Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming

[Bodi]

Are you serious? We know precisely. Two words. Air resistance.

Yes, I am serious. Can you understand why or are you going to make juvenile assumptions that I don't have a valid point?

Originally Posted by Deuce
Yeah, this is like 6th grade science here...

Please don't compound the problem... obviously a vacuum has no air resistance.

 

[bowerbird]

what good is a peer reviewed paper when all your peers are idiots?

So, how many scientists do you think are involved in working out what is happening to our atmosphere?
10?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
100,000?
More?

Now I will give you the scope of the field - Started back in the forties so been going for about 60-70 years now.

involves - meteorologists climatologists, atmospheric chemists, physicists, mathematicians, palaeontologists, geologists, marine scientists, biologists, ecologists, computer scientists and modellers, astronomers

Now all of those people are incompetent? REALLY?

 

[Bodi]

So, how many scientists do you think are involved in working out what is happening to our atmosphere?
10?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
100,000?
More?

Now I will give you the scope of the field - Started back in the forties so been going for about 60-70 years now.

involves - meteorologists climatologists, atmospheric chemists, physicists, mathematicians, palaeontologists, geologists, marine scientists, biologists, ecologists, computer scientists and modellers, astronomers

Now all of those people are incompetent? REALLY?

The problem isn't who is working on what, it is their agenda. There are scientists that work for sun screen companies and all sorts of other examples where they do and say what is in their financial best interest.

 

[Deuce]

I find it really amusing that you read this:

I can't even count how many times I've had to stress that Al Gore is not a scientist and he doesn't do research on anything. But hey, keep attacking that straw man, MrV!

Post this:

Duece is the current Acolyte of the House of algore.

And then post this:

I'm sorry where in did I claim he was a scientist?

All on the same page.

You literally do not understand that Al Gore is just a celebrity spokesman and you literally are unable to argue anything other than your religion/Gore straw man. It's pathetic.

 

[Deuce]

The problem isn't who is working on what, it is their agenda. There are scientists that work for sun screen companies and all sorts of other examples where they do and say what is in their financial best interest.

Product research and climate science are not at all equivalent, and even if they were this is the laziest argument one could ever come up with. If all you have to back yourself up is a conspiracy theory, you might want to critically assess your position and how you arrived at it.

 

[Bodi]

Product research and climate science are not at all equivalent, and even if they were this is the laziest argument one could ever come up with. If all you have to back yourself up is a conspiracy theory, you might want to critically assess your position and how you arrived at it.

If by lazy you mean that it is possible, then you wold be correct.
If by conspiracy you mean people making money off of an untruth, or partial truth... well, that stuff happens all the time.
I am not a conspiracy nut, I am a realist. And if the end result is money, then the end result is money... *shrugs*
It aint all that complicated, product research versus climate science is irrelevant.

 

[Deuce]

If by lazy you mean that it is possible, then you wold be correct.
If by conspiracy you mean people making money off of an untruth, or partial truth... well, that stuff happens all the time.
I am not a conspiracy nut, I am a realist. And if the end result is money, then the end result is money... *shrugs*
It aint all that complicated, product research versus climate science is irrelevant.

When you don't have any actual evidence that a massive global conspiracy of thousands of scientists spanning more than a century is faking millions of data points in dozens of fields of research all in a coherent fashion, but bring up "the possibility" anyway, it qualifies as a conspiracy theory. There's no real evidence of any data manipulation, let alone on the scale necessary to pull off this nonsense you're talking about.

Plus, there's a lot more money on the skeptics side of the equation than there is proponent side. Do you have any idea how much of our industry is tied somehow to fossil fuels? Anything that makes fossil fuels more expensive is not a good thing for those businesses. It's utterly confounding that you'd really compare research grants to the amount of money the oil industry can throw at this. Maybe BP is behind the entire skeptic argument, spending millions of dollars on massive disinformation campaigns, hiring bogus scientists to lend fake credibility to this global effort to delay any negative impact on their cash cow.

Or maybe we should just stick to the scientific evidence.

 

[drz-400]

Duece, you may be interested in a quantitative assessment of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

From the abstract to the paper:

... we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

[bowerbird]

if it is such a global problem, then why do all the solutions seem to focus on costly financial changes the US must make and ignore two of the biggest polluters on the planet (china and india) ????

Listen to some world news for a change.

China has signed the kyoto protocol and is actively working to some strict targets

India still has a low per capita carbon footprint

But BOTH those countries have a point - they are trying to build an industry in a time of severe restrictions where as the USA has had over a decade of being allowed to pollute as it likes.

 

[hazlnut]

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,”

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.



Climate fears reduced to ‘children’s games’

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.



Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Please, like we can't smell Jim Inhofe's junk crap science a mile away.

Screw Jim Inhofe and his boy toy Marc Morono.

I hope the state of OK has the worst draught since the dust bowl and they see Inhofe for the coal industry shill that he is.

Inhofe is a disgrace of a senator and a worthless human being with no integrity.

And welcome to the climate board.:2wave::2wave:

 

[Bodi]

When you don't have any actual evidence that a massive global conspiracy of thousands of scientists spanning more than a century is faking millions of data points in dozens of fields of research all in a coherent fashion, but bring up "the possibility" anyway, it qualifies as a conspiracy theory. There's no real evidence of any data manipulation, let alone on the scale necessary to pull off this nonsense you're talking about.

Who said that they are "faking" any data? Sorry... not a conspiracy theory. You don't like it, so you call it nonsense... *shrugs* but , in the end, pople only see what they want to see. You. Skeptics. Alarmists. Scientists. Me. The thing about me is that I am entirely open.

Plus, there's a lot more money on the skeptics side of the equation than there is proponent side. Do you have any idea how much of our industry is tied somehow to fossil fuels? Anything that makes fossil fuels more expensive is not a good thing for those businesses. It's utterly confounding that you'd really compare research grants to the amount of money the oil industry can throw at this. Maybe BP is behind the entire skeptic argument, spending millions of dollars on massive disinformation campaigns, hiring bogus scientists to lend fake credibility to this global effort to delay any negative impact on their cash cow.

You are spending a great deal more effort in thinking up a conspiracy than me, from the looks of it. Going off your theory though, wouldn't BP be better off in spending millions if the end result was making billions? Completely. But, that is your theory...

The oil industry has a lot more to lose than to gain if we go off of fossil fuels, from most of the things that I have read. They are in favor of using oil and fossil fuels. Anything that threatens that, such as electric cars, will hurt them...

Or maybe we should just stick to the scientific evidence.

The point is that science understands this issue about as much as it understands dark matter...

 

[bowerbird]

Who said that they are "faking" any data? Sorry... not a conspiracy theory. You don't like it, so you call it nonsense... *shrugs* but , in the end, pople only see what they want to see. You. Skeptics. Alarmists. Scientists. Me. The thing about me is that I am entirely open.



You are spending a great deal more effort in thinking up a conspiracy than me, from the looks of it. Going off your theory though, wouldn't BP be better off in spending millions if the end result was making billions? Completely. But, that is your theory...

The oil industry has a lot more to lose than to gain if we go off of fossil fuels, from most of the things that I have read. They are in favor of using oil and fossil fuels. Anything that threatens that, such as electric cars, will hurt them...



The point is that science understands this issue about as much as it understands dark matter...

It was not BP but EXXON and they have admitted it.

Now PLEASE stop reading sceptic sites they have the same relationship to real science as anime has to reality

 

[Bodi]

It was not BP but EXXON and they have admitted it.

Now PLEASE stop reading sceptic sites they have the same relationship to real science as anime has to reality

But they just made s ome Dragonball Anime movie... so obviously Anime in transcending into reality...

...and I'm not any longer. The point is that science understands this issue about as much as it understands dark matter...still stands.

 

[Deuce]

Who said that they are "faking" any data? Sorry... not a conspiracy theory. You don't like it, so you call it nonsense... *shrugs* but , in the end, pople only see what they want to see. You. Skeptics. Alarmists. Scientists. Me. The thing about me is that I am entirely open.

Hah. You keep telling yourself that.
I see you're backpeddling on the conspiracy theory then. You said they're motivated only by their own funding, but now you're not disputing their evidence. Interesting.

You are spending a great deal more effort in thinking up a conspiracy than me, from the looks of it. Going off your theory though, wouldn't BP be better off in spending millions if the end result was making billions? Completely. But, that is your theory...

Yes. They can spend millions to cloud an issue because otherwise their multibillion dollar industry will be hurt.

The oil industry has a lot more to lose than to gain if we go off of fossil fuels, from most of the things that I have read. They are in favor of using oil and fossil fuels. Anything that threatens that, such as electric cars, will hurt them...

Yes. That's precisely what I was saying. I guess you misunderstood.

The point is that science understands this issue about as much as it understands dark matter...

You're wrong. There's not much else to say. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean nobody else does.

 

[hazlnut]

Vicchio, you out did yourself -- you scold someone for pointless emotionalism

I'm always in awe of people using pointless emotionalism to score points in debates.

Then, either being deliberately ironic or unintentionally daft...

As for the OP: Bod, you are challenging the Holy algore and his House of Warming. Do not expect many of the Faithful to listen to your heresy. Man, must atone for his sins against Mother Gaia, and any blasphemes about Scientist not preaching the Word shall not be tolerated.

...you lay it on with plenty of emotion -

 

[Renae]

Vicchio, you out did yourself -- you scold someone for pointless emotionalism



Then, either being deliberately ironic or unintentionally daft...




...you lay it on with plenty of emotion -

One believes Hazlnut fails to get satire. One believes Hazlnut pwned himself... again.

One laughs at Hazlnut's failure to understand mocking satire and his jump to slam one instead slams him. Rather hard, in the face... like a palm.

 

[hazlnut]

One believes Hazlnut fails to get satire. One believes Hazlnut pwned himself... again.

One laughs at Hazlnut's failure to understand mocking satire and his jump to slam one instead slams him. Rather hard, in the face... like a palm.

Jeez, V, I thought I paid you a compliment. I said you outdid yourself.

I clearly gave you the benefit of the doubt. -- We all know what a great sense of irony you have, and how you often deliberately contradict yourself for comedic effect.:bravo:

Carrot Top ain't got nothing on you.

Relax, pal, your wit is just too... subtle, almost non-existant... transparent. But we know it's there, because you say so.

Last Comic Standing will be calling any day now. Trust me.

 

[bowerbird]

One believes Hazlnut fails to get satire. One believes Hazlnut pwned himself... again.

One laughs at Hazlnut's failure to understand mocking satire and his jump to slam one instead slams him. Rather hard, in the face... like a palm.

I know that is wit but whether it is half. dim. numb or nit I am not sure

 

[Renae]

I know that is wit but whether it is half. dim. numb or nit I am not sure

Call it witty and you'd be spot on.

 

[OscarB63]

I know that is wit but whether it is half. dim. numb or nit I am not sure

one suspects that this is perilously close to a personal attack...which I thought was a violation of forum rules. :shrug:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I know that is wit but whether it is half. dim. numb or nit I am not sure

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the personal attacks.

 

[Bodi]

Hah. You keep telling yourself that.
I see you're backpeddling on the conspiracy theory then. You said they're motivated only by their own funding, but now you're not disputing their evidence. Interesting.

I am not backpeddling on anything...

Yes. They can spend millions to cloud an issue because otherwise their multibillion dollar industry will be hurt.

That's my point. The point is obvious. If anyone is sending contradictory signals, it is you. You say that their facts are correct but and use their sources but then say that they can gain billions by deception. Kinda wacky...

Yes. That's precisely what I was saying. I guess you misunderstood.

Well, actually that is precisely what I was saying... I am glad that you finally agree.

You're wrong. There's not much else to say. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean nobody else does.

Uh-hum. Just because you think that you do understand doesn't mean that others don't see it for what it actually is. Gee, this is too easy.