Al Gore-how inconvenient truth is?

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Dottore

Exactly.

Actually, I think even the 400 oil-industry funded scientists agree that human activity contributes to global warming. Their only claim is that human activity is likely not a major factor. And on that slim hope - they criticize everyone trying to address the problem.

Right, and the folks who are skeptical of global warming are simply selling their souls for oil company money, and those who favor a human caused global warming hypothesis are unbiased and altruistic.

Who could possibly disagree with global warming?

What a bunch of non-sense. Science works because of skepticism, and the huge gaps in the climate sciences knowledge-base allow for truckloads of skepticism.

Anyone absolutely convinced one way or the other is delusional, IMHO.

Best,

Kurt

[kstar]

Originally Posted by DanL911sc

. . . Reading comments in this forums makes me wonder who the real wackos are.
. . .

You said it, not me.

Best,

Kurt

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Anyone absolutely convinced one way or the other is delusional, IMHO.

I think scientists refer to the concept as a "preponderance of evidence".

As I said, most thinking beings agree that human activity contributes to global warming. The only issue is how much.

So even if you are skeptical on the question of "how much?" - surely doing something is better than doing nothing.

It's going to take time for people to get this through their heads - but if PPOT is anything to go by, opionins are gradually shifting - and that is good.

[DanL911sc]

Originally Posted by Flatbutt1

How much of a contributing factor is the likelihood of human activity? If it is not significant enough, will altering it stop climate change?

Can we(the US) get the rest of the world to agree that "some" alteration in CO2 generation is in fact a good thing in general yet stop short of financial ruin?
Yes/no? Or is the main point to wreck the US economy? I suspect that people like Dottore would prefer to see us in ruins.

The debate (even from the Bush administration) long ago moved from "are humans causing climate change" to "how can we make effective changes without glaring exceptions and economic hardship".

Bush's point is valid, the US emits 20% of man-made greenhouse bases but accounts for 25% of the world's economic output. There is an important linkage between those two ideas.

A degree of climate temperature change is not worth an infinite amount of money. If we can begin to agree on cost effective ways to affect change, we will all win...

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Dottore

I think scientists refer to the concept as a "preponderance of evidence".

As I said, most thinking beings agree that human activity contributes to global warming. The only issue is how much.

So even if you are skeptical on the question of "how much?" - surely doing something is better than doing nothing.

It's going to take time for people to get this through their heads - but if PPOT is anything to go by, opionins are gradually shifting - and that is good.

Frankly, I think this issue is a long way from the "preponderance of evidence" stage.

I fully support renewable and clean energy sources and think the current "green" wave is great; I hope it grows and continues.

They're even printing solar panels now.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by techweenie

...

10,000+ scientists agree on global warming...

Would you please provide a source for this?

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by Dottore

Exactly.

Actually, I think even the 400 oil-industry funded scientists agree that human activity contributes to global warming. Their only claim is that human activity is likely not a major factor. And on that slim hope - they criticize everyone trying to address the problem.

Einstein said that it would not take 100 scientists to refute his general theory of relativity...just one fact.

What has been presented in support of global warming being the result of human activity, or even greenhouse gases, for that matter, is speculation, conjecture, "computer modeling" (based on questionable assumptions, I might add), but facts are nowhere to be found.

How many scientists can you ignore while continuing to defend the next greatest scam? The contention that "scientists agree" is simply false.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Dottore

....if PPOT is anything to go by, opionins are gradually shifting - and that is good.

Albeit seemingly at a glacial pace, which is perhaps inaptly put since the glaciers are receding at a rate exceeding their advance, according to a small handful of pitiful lefty pro-science scam artists (who, of course, stand to profit by BILLIONS of dollars!) who are also loudly and audaciously proclaiming that WE bear some responsibility!

[Moneyguy1]

Here ya go, fint:

I offer the following without my personal comment:

Organizations stating a consensus opinion that humans have an impact on climate change:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (paper 2007)
Joint Science Academies (papers 2007,2005,2001)
U.S. National Research Council (2001)
American Meterological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society

Dissenters:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (I am sure there are others, but a brief search did not come up with organizations; just names of individual scientists).

Some interesting info sources:

www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

The effects of variable sun output? www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

Contrarian view:

http://epw.senate.gov/refwhitepapers/climatechangewebuse.pdf

Should keep you busy for awhile.

Cheers!!

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

Here ya go, fint:

I offer the following without my personal comment:

Organizations stating a consensus opinion that humans have an impact on climate change:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (paper 2007)
Joint Science Academies (papers 2007,2005,2001)
U.S. National Research Council (2001)
American Meterological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society

Dissenters:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (I am sure there are others, but a brief search did not come up with organizations; just names of individual scientists).

Some interesting info sources:

www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

The effects of variable sun output? www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

Contrarian view:

http://epw.senate.gov/refwhitepapers/climatechangewebuse.pdf

Should keep you busy for awhile.

Cheers!!

Which one has the discusses the 10,000 scientists that agree on this? I could not find that.

[1fastredsc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Which one has the discusses the 10,000 scientists that agree on this? I could not find that.

You'd, of course, have to research the number of members of each then add them up.

It would be more interesting to first see your compilation if similarly august bodies who are dissenters from the consensus opinions reflected in Moneyguy1's compilation.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by DARISC

You'd, of course, have to research the number of members of each then add them up.

It would be more interesting to first see your compilation if similarly august bodies who are dissenters from the consensus opinions reflected in Moneyguy1's compilation.

Noting some "Organizations stating a consensus opinion that humans have an impact on climate change" is certainly not the same as "10,000+ scientists agree on global warming..."

If I posted something as a fact, I could certainly substantiate it. The person posting the hard 10,000 number as a fact certainly must have a source for the number. Unfortunately, most "facts" posted here by liberals simply turn out to be fabrications.

I could just as easily post that 300,000 scientists agree that global warming is pretty much a hoax.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Noting some "Organizations stating a consensus opinion that humans have an impact on climate change" is certainly not the same as "10,000+ scientists agree on global warming..."

I could just as easily post that 300,000 scientists agree that global warming is pretty much a hoax.

Yes. Yes you could. That aside:

I'd like to see your compilation of similarly august bodies who are dissenters from the consensus opinions reflected in Moneyguy1's compilation.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Yes. Yes you could. That aside:

I'd like to see your compilation of similarly august bodies who are dissenters from the consensus opinions reflected in Moneyguy1's compilation.

First of all, perhaps they are "august" bodies according to you...but I certainly don't consider them that. What exactly is your criteria for an "august body"?

Secondly, I do not disagree with Moneyguy's post. I don't think that anyone disagrees that humans might have some slight effect on climate change but his statement listing "Organizations stating a consensus opinion that humans have an impact on climate change" really is not the same as and has nothing to do with the statement "10,000+ scientists agree on global warming..." I have yet to see evidence that two scientists agree on global warming.
In fact, I find nothing to substantiate that the membership of these "august" organizations all agree with the organization's stated positions. Do you have information regarding the members of these organizations voting on the subject or being surveyed?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by fintstone

First of all, perhaps they are "august" bodies according to you...but I certainly don't consider them that. What exactly is your criteria for an "august body"?

It's very satisfying to cast a fly and have the fish immediately bite . List YOUR "august" bodies - my whole point in going fishing to begin with. How am I to come to an informed conclusion if I can't weigh the findings/intelligence of opposing "august' bodies? Your "august" bodies may be more "august" than Moneyguy's - show me what ya got is all I'm asking.

Secondly, I do not disagree with Moneyguy's post. I don't think that anyone disagrees that humans might have some slight effect

Oops! Can't accept "might" and "slight" (nice try though) - seems many are convinced that it is more than "slight" (thus all the arguing).

on climate change but his statement listing "Organizations stating a consensus opinion that humans have an impact on climate change" really is not the same as and has nothing to do with the statement "10,000+ scientists agree on global warming..." I have yet to see evidence that two scientists agree on global warming.

Again, not my number; more interested in what YOUR "august" bodies have to say.

In fact, I find nothing to substantiate that the membership of these "august" organizations all agree with the organization's stated positions. Do you have information regarding the members of these organizations voting on the subject or being surveyed?

The implication is that they do. Do you have substantiated evidence to the contrary? Inquiring minds want to know (you don't HAVE to nail it down to a specific number).

..

[artplumber]

To quote from Kurt's link:

"A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addtiion, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK) ]

The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling."


I suggest you read the article. May or may not be accurate, but lends some credence to the belief that maybe the consensus statements really aren't that much of a consensus?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by artplumber

I suggest you read the article.

Well.....I'm a flat earther, but I'll read it .

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by DARISC

..

Quote:
Originally Posted by fintstone
First of all, perhaps they are "august" bodies according to you...but I certainly don't consider them that. What exactly is your criteria for an "august body"?

Originally Posted by darisc
t's very satisfying to cast a fly and have the fish immediately bite . List YOUR "august" bodies - my whole point in going fishing to begin with. How am I to come to an informed conclusion if I can't weigh the findings/intelligence of opposing "august' bodies? Your "august" bodies may be more "august" than Moneyguy's - show me what ya got is all I'm asking.

Why do you guys always answer a question with a question (Clinton tactic) Is your intent was just to change the subject to divert attention away from the fabrication of facts by posters you agree with? Most of your "august" bodies are little more than political mouthpices IMHO. Yoiur standards are indeed low.


Originally Posted by fintstone
Secondly, I do not disagree with Moneyguy's post. I don't think that anyone disagrees that humans might have some slight effect

Originally Posted by darisc
Oops! Can't accept "might" and "slight" (nice try though) - seems many are convinced that it is more than "slight" (thus all the arguing).

I see nothing in Moneyguy's, post (which I was answering) to indicate otherwise. To say that "humans have an impact on climate change" is certainly much different from what Gore is selling...or even what you imply. Even I would have to agree that it is possible for human impact to change the climate a degree over millions of years...although I have yet to see credible evidence to prove this.


Originally Posted by fintstone
on climate change but his statement listing "Organizations stating a consensus opinion that humans have an impact on climate change" really is not the same as and has nothing to do with the statement "10,000+ scientists agree on global warming..." I have yet to see evidence that two scientists agree on global warming.

Originally Posted by darisc
Again, not my number; more interested in what YOUR "august" bodies have to say.

Then again, why did you respond to a question that you are not interested in? My question was...where did the number come from? I have never claimed that any other "bodies" have made conclusions either way. I have not even seen evidence that the membership of these groups cited by Moneyguy have made made conclusions in this area. I write papers for quite a few scientific organizations myself...all are published, but that does not mean that all...or any of the members agree with my ideas. I know that none of the associations I belong to subscribe to the theories proposed by Gore's ilk...but none have botherered to publish a "group opinion"...as far as I know, generally speaking...real scientific group just do not do that.


Originally Posted by fintstone
In fact, I find nothing to substantiate that the membership of these "august" organizations all agree with the organization's stated positions. Do you have information regarding the members of these organizations voting on the subject or being surveyed?

Originally Posted by darisc
he implication is that they do. Do you have substantiated evidence to the contrary? Inquiring minds want to know (you don't HAVE to nail it down to a specific number)...

There is about the same amount of substantiated evidence on either side of this argument. I have yet to see any regarding the Gore scenario....

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Would you please provide a source for this?

Last night, when he was dreaming.