Global Warming Consensus -- Not man made!!

I figure it'll take you people another couple of years to accept the reality of man-made global warming. Conservatives used to claim global warming wasn't real at all. Now, all the Republican candidates acknowledge that it is real, man-made, and that something needs to be done about it. You guys are just a little behind the curve, but I'm sure you'll catch up eventually.

Disgruntled Ortho Tech... wrote:

sam w wrote:

since al gore is in business to make a profit off the idea of MAN MADE global warming, and many scientists get grants to study this (thus their livelihoods depend on it) i am curious if you have ever posted the same comment when discussing al gore's beliefs?

Al Gore aside, surely an educated man like yourself, sam, can tell the difference between climate research sponsored by NOAA or the NWS and that sponsored by Exxon-Mobil.

If you can't, then society has a much bigger problem than "Global Warming: Fact or Fiction."

I'm sure that most people who post here haven't worked as a scientist at a government lab - I have. I can tell you that agencies like NOAA and NWS are just as capable of being blinded by ideological bias as any other agency or institution. There really is no science of global climate change left and the predictions that people make are often closely aligned with their personal ideology. That is why many scientists such as myself are skeptical. I have no loved for Exxon or cheap gas - I consider myself an environmentalist.

Another poster made a remark about the conspiracy that often exists between scientists, funding agencies, and legislators. It has become very fashionable to raise the alarm on certain issues in order to increase their priority. I think that this time they just started to believe their bs.

That's not the only bs you think people believe.....

you blabber on about funny things- really, dmb.

when Miami is under 10 feet of water give me a call. Shouldn't be too long. Trust me, I'm in the know.

I think you'll be calling before I get my PHD. I'm about to get my BA too.

trust you? you're in the know?

If you're just getting your BA, you don't even know how to wipe your own ass (scientifically speaking). I've met plenty of kids who awarded themselves Ph.D's prematurely and didn't even make it past the first year. You had better show some respect for the process or you're not going to make it.

Let's look at the source of this so called consensus...

Jim Inhofe

-compared environmentalists to Nazis

-compared the EPA to the Gestapo

-receives more campaign contributions from oil and gas companies than any senator except John Cornyn

-believes the weather channel exists to scare people

-Ranked as the 8th most conservative congressmen by the National Journal

-Hates Gays and was one of the only senators to vote against increasing funding for college education

I for one trust the climate scientists of the IPCC more than some Bible thumper from Hicksville Oklahoma in trying to understand the complexities of climatology.

"Power Co's working with the White House

to paralyze our state with fear." --Sun Green

doesn't everyone get that we're trading one set of ad hominems for another? The right attack Al Gore and his financial interests, the left attack anyone who doesn't agree with them.

If you poll the scientists about the issue and what to do about it, the responses tend to track with their ideology.

The simulations that predict the "gloom and doom" are woefully inadequate - i.e. they don't effectively incorporate aerosols as just one example.

Not a firm footing to build policy on. Not a reason to tear down our economy and put ourselves at a disadvantage vs the developing world. Not now.

complaining about who funded the research is a cowards way of escaping the inability to refute the findings. furthermore, what is any more biased about industry funded research than research funded by big environmental groups? or research funded by groups that ONLY give money to researchers with patterns of findings in favor of global warming.

Disgruntled Ortho Tech... wrote:

sam w wrote:

since al gore is in business to make a profit off the idea of MAN MADE global warming, and many scientists get grants to study this (thus their livelihoods depend on it) i am curious if you have ever posted the same comment when discussing al gore\'s beliefs?

Al Gore aside, surely an educated man like yourself, sam, can tell the difference between climate research sponsored by NOAA or the NWS and that sponsored by Exxon-Mobil.

If you can\'t, then society has a much bigger problem than \"Global Warming: Fact or Fiction.\"

dmb wrote:

doesn't everyone get that we're trading one set of ad hominems for another? The right attack Al Gore and his financial interests, the left attack anyone who doesn't agree with them.

If you poll the scientists about the issue and what to do about it, the responses tend to track with their ideology.

The simulations that predict the "gloom and doom" are woefully inadequate - i.e. they don't effectively incorporate aerosols as just one example.

Not a firm footing to build policy on. Not a reason to tear down our economy and put ourselves at a disadvantage vs the developing world. Not now.

theres only one world to live on.

which means exactly what? that we should always prepare for the worst case scenario?

What about:

1) tsunamis?

2) east coast earthquakes?

3) meteors?

4) freak hail storms?

5) sunspots?

6) geomagnetic shifts?

BTW, to all of you who think that we should take drastic measures to combat global climate change, we'll know in a few short years if the alarmists are right or wrong. The chinese and indians are going to dwarf our output of so-called greenhouse gases.

You're either with me,or against me.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_acknowledges_existence_of?utm_source=slate_rss_1

LOL...one of the signatories is a "scientist" from sweden, he has a degree in welding and became interested in global climate change about 3 years ago.

http://www.realclimate.org/

sneer all you want, but there is some major league talent that signed that report

This whole dumbass "debate" is an example of one of the great accomplishments of the rightwing media over the last 15 years or so. I first heard this idea on Rush Limbaugh years ago, and it goes like this: The New York Times (or CBS, or the Washington Post, or just about any mainstream organ of the press) has an editorial board that tends left, so therefore all the news reporting has a left bias, and (here's the genius part) IS NOT OBJECTIVE BUT IS THE LEFTWING EQUIVALENT of the news you get from Rush Limbaugh. All news reporting is biased towards a particular ideology, goes the idea, and at least Limbaugh is up front about it.

Here is the same idea. Mainstream scientists are pursuing their own ideological agendas and grants and so they ARE THE EQUIVALENT of non-peer reviewed hacks working for "institutes" funded by oil companies. Both are "biased," so it's okay to just ignore the work by scientists whose work supports the idea of man-made global climate change.

Of course the problem with this way of thinking is that it's complete bullshit. The idea that there are "billions of dollars" of grants available to university-based scientists but only if they fudge their work in favor of global warming, well, this idea is just stupid and shows no understanding of how university-based science works. What biased organizations are throwing this money around looking for biased work? Greenpeace and their billions of dollars of grants? The Bush Administration? C'mon, name names. Show me some biased grants! Refer me to peer reviewed work that has been twisted to get more grants. And tell me again who is funding those grants, and how they have also gotten control of the peer-review process...

Idiots.

Dr. Zachary Smith wrote:

Both are "biased," so it's okay to just ignore the work by scientists whose work supports the idea of man-made global climate change.

You could just as easily rewrite that sentence to read; "Both are "biased," so it's okay to just ignore the work by scientists whose work is skeptical of the idea of man-made global climate change.

my objections to the global warming advocates stem from my understanding of the models used to make the predictions that have your panties bunched - that is, I believe they are fundamentally flawed. From what I can tell, there are very few people on this board who are capable of understanding the science, the vast majority are just parroting what they've heard elsewhere.

As far as my understanding of how science funding works, consider the following - I have brought in about 1.5 million dollars of funding in my career (6 years). That's a very reasonable amount, so I think I know how funding works.

I have served on review panels for the NSF and DOE. I have reviewed proposals for the ACS, ONR, NATO, NSF, DOE and a number of private organizations. I know how funding priorities change and how there can be a conspiracy (albeit unwitting) between funding agencies, politicians and scientists. It happens all of the time. I never said that there was overt manipulation, the mechanism is much more subtle than that.

I don't get my news from Rush Limbaugh or any other ideologue for that matter. I think for myself. That scares and angers people like you because you can't.

I\'m getting a feeling that there are a lot of Bush votes in the room.

dmb wrote:

sneer all you want, but there is some major league talent that signed that report

Actually no one "signed" that report. they just counted up negative quotes about the climate change "movement" by people who may or may not be scientists.

ray kurzweil who is included in the list of 400 believes that nanotechnology will eliminate the use of fossil fuels within 20 years and will save us from global warming.

why he gets included on this list is anyones guess.

these things pop up every few weeks and are rapidly debunked.