Global warming overblown?

I plan to. America is under attack from all angles. Know thy enemy.

Looks like some of us wouldn't know scientific evidence if it bit them in the nose. And I'm being polite here.

Just remember: The Theory of Evolution is just a theory. You can believe whatever the heck you want...

There is no scientific evidence concerning global warming that can't be essentially brushed off as heresay. The reason being is that we only have a very short term record of the climate. While there is evidence buried in ice sheets of global climactic change, it certainly doesn't have the scientific impact of the fossil record.

I mean, it seems every week or two they come up with a new theory on what has caused previous mass extinctions. First it's an asteroid impact, then it's a volcano. Maybe the tsunami just changed global weather patterns. Can you say for sure?

Foxfyre

I quick search - e.g. with google news - would have given you a) more newspapers with similar articles and b) more oportunities to find out that the "International Climate Change Taskforce" has published this report (as mentioned in McTag's link as well, btw.

The Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK, the Center for American Progress and the Australia Institute as think tanks, together with former CBI director general Adair Turner, environmentalist Jonathon Porritt and chairman of the inter-governmental panel on climate change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri are some of the members.

Chair is the foremer UK cabinet minister Stephen Byers.

You can find infos at e.g. HERE at the ippr-website or in tomorrow's papers, as McTag said (reuters and aa couple of US-American newspapers have got it already).

What differs the paleoclimate record from fossile records that the first isn't scientific?

Leave it, Walter. I think I prefer to stick my head in the same sandpit as cjhsa. It's more comforting, even if the view is restricted.

Would anyone like to talk about solar flare activity?

a) it's too late for me now (here is already Tuesday),
b) would you like to answer my question at first?

OK, the difference is that the average Joe can look at the fossil record and make sense of it. The same cannot be said for the "paleoclimactic" record as you called it. My point is that if any change in behaviour would change the course of history, you'll need buy in from just about everyone.

Walter, I am not saying that there is no problem with global warming. I have said all along that I do not know and would like to know before I agree to a lot of new funding, restriction on rights, etc. etc. based on bad science.

The three groups you cited are government funded, yes? All the scientists are commissioned by the government to sutdy the problem yes? If these groups should submit a report that there is no conclusive evidence that global warming is caused by other than natural cycles in the earth's destiny, how many would likely lose their funding and their jobs?

What about the non-government funded scientist who says at least the U.N.'s study group is ignoring all evidence that does not support or even contradicts their conclusion that global warming is a problem.

I did cite in my previous post that I found many articles supporting the conclusions cited in the link McTag posted. I am quite aware of all the collaborating opinion. I just find it curious that those so convinced that humans are cuasing it are completely unwilling to even look at, much less discuss, the body of evidence that opposes or mitigates conclusions presented by the government scientists.

Again, I would be more convinced if we could find a scientist who had no reason for human-caused global warming to exist to concur with those insisting on that. So far, I haven't found one.

You wrote


So, the "average Joe" has got the skill for that sientific impact but not for the other.

I'll have to sleep over this.

I think you get my point, however you sleep.

Most scientists have funding, directly or indirectly, from industry.
So most scientists have a reason to argue that global warming is not caused by industry or by man's activity.

The fact that so many do, and that a consensus now exists, should surely be enough to give even the most cynical doubters pause.

But I have more respect for the opinions of our researchers and their societies and institutions than that. I think they present the truth as they see it.
The subject could hardly be more serious.

No comment at all on this bit of information presented by Woljick?



I wonder what a similar analysis of the more recent document would reveal? Nevertheless, McTag, you do have a point. A scientist funded by industry could be at least as suspect as one funded by government, each with reason to see things a certain way. The Carnegie institute however is funded by philanthropists and cannot be found to be beholden to either government or industry.

Well, read all about it in the papers tomorrow.

Just thinking- it's a good thing Noah did not have a helper like cjhsa when he built the Ark. "Rain? Floods? Nah, the river never reached here before."

Oooh, now we're mixing theology with science and technology. This should be fun.

Nah, Noah would be considered as much of an idiot now as the people thought he was then. So we better keep theology on the religion and spirituality forum.

Actually I am seriously looking for answers on the issue of global warming and, if we puny humans are in fact able to make a difference, I'll throw all my support behind the effort. The thing I don't want though is to go chasing shadows based on somebody's opportunistic report that turns out to be seriously flawed or bogus. So far I remain unconvinced that we can make a difference in anything other than protection of endangered species, not fouling our water and air, and not spoiling the beauty of God's creation. Those things I already support.

If we are to radically change our lifestyles, relinquish some of our rights, and alter the world's economy for the protection of the planet against global warming, I want those decisions based on good and honest science apart from any personal motives or agendas. Let's demand the best science available and look at ALL the science out there before we decide.

Well I think that's what's happening, isn't it? and time has now run out.
The "best science available" says we're shortly headed for an irreversible change.

Unfortunately even leading scientists are dependent on hundreds of unbiased persons to supply good data and do good science in related disciplines. That happens rarely. My guess is most locations are slightly warmer than a few decades ago, humans have made at least a tiny contribution, but not nearly enough to make much of anything climate "irreversible"
My guess is a bit more global warming, followed by new ice age. It is possible new ice age would have started last year, had not human green house emissions delayed new ice age briefly. Neil

If you believe that, and believe the 'tipping point' bit in the new reports (based on the accumulation of just a few more ppm CO2 in the atmosphere), then you must conclude that it is already too late to reverse this trend without the most draconian forced measures to restrict human activity, industry and agriculture - measures that are orders of magnitude greater than proposed in the ill-starred Kyoto Treaty or what is being proposed by those same "experts".


These reports are NOT based on "the best science available". They are not even the concensus view of the earth's dynamic as seen by atmospheric scientists and geologists. They forecast another ice age.