the science.

Perhaps you can post a peer reviewed paper where thousands of scientists from various countries offer research debunking Global Warming?

[CingularDuality]

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Ah. of course...

Thanks, I had seen that one. Do you think that having a bunch of other scientists that are also a member of the same organization dedicated to the pop Global Warming concept review the writing is really a peer review?

Hell, I don't know. Buncha scientists that are definitely more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. But has anyone other than the IPCC come out with actual evidence that humans are THE cause of Global Warming?

[TheFatKidDeath]

[QUOTE=CingularDuality;731166]Ah. of course...

Thanks, I had seen that one. Do you think that having a bunch of other scientists that are also a member of the same organization dedicated to the pop Global Warming concept review the writing is really a peer review?

Hell, I don't know. Buncha scientists that are definitely more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. But has anyone other than the IPCC come out with actual evidence that humans are THE cause of Global Warming?[/QUOT



Not sure if you read the section I posted on the peer reviewed process. No where does it say that all of the scientists are part of the same organization.


"The presence of climate change experts from industry and environmental organizations in the assessment process also illustrates the IPCC’s desire to seek input from outside traditional research institutions. Industry examples have included representatives from the Electric Power Research Institute and ExxonMobil. Environmental examples have included representatives from Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and others all over the world.

Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. [3]

Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.” [4]"

It seems to me a very balanced and transparent report. I'm still waiting to see a similar report from the Global Warming debunkers.

[Switchcraft]

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

--Professor Bob Carter, James Cook University(Environmental scientist)

[TheFatKidDeath]

--Professor Bob Carter, James Cook University(Environmental scientist)

I'm reasonably certain we can find other scientist's who doubt the concept of human induced global warming.

Ok, so? We can find plenty of scientist's who doubt all kinds of science. There are scientists who doubt that smoking causes cancer or other health related problems. We can find all types of material written by scientists who belive the existence of a large bi-pedal mammal (aka Big Foot) roaming the Pacific Northwest of the United States.

This idea that the global warming de-bunkers are somehow scientific mavericks challenging the orthodoxy is laughable at best and at worst junk science.

It's an established mainstream scientific fact that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

[Lucky Shot]

The previous IPCC report relied on Mann's Hockey theory which was later discredited. It was due to a failure in the peer review process that it became a central idea in the IPCC's first report.

Professor Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy, wrote in the Wall Street Journal already the 12th of June 1996 about a major deception on global warming: "I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." He gave many examples of changes and redefinitions and finished by demanding that the IPCC process should be abandoned.

Also, see this link below as it discusses the process used in ice core sampling and why it is faulty.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen5/JawoCO2-Eng.html

So what has changed this time around?

Lucky Shot