Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is known to diminish as concentrations increase. This diminution effect is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm(v).
Global Warming advocates agree on this. IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate)[23].
I need a break. It would be both fair and unfair to take a break and get back to whatever it was I was doing, right, complaining about immigration, and I'll be back again. I'm really going to miss having a place to chitchat with like minded people.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/global-warming-climate-change/
Quote: wrobersonThank you.
The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is known to diminish as concentrations increase. This diminution effect is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm(v).
Global Warming advocates agree on this. IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate)[23].
Yes, I am well aware of the physics: more precisely the reduction in the efficiency at which Earth loses heat to space follows an approximately logarithmic fit with CO2 concentration. Explanation fairly complex, but has to do with the way gas absorption strength decays with wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum. When you move from quantum to macroscopic world, I have several of my own blog posts on the how you can visualize the enhanced greenhouse effect from the viewpoint of radiation loss, of which the effect you describe would already be incorporated. The lack of "runaway" can be explained on other grounds.
http://climatephys.org/2012/06/12/building-a-planet-part-2-greenhouse-effects/
http://climatephys.org/2012/06/28/climate-sensitivity-and-the-linearized-response/
This has been known and incorporated in any credible calculation for at least half a century now, so of course any calculation of future global warming has these physics already built in
Quote: MichaelBluejay
As one would expect, Republican scientists are a lot more informed about climate change than Tea Party extremists (who think they know more about science than actual scientists).
It is more that the Tea Party realizes that today is not the "center of time" and does not think that things will end if we change from today like the environmental extremists who seem to think if anything changes from today we are doomed.
As has been pointed out, the earth has been warmer and colder than today. It has had more and less CO2. It naturally fixes itself over time. To think we are going to change this is the height of arrogance. To think we are more powerful than the changes in the sun is the height of silliness.
One day "the planet" will shake us off like the fleas we are, much as it did the dinosaurs. And there is not one thing that can be done about that.
Quote: boymimboIt doesn't mean that the planet is out of the woods. It means that humans have more time to reverse what we've done.
The planet was never "in the woods" in the first place.
It's not conscious. Even if it was, it doesn't communicate with us. There are no criteria to decide what's best for Earth. Maybe it would've been better off without the whole biosphere altogether. If there's any cosmic measure of "better", by the currently most popular theory entropy, increased by all activity including life, is going to be the end of the universe, thus less entropy is better.
So let's put the focus back where it belongs. It's never been about the Earth. It's always been about us, humans, more specifically the current Western civilization. What kind of environment is better for us. Continuous ozone layer or spotty coverage, higher ocean levels or lower, O2 and CO2 concentrations, more wildlife or less, preferable species or harmful ones.
We don't owe anything to the planet (PETArds excepted, but they should alt+f4 if they're serious about their beliefs). Just like you don't owe anything to the home you live in. If you're not alone in it, and it's going to be your children's home, and it's your and theirs only possible home, then you owe it to your housemates and your children to keep it in good order, but you don't owe it to the house itself.
Everything affecting the planet should be examined from this point of view and reinforced or avoided according to its ultimate effect on us and our descendants, not to any abstract concept of cosmic duty.
Quote: cmc0605It's interesting that I came on this site to look at the gambling forums and ran into this. I am an atmospheric scientist (well, a PhD student), and do research on various climate and past climate problems. Of course, if I was part of the conspiracy, I probably wouldn't tell you :-)
I haven't read the majority of comments but I'd be happy to answer questions on the general subject. But, global warming is real, it's human-caused, and most of us in the scientific community take it seriously.
But are they real, and spectacular?
Welcome to the forum.
Quote: MichaelBluejayTry these:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120221/republicans-santorum-romney-gingrich-climate-scientists-scientific-consensus-skeptics-kerry-emanuel
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-coming-gop-civil-war-over-climate-change-20130509
As one would expect, Republican scientists are a lot more informed about climate change than Tea Party extremists (who think they know more about science than actual scientists).
there are certainly Republican/Tea-Party/Conservatives who believe in man-made global warming, although my main point was to see the stats related to a broad-base of scientists correlated to their political views. If they are truly doing their jobs, then the stats would be equal percentages for and against, which would be a powerful piece of data in this argument.
Quote: boymimboSigh.
Many, if not most, scientists do their research without a thought to their political views or biases. Both sides of the political fence know of the potential of global warming and climate change because they listen to the scientists, but both sides differ greatly on what to do about it, because their political ideologies are different. There are plenty of climatologists out there. Any meterologist or anyone with a degree in physics or environmental sciences can understand ALL of the science that goes into the climate debate. It isn't rocket science. It's climatology, which is a bit of basic chemistry, thermodynamics, earth sciences, and physics.
I'm not an expert on the subject, and with some of my recent comments in no way meant to disparage the scientific community. I do feel bias exists, but to what degree people are taking these biases into their conclusions, I'm just sure- and whether they're doing it consciously or not.
Like in any community, certain people are going to be underhanded to advance their agenda and toward a practical matter, obtain funding.
Quote: boymimbo
Kernarman is right on one thing: we know so little still about how our planet operates.
I would agree with this- which is why when I hear the science is "settled" then it points to a biased agenda.
As AZDuffman will say, indoctrination and brainwashing at work...
So without such a breakdown these snippets of data are meaningless. And their strange arrangement (why, for instance, isolate PhDs in one example and "above bachelor" in the other) hints at cherry-picking.
Quote: boymimboI pulled two graphics off the internets.
Which were probably created for a reason.
Either way, the political part of the issue is simple. With Republicans, we might neglect the issue of climate change. With Democrats, we won't be in an economic position to do anything about it.
I was attempting to approximate the political affiliation of climate scientists by showing the political affiliation of PhDs. I doubt data is available for climate scientists.
Quote: kenarmanIf you don't like my first link to the report Michael than how about the my link below for 'The Guardian' is that a reputable enough paper for you.
No. Like I said, but what you ignored, you should never get your science from MAINSTREAM NEWS REPORTERS. The only time to pay attention to a science issue in the MSM is if the column is authored by an actual scientist. And in this case, the actual scientist who wrote a piece for the Guardian article *is* rather informative.
Quote:We know so little still about how our planet operates that we can not be that confident of any current theory....Michael I don't dispute that the planet is warming but it has been for thousand of years. The Mediteranean has risen a couple of meters since the time of Christ did humans cause that?
So why are you arguing with some guy on the Internet? You need to call the universities and explain to them your superior understanding of the science. Because apparently, somehow, it's never occurred to thousands and thousands of scientists to take your ideas into account.
Since I wasn't successful in getting any of the skeptics here to find and read what scientists are actually saying about the "pause" (big surprise there), I'll have to spoon-feed it to you:
Global warming not on "pause"
Understanding variability in warming
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Since I wasn't successful in getting any of the skeptics here to find and read what scientists are actually saying about the "pause" (big surprise there), I'll have to spoon-feed it to you:
Or we can shorten your position to:
"Just listen to the scientists who believe in AGW, don't bother thinking for yourself!"
"Just listen to what Fox News tells you. They're fair and balanced, so everything they said must be true". AZ, give me ONE opinion where you differ from FoxNews' opinion. One.
Quote: boymimboIn the 2012 election 83% of those with an advanced degree (above Bachelor) vote, compared to 55% for a high school graduate. Secondly, those with PhDs vote Democrat over Republican on an 60/40 split in the 2012 election.
As AZDuffman will say, indoctrination and brainwashing at work...
My position is we are all born with a bucket part-filled with common sense. As you get more and more schooling, it pours into the bucket. At some point, the schooling starts forcing the common sense out of the bucket.
This is why you so often find highly-educated people who cannot understand the most basic facts. Like those who do not understand the Obamacare mandates on employers will cause hiring patterns to change.
Quote: boymimbo...give me ONE opinion where you differ from FoxNews' opinion. One.
In regards to Fox's hard news shows, this is a moot point because the anchors on those programs don't give any opinions; they just state the facts.
As for Fox's opinion shows, I disagree with many things Bill O'Reilly says. I actually don't care much for Hannity either. I think he just regurgitates a lot of what Rush Limbaugh says. (I catch a lot of heat from other conservatives for saying this.)
I do like Charles Krauthammer, Brit Hume, Kirsten Powers (even though her positions are nutty at times), Doug Schoen, and Pat Caddell.
Quote: cmc0605It's interesting that I came on this site to look at the gambling forums and ran into this. I am an atmospheric scientist (well, a PhD student), and do research on various climate and past climate problems. Of course, if I was part of the conspiracy, I probably wouldn't tell you :-)
I haven't read the majority of comments but I'd be happy to answer questions on the general subject. But, global warming is real, it's human-caused, and most of us in the scientific community take it seriously.
Did you belive Y2K was real too? And you can be anything you
like on the net, I'm a former golf pro..
Quote: MichaelBluejayNo. Like I said, but what you ignored, you should never get your science from MAINSTREAM NEWS REPORTERS. The only time to pay attention to a science issue in the MSM is if the column is authored by an actual scientist. And in this case, the actual scientist who wrote a piece for the Guardian article *is* rather informative.
So why are you arguing with some guy on the Internet? You need to call the universities and explain to them your superior understanding of the science. Because apparently, somehow, it's never occurred to thousands and thousands of scientists to take your ideas into account.
Since I wasn't successful in getting any of the skeptics here to find and read what scientists are actually saying about the "pause" (big surprise there), I'll have to spoon-feed it to you:
Global warming not on "pause"
Understanding variability in warming
Thanks for a link to 'The Guardian' Michael since I only can understand MSM as you have already noted. The article does say that global surface temperature change is slowing down as my first post indicated and you totally dismissed. I think the article helps provide a valid reason to be a sceptic and does counteract 'the science is done' position. The first position was atmospheric change would cool the earth, this was quickly proven incorrect, the next position was global warming would occur as shown by warming air temperature, next we progressed to callling it climate change since the warming was not occuring as projected, now the warming in surface temperature is not occuring because the warming is in the oceans. Do you see a pattern here? I would like to think it shows the science is improving but fear in a few cases some researchers are simply covering their butt. I do think that to insist that we know the fiinal outcome of our CO2 production on the earth is very much in doubt and it might be the least troubling of all the things we are currently doing to screw up the planet for humans. The planet on the other hand doesn't care and will continue with or without us just fine.
Quote: AZDuffman"Just listen to the scientists who believe in AGW, don't bother thinking for yourself!"
Yes. If you don't know the first thing about science, listen to the people who do rather than "thinking" for yourself. Or learn, but learn from the ground up, not from cherrypicking blogs that agree with your predetermined (wrong) notions. There's a name in recent years for scientists who believe in AGW: "scientists."
Incidentally, that doesn't necessarily mean you should support the Kyoto Protocol, or cap-and-trade, or anything else. Scientists are routinely criticizing the left for alarmism, and the left likes to throw around "climate change denialist" for anyone who doesn't fall in with their doomsaying, and that's not right. There remains significant debate on the effects. But it's not a reason to argue with the actual science based on a feeling that it's "arrogant." Is it arrogant to say that I have a box in my home that often reaches temperatures far greater than the sun creates on the surface of the Earth?
You're right that the planet has experienced similar CO2/warming feedback cycles in the past, and it righted itself - driving 90% of the species alive at the time to extinction in a stretch of tens of thousands of years. (Oh, right, but you don't believe that because it's not mentioned in your favorite fantasy novel.) It's true of course that that wasn't caused by humans, so I guess we're just lucky this time it is. You're right that the sun needs to be taken into account, but wrong to say that's beyond our capability - in fact, pretty much any graph you've seen that seems to go against the scientific consensus ignores it (or ends in the fifties based on an archaeological convention).
You can laugh at proponents for wind and all of the tax money that's spend on that, for example. But look at all of the taxpayer money that was spent on nuclear which most people are saying is the way to go now for "clean" energy, ignoring the tens of billions of public money that will be used to fund it.
That's why energy conservation is key. If you reduce demand and consumption, there's no need for new power. CFLs do that, high SEER a/c does that, cars with high MPG requirements do that. Electric cars shift the source of usage to a fuel that's might be cleaner. And if it's cost neutral, why not?
But I don't support full on restrictions and taxes based on alamist rhetoric either despite what the science says. Humans, absolutely can take a 50cm sea rise over a century and they can take swings in climate change. Humans will also likely change their sources of food to accomodate. We already are farming a great proportion of our fish which used be mostly wild 20 years ago. With advances in medicine and genetics we won't need the biodiversity of plants to find cures for stuff. So, although the rest of the world's species will suffer due to climate change, humans will be stressed but we're smart enough and adaptable enough to overcome. But all of these changes have a cumulative cost that is not easy to measure.
With all that said, it might be CHEAPER to take measures today rather than spend the money in reactionary mode. For example, if climate change predicts that the midwest is going to get alot drier and hotter in the summer, that will increase the prices of commodities for consumers, increase the unemployment rate and force the US to rely on imports to get its food. That cost needs to be weighed against the cost of lowering greenhouse gas emissions now.
If a rising sea level forces oceanfronts around the world to spend tens of billions of dollars to build a levee system or to raise the earth to prevent flooding, then wouldn't it be better to attempt to slow global warming today at a much cheaper cost?
The cost of prevention is usually much cheaper than the cost to react.
Quote: 24BingoYes. If you don't know the first thing about science, listen to the people who do rather than "thinking" for yourself. Or learn, but learn from the ground up, not from cherrypicking blogs that agree with your predetermined (wrong) notions. There's a name in recent years for scientists who believe in AGW: "scientists."
You might find it hard to believe, but I have been following global warming since about 1983, I still remember seeing the story in a USA Today in an honor box and stopping to read it. At the time I thought it was probably no big deal and since I still see no big deal. 1 degree is really not much. After everything I have seen since then, and it is a lot, I still am not convinced it is man-caused and as well not convinced it is a problem.
BTW: there is a word for scientists who do not believe in AGW: "scientists." And unlike the ones who believe, the ones who don't have not been exposed for manipulating data to make their point.
You see, that's the thing - you think you can argue with just about all scientists (at least nearly all those doing research in relevant fields) based on what you glean from USA Today and the sources that brought you "Climategate."
Quote: 24Bingo
You see, that's the thing - you think you can argue with just about all scientists
They argue among themselves, we don't have to
argue with them. If man made GW was that obvious
there would be no argument. Period. We don't even
have enough data over a long enough period of time
to make any conclusions anyway. Doesn't seem to
stop them, though, does it.
They don't even know what caused all the ice ages, yet
everybody is a GW expert. Whatever.
Quote: AZDuffmanBTW: there is a word for scientists who do not believe in AGW: "scientists." And unlike the ones who believe, the ones who don't have not been exposed for manipulating data to make their point.
FYI:
Quote:Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[17] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data - right down to the computer codes they use - to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Quote: rxwineFYI:
Quote:Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[17] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data - right down to the computer codes they use - to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Sigh! now Wikipedia which anyone can post whatever drivel on that they want, is the expert witness.
To the conspiracy theorists here, I am grateful that you think our field could become so organized amongst thousands of scientists across the world, at varying institutions with different goals, and for many decades. Indeed, if you have ever been to a scientific conference, you would know that 1) we aren't that organized 2) We like to argue and yell at each other. Science doesn't advance by agreeing with everyone else.
To the older crowd, I am not going to pretend that I have the articulate ability to convince you that global warming is an entirely different problem, and has reached an entirely different level of scientific maturity/consensus than what you might have read in Newsweek bout global cooling 40 years ago. To both of the above crowds, there is little point in further debate- we will have to agree to disagree. Convincing people of scientific truth when they think a few e-mails defines a field is like digging a hole into water.
To those who think there is a legitimate scientific debate on the existence/causes of global warming, the only simple remark I can make is that you aren't following the scholarly literature. Instead, you are listening to various blogs/news stations that have a stunning ability to amplify the voice of a handful of people who don't know what they are talking about. The debates going on in the literature and at conferences are substantially more nuanced and technical than "are we causing global warming?" just as a community of astrophysicists can all get together and argue details while still agreeing on the existence of black holes, gravity, etc. Of course, no one on blogs argues so vehemently against the existence of cells, black holes, or plate tectonics, because it doesn't really impact people or their world views in the way climate change does.
Quote: cmc0605The discussion here is, unfortunately, very much divorced from the discussions going on within the scientific community and scholarly literature...
Translation = People who don't believe in global warming aren't as "smart" as the academics who do.
Quote: Beethoven9thTranslation = People who don't believe in global warming aren't as "smart" as the academics who do.
I doubt intelligence is the prevailing factor, as much as what your initial views are. Indeed, very smart people are often good at coming up with even more clever ways of tricking themselves. Fortunately, in science, we are constrained by physics, data, and lots of other smart people doing similar analyses.
Quote: cmc0605Fortunately, in science, we are constrained by physics, data, and lots of other smart people doing similar analyses.
...and who share your agenda.
Quote: Beethoven9th...and who share your agenda.
As someone in the climate field, what is my agenda?
Quote: cmc0605As someone in the climate field, what is my agenda?
It's pretty clear to everyone (but you) what the agenda of the "scientific community" is.
BTW, I should probably clarify my earlier statement. When I say that I don't believe in "global warming", what I mean is that global warming is simply blown out of proportion. The human race will destroy itself before it destroys the earth.
Quote: Beethoven9thIt's pretty clear to everyone (but you) what the agenda of the "scientific community" is.
BTW, I should probably clarify my earlier statement. When I say that I don't believe in "global warming", what I mean is that global warming is simply blown out of proportion. The human race will destroy itself before it destroys the earth.
Sure...
Quote: Beethoven9thIt's pretty clear to everyone (but you) what the agenda of the "scientific community" is.
It's not at all clear to me what you think about the agenda of the "scientific community." What do you believe that agenda is, specifically?
Quote: MathExtremistIt's not at all clear to me what you think about the agenda of the "scientific community." What do you believe that agenda is, specifically?
My previous posts in this thread should answer that question.
Seriously, there has always been a channel for skeptics to refute everything. But there is also conspiracy about how their data doesn't get published or recognition, (I guess that's the complaint.)
Quote: Beethoven9th...and who share your agenda.
And all the funding available if you toe
the GW line..
Quote: Beethoven9thMy previous posts in this thread should answer that question.
And perhaps they do, but are you so busy that you can't or won't answer a direct question?
Quote: MathExtremistAnd perhaps they do, but are you so busy that you can't or won't answer a direct question?
No, I just don't feel the need to repeat myself or answer a question that is obvious. For example, can you tell if I'm liberal or conservative? If so, what is that side's view of the "scientific community" (who pushes global warming)? There's your answer.
An old friend of mine is a Christian Conservative who is an Evangelical who also happens to be a lead IPCC writer. Rush described her as "climate babe". Newt took her chapter out of Newt's book before the Iowa caucus because he felt that a Republican who believed in climate change would be a liability. She gets regularly insulted online by the climate skeptics.
I know that scientists, including climatologists, meterologists, etc, come in all political stripes. Unfortunately, people will want to believe what they are told to believe, that Climate change is a big undetectable self-serving conspiracy in order to transfer wealth between the rich and the poor right along Obama's commie-pinko agenda and to keep university faculties funded.
In reality, the earth has been cooling for thousands of years. The sun plays a much bigger factor than we thought and the recent trend in warming is due to the position of the planets, particularly on the key birthdays of political figures. Carbon dioxide is not increasing in the atmosphere, and truthfully, it acts as a coolant anyway. After all, that's why standing under trees keep you cool -- as the carbon dioxide gets close to the trees, a small breeze is generated that makes you cool. There is a secret channel between POTUS and the leaders of several western countries that are directly in contact with university and college climate change advocates. Secret funds of billions of dollars (which were hidden in the bank bailout packages) have been arranged to fund the climate change community.
But shhh... don't tell anyone.
I've also heard that all dice are biased towards sixes, and that you have a 30% advantage by betting boxcars. You heard it here first.
Quote: boymimboCMC, don't be discouraged.
An old friend of mine is a Christian Conservative who is an Evangelical who also happens to be a lead IPCC writer. Rush described her as "climate babe". Newt took her chapter out of Newt's book before the Iowa caucus because he felt that a Republican who believed in climate change would be a liability. She gets regularly insulted online by the climate skeptics.
I know that scientists, including climatologists, meterologists, etc, come in all political stripes. Unfortunately, people will want to believe what they are told to believe, that Climate change is a big undetectable self-serving conspiracy in order to transfer wealth between the rich and the poor right along Obama's commie-pinko agenda and to keep university faculties funded.
In reality, the earth has been cooling for thousands of years. The sun plays a much bigger factor than we thought and the recent trend in warming is due to the position of the planets, particularly on the key birthdays of political figures. Carbon dioxide is not increasing in the atmosphere, and truthfully, it acts as a coolant anyway. After all, that's why standing under trees keep you cool -- as the carbon dioxide gets close to the trees, a small breeze is generated that makes you cool. There is a secret channel between POTUS and the leaders of several western countries that are directly in contact with university and college climate change advocates. Secret funds of billions of dollars (which were hidden in the bank bailout packages) have been arranged to fund the climate change community.
But shhh... don't tell anyone.
I've also heard that all dice are biased towards sixes, and that you have a 30% advantage by betting boxcars. You heard it here first.
Thanks! I'm still waiting for the massive paycheck myself.
Quote: EvenBobThey argue among themselves, we don't have to
argue with them. If man made GW was that obvious
there would be no argument. Period.
As you know damn well, it's been a long time since a paper arguing that global warming is natural has found its way into a major journal. Of course, you think the journals are corrupt. But then why didn't Climategate come up with anything? Anything? Or name one thing that withstands scrutiny - ball's in your court. Surely if there were a conspiracy among scientists to hide their concern, this would have found something. In short, in the respectable scientific community, there isn't. Hell, I'd almost say they're antsier about ID.
But also, why shouldn't there be? Newtonian mechanics were "obvious" once, and before that, Aristotelian. But for each of those there are a thousand things that were "obvious" that are still believed, and they're no less fit to question, provided it's done with intellectual honesty, "it works just like we thought" being an acceptable answer. And beyond that, aren't there powerful interests who stand to profit from the whole thing being a huge mess of statistical noise? Sure, there are those who hope to use this for ideological goals, but in general when you pit a bunch of hippies vs. the almighty greenback, ceteris paribus, who tends to win? Homeopaths have plenty of "scientists" cherry-picking away - are you going to defend homeopathy next?
Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene -- but the mere fact that he has come out as being a skeptic and has a Nobel Prize makes him important. His big beef is that climate change orthodoxy has become a "new religion" for scientists, and that the data isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1#ixzz2a7ArEeJZ
Its like this. There were rumors during WWII
that Hitler was killing people in death camps
by the million. It wasn't until the war was over,
and Ike went in and ordered pictures taken
before they liberated anybody, it wasn't till
then that we had the proof.
There is no conclusive proof GW is man made.
Until that day arrives, nobody will agree on
anything.
And there are STILL people who think the Holocaust
was a hoax.
Seeing these forum debates is like watching a 1st grader learning addition telling a mathematician that he doesn't believe calculus works, or like me asserting that I don't believe that brain surgeons are doing their job correctly. You're out of touch with scientific reality and haven't the first clue what you don't know. Be careful that the facts you're asserting are not just your gut feelings that you desperately want to be true.
