The New Global Warming Thread

[TheFatKidDeath]

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.



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

I read Counterpunch daily, edited by the author Alexander Cockburn, and consider it an excellent publication with great insight.

I would, however, have to disagree with his assertion that global warming proponents are "fear mongers" some how taking advantage of an un scientific public with talk of doom and gloom.

Many scientists, from what I can observer, work in a profession that I would consider tedious, laborious and for the most part not very financially rewarding. Conclusions are not come too lightly and without risk to themselves and their careers.

Generally speaking, scientists are the most conservative people you will likely meet. Scientists, for the most part, don't make wild accusations and are very measured in what they say. How this issue is associated with the left is beyond me.

Could the IPCC report have inaccurate conslusions. It's possible. I have not seen it discredited in mainstream science journals or magazines but that does not mean it's without criticism.

However, when a large percentage of mainstream scientists conclude that global warming is largely man made, one has to take pause.

[Lucky Shot]

Global Warming is the hand that feeds scientists. Attack it and scientists funds dry up. Naomi Oreskes performed a study of grant money dished out by the IPCC and discovered.

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

There were plenty of critics of global warming, but surprisingly none of them received grant money from the IPCC. Is it too early to say the fix is in?

Lucky Shot

[TheFatKidDeath]

Global Warming is the hand that feeds scientists. Attack it and scientists funds dry up. Naomi Oreskes performed a study of grant money dished out by the IPCC and discovered.



There were plenty of critics of global warming, but surprisingly none of them received grant money from the IPCC. Is it too early to say the fix is in?

Lucky Shot

Attack global warming and receive grants from the petreolum industry. It works both ways.

I'm not sure this argument is relevant to our discussion about global warming.

[Nikolas]

Attack global warming and receive grants from the petreolum industry. It works both ways.

O rly?

[Lucky Shot]

I'm not sure this argument is relevant to our discussion about global warming.

It absolutely is relevant, because your relying on the information from an organization that is paying for a certain result. You can see it in their grant pattern, you can see it in their mission statement that Kero pointed out. Yet it's bandied about as if the organization is nuetral and stumbled onto Global Warming the same way Aspirin was developed, by accident. No, it has selectively chosen it's studies to come up with it's "consensus."

Lucky Shot

[TheFatKidDeath]

It absolutely is relevant, because your relying on the information from an organization that is paying for a certain result. You can see it in their grant pattern, you can see it in their mission statement that Kero pointed out. Yet it's bandied about as if the organization is nuetral and stumbled onto Global Warming the same way Aspirin was developed, by accident. No, it has selectively chosen it's studies to come up with it's "consensus."

Lucky Shot

Does the petroleum industry pay for research which support it's conslusion? If the Global Warming proponents are paid to advance an agenda why not the petroleum industry?

This dicussion is no longer about the science (or lack of) behind Global Warming but discrediting each other based on who funded whose research.

I believe Steeler had it right when he said this type of argument favors the staus quo.

[CingularDuality]

Does the petroleum industry pay for research which support it's conslusion? If the Global Warming proponents are paid to advance an agenda why not the petroleum industry?

OK, I don't have the time or inclination to read through a whole bunch of scientific papers, but the reason I posed my last question to you was because I hadn't heard anyone stating as a fact that humans are THE cause of Global Warming. Sure, I've heard that human activity is contributing. We read about that all the time, and I think that is pretty much inarguable. Likewise, human activity can change in order to decrease the rate at which our climate warms. But I've never seen anybody claim that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. You gave me the link to the IPCC, of which we've discussed before and now we're back to talking about bias and credibility, which, since few of us are scientists, and I believe none of us are climatologists, is an integral part of our discussion.

So, the oil companies are willing to pay for research that shows that burning petroleum isn't the cause of Global Warming. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they're willing to pay for such research.

But why won't pure research organizations pay for the same thing? Why would all of their grants go towards research in only one direction?

[TheFatKidDeath]

OK, I don't have the time or inclination to read through a whole bunch of scientific papers, but the reason I posed my last question to you was because I hadn't heard anyone stating as a fact that humans are THE cause of Global Warming. Sure, I've heard that human activity is contributing. We read about that all the time, and I think that is pretty much inarguable. Likewise, human activity can change in order to decrease the rate at which our climate warms. But I've never seen anybody claim that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. You gave me the link to the IPCC, of which we've discussed before and now we're back to talking about bias and credibility, which, since few of us are scientists, and I believe none of us are climatologists, is an integral part of our discussion.

So, the oil companies are willing to pay for research that shows that burning petroleum isn't the cause of Global Warming. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they're willing to pay for such research.

But why won't pure research organizations pay for the same thing? Why would all of their grants go towards research in only one direction?

Well, according to what I've read, believe and the source I sighted, humans are the primary cause of global warming. From the UCS website:

"The identification of humans as the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address."

OR:

Are humans contributing to global warming?


In 1995, the world's climate experts in the IPCC concluded for the first time in a cautious consensus, "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on the global climate."

In its 2001 assessment, the IPCC strengthened that conclusion considerably, saying, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Scientists have found significant evidence that leads to this conclusion:

The observed warming over the past 100 years is unlikely to be due to natural causes alone; it was unusual even in the context of the last 1,000 years.

There are better techniques to detect climatic changes and attribute them to different causes.

Simulations of the climate's response to natural causes (sun, volcanoes, etc.) over the latter half of the 20th century alone cannot explain the observed trends.

Most simulation models that take into account greenhouse gas emissions and sulphate aerosols (which have a cooling effect) are consistent with observations over the last 50 years."


To me, those are claims that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Perhaps you read it differently.

As you stated, since none of us are climatologists perhaps we should leave any science out the debate and focus strictly on bias in research funding.

[deathknight]

Sure, I've heard that human activity is contributing. We read about that all the time, and I think that is pretty much inarguable. Likewise, human activity can change in order to decrease the rate at which our climate warms.

I think this is the major point and would be much easier to come up with an acceptable solution if it stopped being a finger point issue. The science as far as I can tell cannot prove that we are the sole cause the planet to warm up. We maybe but I don't think so entirely. Too many sources have been cited in this thread that show that other planets are warming up as well as the fact the earth had a mini-ice age (I think that is what it is being called) 150 or so years ago. I think if we could get past the were are the cause debate, we could get to a point where we agree we could do better to limit our impact on the issue and everyone would be happy.

But why won't pure research organizations pay for the same thing? Why would all of their grants go towards research in only one direction?

I think the issue here is one of not so much bias or motive, but one of practicality. Since the issue requires alot of money to research and money, of course, is limited, I don't think the group wants to focus only the one side of the issue they feel is relevant. They obviously feel we are the major cause, or sole cause, of global warming and wish to funnel their money into research that supports that.

Now, I agree that they should fund research on both sides, for fairness and to ensure that they aren't wasting money trying to prove something that isn't true. Now, I'm not saying it isn't true, just saying they could be researching and trying to prove something that isn't true. The greatest harm they could do to the issue is to be narrow minded and produce results that are flawed and get a negative image as being people who doctor results.

[AMosely]

So, the oil companies are willing to pay for research that shows that burning petroleum isn't the cause of Global Warming. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they're willing to pay for such research.

But why won't pure research organizations pay for the same thing? Why would all of their grants go towards research in only one direction?

To hazard a guess, it's driven by personal belief and the underlying purpose or aim of the granting institution. In my limited experience with grant application and funding, grants are made based on the amount of potential truth to be discovered by particular research, and how well the subject or target of the research matches up with the goals of the granting institution - often controlled by the will of an administrative (and sometimes executive) board.

There is a subtle but critical difference here. Scientific research is aimed at answering or exploring scientific unknowns, whereas industry-based research is often aimed at either disproving the former scientific research or researching ways of making more money (such as searching for oil deposits, or loopholing government regulation).

[CingularDuality]

There is a subtle but critical difference here. Scientific research is aimed at answering or exploring scientific unknowns, whereas industry-based research is often aimed at either disproving the former scientific research or researching ways of making more money (such as searching for oil deposits, or loopholing government regulation).

Right. So, why would a research organization looking to answer some unknown questions only fund research by people that are agreeing with a particular agenda? That doesn't sound very scientific to me...

[Kerostasis]

:

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.

report is posted

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.

You know, I absolutely love the juxtaposition of these two posts. It pretty much sums up the entire viewpoint of the global-warming alarmists--"there is no debate because all the people who disagree with us don't count".

[norden]

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

It would not say it is a 'scientific fact'

[Switchcraft]

And now, Global Cooling:

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

I realize this is a global "warming" thread, so here's how I'll keep it on topic:

In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

[TheFatKidDeath]

:

report is posted



You know, I absolutely love the juxtaposition of these two posts. It pretty much sums up the entire viewpoint of the global-warming alarmists--"there is no debate because all the people who disagree with us don't count".

Yes, I would call myself an alarmist. I also refer to global warming deniers as head-in-the-sanders.