Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Many of them are, because now everyone is. That the cooling trend of the seventies would last was always a fringe hypothesis that the papers seized on for a more dramatic story. The idea that industrial pollutants were likely to cause global warming/climate change (so as not to confuse people too thick to realize an increase in mean temperature will have an effect on climate zones) has been gaining traction since the fifties - it just wasn't manifest until recently - and even then, the cooling at the time was taken as evidence of a coming warming trend, as has come. Here. Read what some real scientists have to say. The kind who actually do research, not the kind who just go around shouting "look at my shiny medallion - help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

The AGW theory won't be proven until it has been proven that an increase in CO2 will not effect cloud cover. This part of the argument seems pretty straight forward to me. CO2 will increase cloud cover.

According to the AGW theory AGW increases temperature. An increase in temperature increases ocean evaporation. An increase of ocean evaporation increases moisture in the air. Increased moisture increases cloud cover. Increased cloud cover increases the amount of sunlight that is blocked by the atmosphere.

With less sunlight able to penetrate the cloud cover, less heat enters the atmosphere and temperature drop.

As for the record cold north of I-80, I have 1 possible cause. I can explain the late summer. The Russian's meteor and a volcanic eruption in Alaska. Both added to the atmosphere and displaced the cool arctic air. This displacement caused the cold front and jet stream dip lower to the south causing the cold air masses that kept us cool through June. And of course the low solar activity. Then there was a volcano eruption in Mexico. This also added to the atmosphere. In this case, the displacement pushed the warm air to the south north and caused our 3 weeks of summer.

As for this cold spell and record lows in July that match up with the averages of October 10th, the Sun only had a few sunspots for the past week, and no flaring that hit the geomagnetic poles. There's also 2 coronal holes that are Earth facing. These hole blow cooler gasses. The locations are also important as is the fact that the low solar output shifted or change from low to very low. The Sun has flatlined and there are no spot actively flaring. Maximum is officially here and it's weaker than predicted the number of spots is near half of the previous maximum. They predicted 100 but we only had 65. The previous max in 2001 was 125 spots. We are now heading toward solar minimum with very low solar output.

Sunspots:

7/20: 6 spots 5 in south. 1 in the north.
7/21: 3 spots 2 in south. 1 in the north
7/22: 2 spots 1 in south. 2 in the north
7/23: 3 spots 2 in south 1 in the north
7/24: 6 spots 3 in south. 3 in the north
7/25: 4 spots 2 in south. 2 in the north
7/25: 4 spots 2 in south. 2 in the north

I would take precautions for a very cool decade. If it does materialize, more fossil fuels will be needed for heating and the price will skyrocket. If we're lucky, AGW will finally kick in and will not effect cloud cover. Else, bend over, grab the ankles, and kiss your buttocks good bye...

Source: spaceweather, NASA, NOAA

It's obvious to me that global warming is a result of all the hot air expelled debating the silly subject.

My dog is a scientist too, he studies the science
of dog poop. He has the equivalent of a Phd. He
ferrets out others dogs leavings and sniffs them
for reference. He even checks out the source of
the poop when he meets other dogs, always going
right for their hind quarters. I'd pit him against
any GW 'scientist' for qualifications and skill..

Bob I think your dog is smarter than the average poster here. Your dog know the difference between old shit, new shit and shit that doesn't matter.

Cloud cover is increasing - and even so, the Earth is warming. It is not coming, it has come.

Little musings mean nothing without some research to back them up. "You can explain." Good for you. Now back it up. Give me a rigorous argument, or show me someone who has made one.

The fairy tale of Henny Penny, or Chicken Little
as its known in the US, certainly applies to GW.
And fear mongering for profit is nothing new.
Variations of this fairy tale go back 2500 years.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft21.htm

Its supposedly a children's tale, but like most fairy
tales, it has a monstrous and frightening ending.
The fable is generally interpreted as a warning not
to believe everything you're told.

And yet you're doing exactly what you're warning against - fearmongering with an ancient fairy tale, as the meta-analysis MathExtremist links shows us the nature of the den you're leading us into, you only respond "no, trust Nagarjuna who says it's the king's palace."

Quote: 24Bingo

fearmongering with an ancient fairy tale,

You want fear mongering, read the original Hansel
and Gretel. The evil step mother (this woman appears
in a lot of old tales) talks the father into abandoning
the kids in the woods during a great famine. Probably
the famine of the 1300's in EUR. The kids have to fend
for themselves so the parents can survive. They eventually
outsmart the evil witch, who they burn to death in her
own oven, and become wealthy and live happily ever
after off the gold and jewels the witch has stolen from
previous victims.

And this was a story for children? And why is it never an
evil stepfather? Women always get a bad rap in these old
tales, they're always the ones causing the trouble. Wonder
why..

Increasing in 5 year increments and decreasing in 15 year increments.

Something's wrong with the science or what the scientists are saying publicly.
I know someone removed the little ice age to get Al's hockey stick.
I know that once the CO2 reaches a certain level, warming stops.
I know that the proponent of GW hide information from the public that will cause our types of questioning.
I know that because of the poles, north and south latitudes will have milder average temps than the Equatorial Latitudes.
I also know that the ice melt is partially cause by the oil rigs near the poles. They don't export it into the supply, they burn it. Ash and soot from this burning covers the ice with dark flakes and particles which in turn collect heat and aid the ice melt.

It's pseudo science at best.

If you makes you feel better and less guilty to care, than by all means believe what ever it is you want.
The world need happier and fewer guilty people that care.

Quote: rxwine

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]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Of course a self-serving megalith like the National Science Foundation will do whatever it can to defend recipients of millions in government and foundation grants. When it comes to whitewashes, this paragraph, from the Wikipedia cite, gives an excellent description:

"The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation closed an investigation on 15 August 2011 that exonerated Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University of charges of scientific misconduct.[119] It found no evidence of research misconduct, and confirmed the results of earlier inquiries.[120] The OIG reviewed the findings of the July 2010 Penn State panel, took further evidence from the university and Mann, and interviewed Mann. The OIP findings confirmed the university panel's conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated "Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action."[121]"

To find out what Mann really did to carve his hockey stick into the precise shape he desired is to begin to question the curiosity and objectivity of a whole scientific establishment. Here is just one smallish but significant deconstruction:

"But there were some problems with that graph and the research behind it. Some very big problems. One was that the Medieval Warm Period which occurred between about AD 800 and 1100 along with the Little Ice Age (not a true Ice Age) which occurred between about AD 1350-1850 somehow turned up missing. And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages.

Scientific critics raise another looming question. Mann’s 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961, where it then applied surface ground station temperature data. Why change in 1961? Well, maybe it’s because that’s when other tree ring proxy data calculations by Keith Briffa at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) began going the other way in a steady temperature decline. After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, he was put under pressure to recalculate them. He did, and the decline became even greater.

As recorded in ClimateGate e-mails, this presented what Mann referred to as a “conundrum” in that the late 20th century decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, was a “problem”, and posed a “potential distraction/detraction”. Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics would have a “field day” if Briffa’s declining temperature reconstruction was shown, and that he would “hate to be the one” to give them “fodder”.

In an e-mail sent to Mann and others, CRU’s director Philip Jones reported: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [journal] trick…to hide the decline [in global temperatures].” “Mike’s” ( Mann’s) “trick” was to add in real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years from 1979 onwards and from 1961 for Briffa’s, show all of the proxy and surface measurement chartings in different colors on a single graph, and then simply cut off Briffa’s in a spaghetti clutter of lines at the 1961 date." forbes

Quote: wroberson

I also know that the ice melt is partially cause by the oil rigs near the poles. They don't export it into the supply, they burn it. Ash and soot from this burning covers the ice with dark flakes and particles which in turn collect heat and aid the ice melt.

Does this mean future generations will know polar bears to be black?

There's a small island up north where the polar bear population is expanding. It's super easy to say one thing is a truth when the average Joe can't get there or see it themselves to prove it.

Quoting NASA is a fail for me. I find NASA to be unreliable when it comes to stating facts and telling truth. Yes there's a lot of truthiness to just about everything they say. and that's the problem.

I only quote NASA because people take what they say as the word of God. As a NASA questioner, you can imagine what I put up with.

Quote: treetopbuddy

Phoenix temps have risen slightly in last 30 years simply due to the "heat dome" effect. The official temp gauge is at Sky Harbor airport which is the geographic center of the Valley of the Sun. Population has nearly tripled in the valley the last 30 years. Huge growth. More and more asphalt and concrete holding the heat in..... hence nights are not cooling off like they did back in the day. I suspect that this scenario is playing out at reporting stations around the world. The ice is melting! Run away! Head for the hills!

What, you're telling me that concrete and asphault creates an urban heat island effect, and that it makes temperatures warmer? Man is affecting their local climate? No way! It can't be possible.

Reporting stations around the world normalize for the Urban Heat Island effect. It's been considered.

Quote:

Little musings mean nothing without some research to back them up...show me someone who has made one.

OK.

Quote:

And yet you focus on the one prominent scientist who argues, and ignore the hundreds of similarly prominent scientists who don't, and the multitude of less prominent scientists, even though you know nothing about the science, because that one scientist is telling you what you want to hear, and coming up with a nice, human explanation why all those annoying scientists who are actually putting out research on the subject are telling you otherwise.

LOL! I love how this member launches into a personal attack after someone does what he has asked and shows "someone who has made one [i.e., an argument]". Are they not ethically similar enough???

Quote: wroberson

There's a small island up north where the polar bear population is expanding. It's super easy to say one thing is a truth when the average Joe can't get there or see it themselves to prove it.

Quoting NASA is a fail for me. I find NASA to be unreliable when it comes to stating facts and telling truth. Yes there's a lot of truthiness to just about everything they say. and that's the problem.

I only quote NASA because people take what they say as the word of God. As a NASA questioner, you can imagine what I put up with.

I've also heard that NASA has faked moon landings too.

God, because you see more polar bears somewhere must mean that they're expanding everywhere! Just like global warming doesn't exist because it's cold in EvenBob's neighborhood this morning.

Quote: kenarman

...the same as most of this thread replies which simply become personal attacks.

+1

It's funny (and ironic) how the other side supposedly loves science, yet when they are challenged, they do everything but discuss science. They'd rather launch into personal attacks about a person's age, occupation, etc.

Quote: EvenBob

My dog is a scientist too, he studies the science
of dog poop. He has the equivalent of a Phd. He
ferrets out others dogs leavings and sniffs them
for reference. He even checks out the source of
the poop when he meets other dogs, always going
right for their hind quarters. I'd pit him against
any GW 'scientist' for qualifications and skill..

Brilliant hypothesis from a brilliant man. Bravo, bravo.

Quote: boymimbo

I've also heard that NASA has faked moon landings too.

A U.S. Government agency lying to the public!!??? No way in hell!!!!!

Quote: Beethoven9th

+1

It's funny (and ironic) how the other side supposedly loves science, yet when they are challenged, they do everything but discuss science. They'd rather launch into personal attacks about a person's age, occupation, etc.

I'm still waiting for your non-trolling contribution. As far as I can tell, this is your only "scientific" contribution to this thread:

Quote: Beethoven, 5 days ago

Humans may affect the climate, but they don't 'change' it. Hell, I affect the earth's atmosphere every time I take a breath, but I don't change it in any meaningful way.

Or sorry I put "scientific" in quotes. I wouldn't want to talk down to anyone.

I happily put a link to the other side's arguments against global warming (since no one had bothered to try), and asked for a discussion. Instead, the idea that all GBW scientists are liberal seems to be the dominant theme here.

Wow.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

A U.S. Government agency lying to the public!!??? No way in hell!!!!!

I saw that coming. There hasn't been any coverup to shuttle failures either...

Quote: boymimbo

I'm still waiting for your non-trolling contribution.

Apparently, you didn't read the "contributions" that I had replied to. One member compared his opponents to 1st graders, and another launched into a personal attack about a Nobel Laureate (rather than address the Nobel Laureate's actual argument).

But that's not 'trolling', is it?

Quote: boymimbo

Instead, the idea that all GBW scientists are liberal seems to be the dominant theme here.

Substitute "most" for "all", and your statement is completely accurate.

Quote: kenarman

I was responding to boymimbo's post which implied because Ivar was old his opinion was irrelevent. Noble Laureates are almost always old because it typically takes decades for their work to be substantiated and proven rellevent in their field. Today we demand instant gratification and that now carries over to science. Our ideas must be accepted instantly. That is why we have so many flip/flops of 'accepted scientific practise' over the years because we can not wait for things to be proven and all the new sheeples must jump on the latest idea and not wait for it to be proven. Science used to be the voice of reason and counteract the wild swings in public opinion on everything from health, food, environment and other issues. Now the young academics respond to science discourse the same way they respond to facebook. They 'Like' it and are forever locked into that opinion with no further discussion possible, the same as most of this thread replies which simply become personal attacks.

If you took the time to actually read Ivars opinion you would find that he doesn't actually claim to disagree with AGW his position is same as mine and several of the other posters. He disagreement was with the idea that the science is done and that no other explanations can possibly be right. He likely even agrees with the idea that AGW is probably the best theory with what we know currently. His point and the reason he resigned is because anyone that disagrees is now ostrasized by the community rather than working towards understanding their points and trying to disprove them or alternately working those ideas into the current model.

Yes, this was my point. Ivar received his Nobel Prize and was a Laureate when he was 44 years old (1973). He is 84 now. There have been 40 Nobel prize winners in Physics after him and not one of them has spoken out against climate change. Yet it doesn't mean that he is wrong, but he is a lone voice among Nobel Prize laureates.

I think most climate scientists agree that the science is not done. If it was done, they wouldn't be employed. Models keep improving, and GBW scientists spend a great deal of time trying to match their models to observations in order to figure out exactly how everything interacts together to create better models and stay employed.

It's politicians who believe that the science is done.

Quote: Beethoven

Substitute "most" for "all", and your statement is completely accurate.

The only thing that you have proposed is a belief, without any links or substantiated facts or quotations. You don't even back up the "fact" that most GBW scientists are liberal with a poll or a source.

But of course, opinions are just as good as facts, it seems.

Quote: boymimbo

It's politicians who believe that the science is done.

It occurs to me the biggest problem is the measures proposed are ideas to combat Climate Change are 'liberal' so the science doesn't actually register... the complaints against the science aren't the science, but the 'liberal' policies proposed.

Quote: thecesspit

It occurs to me the biggest problem is the measures proposed are ideas to combat Climate Change are 'liberal' so the science doesn't actually register... the complaints against the science aren't the science, but the 'liberal' policies proposed.

Absolutely, and that's worth arguing about.

Global Warming and Climate Change thread will always be a troll haven because there are two sides. One that believe with all their heart that one side is right even though the facts are slippery, manipulated or just to tell the side of the story they want people to believe.

I'm glad there are Global Warming threads. Without them I would never bother to look up anything in regards to the issue. That's the only reason I'm willing to be called a fool. A fool maybe, but a fool that has heard both sides of the argument and has made his choice on what he believes.

You can continue posting the same stuff I already know it's not going to change my mind. I'm not out here to prove anything. Just here posting information I am aware of that supports my view and the view of others. When we're looking at something so many people depend on for funding for support, you're going to get more information in support of rather than contrary to.

My final opinion and belief in this issue is that Climate Change is a cycle. We go through warm and cold cycles. The Sun is the dominant force that regulates temperature. We have been in a cooling period for 16 years and it's expected to continue for 12 more years. If Solar Cycle 25 turns out to be strong, then there should be warming.

Global Warming was created to control people, resources and the land. So far it's worked. People are worried about global warming, fuel prices are being controlled to cause less use, and more and more people are moving from rural areas and into the cities and urban sprawl. The goal is being achieved.

Long live the troll threads! We need 'em.

Quote: boymimbo

The only thing that you have proposed is a belief, without any links or substantiated facts or quotations.

You haven't read my posts, have you? I don't need to cite anything because I agree that humans have an effect on the environment. I also believe that the sun will burn out someday, but I'm not going to worry about either one happening any time soon.

Quote: boymimbo

You don't even back up the "fact" that most GBW scientists are liberal with a poll or a source.

Oh brother, if you're gonna deny this..........oh well, I'd better end my post here.

In the 1970s: We were expecting the next ice age. The universe was contracting, and would one day end in a "big crunch".

Now we are expecting the polar ice caps to melt, and impending doom from floods and giant hurricanes. Oh, and now the universe is expanding and will eventually tear itself apart.

While I appreciate science, probably more than many people on this forum, I recognize that we are still making regular revisions to what we think we know.

Relevant letter in the Wall Street Journal ARTICLE signed by 16 prominent scientists. Sub-title of article "There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy." I won't bother with the headline because it is more likely to take away from rational discussion.

Basically the 16 scientists are not convinced that CO2 is culprit in climate change. A few snipets of the letter for those who want the executive summary but I encourage you click on the link and read the complete letter and the list of signatories.

"A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."

"The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."

"Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse."

Whoops so much for the idea that the dissension has disappeared. As per boymimbo's - discussion?

Quote: kenarman

Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."?

He hit that nail on the head. Anytime there's a
hurricane or tornado now its all due to climate
change. Yet the tornado's and hurricanes in the
20's and 30's were far worse than now. No
explanation for that, is there.

Quote: EvenBob

He hit that nail on the head. Anytime there's a
hurricane or tornado now its all due to climate
change. Yet the tornado's and hurricanes in the
20's and 30's were far worse than now. No
explanation for that, is there.

Yes there is. Bad reporting.

Quote: EvenBob

He hit that nail on the head. Anytime there's a
hurricane or tornado now its all due to climate
change. Yet the tornado's and hurricanes in the
20's and 30's were far worse than now. No
explanation for that, is there.

And here I kept hearing it was God punishing America for its stance on homosexuality.

Great point Evenbob.

There is dissent to the global warming issue and the climiate change issue. I myself have made two statements that are true and have not been disputed: that it is humans that are responsible for increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and that the presence of increase CO2 in the atmopshere increases the absorption of energy.

There are also a number of scientists who say that smoking is safe. They are paid by the tobacco lobby. It's very conceivable that there are many scientists working for oil companies, coal companies, and natural gas companies who claim there is no such thing has global warming. There were probably scientists who worked for lead companies who claimed that it was something else in the gasoline that harmed people, not the lead.

97% of climate scientists believe in AGW or ACC.

What is up for dispute is how the earth reacted to this. And up for dispute as well is the political reaction.

Quote: thecesspit

Yes there is. Bad reporting.

Nope, the hurricanes in Galveston and the Keys in Florida were
far worse than anything we saw the rest of the century.
And they happened in 1900 and 1935. And the worst
tornado was the Tri-State in 1925. Them's the facts.

Yeah, great point, EvenBob. Just tell that to New Orleans.

But seriously, it's doubtful you are going to find many climate scientists who will blame a particular event on global warming on climate change. Those are politicians making those statements to effect public sentiment, and it's a crock. Climatologists look at patterns of events over years or decades, not single events over a day, week, month or even a year. That's their job.

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah, great point, EvenBob. Just tell that to New Orleans.
.

As hurricanes go, Katrina was very localized, thats why
it caused so much damage. Its not even near number
1 on the list of worst storms though.

Quote: boymimbo

97% of climate scientists believe in AGW or ACC.

Did you read the link provided by mathextremist boymimbo It shows how the 97% you quote was obtained? The conclusions of this study are some of the most blatant manipulations of data I have ever seen. The original results of the study of 11,944 published abstracts that dealt in some fashion with climate change in the last 20 years showed 66.4% expressed no position on AGW(man made global warming). The remaining 33.6% were 97% in favour of AGW. They didn't like this result so they then asked people to clarify their position and 14% replied. Now we are not dealing with peer reviewed publications and science but a private poll of the authors. The writers of the report then massage this data and who knows what the questions or pressure was put in the letter to the authors that 86% of them did not respond to. After this 14% return they somehow are able to state that 2/3 agree with AGW with an increased 1.8% of them stating disagreement with AGW.

The bottom line is that 97% of either 1/3 or 96% of 2/3 (from the massaged data) of these published papers conclude that AGW is true. This is a far cry from 97% of all papers and leaves room for further study and discussion which many claim is no longer required.

Quote: EvenBob

Nope, the hurricanes in Galveston and the Keys in Florida were
far worse than anything we saw the rest of the century.
And they happened in 1900 and 1935. And the worst
tornado was the Tri-State in 1925. Them's the facts.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The bad reporting is anyone reporting that Hurricane X is caused by global warming. That's like saying the Double Six just thrown was due to dice influencing. There's just no way of telling from a single event, and saying there is bad reporting and bad science.

97% of papers that exhibited a position on AGW were in favour of AGW.

If there was a further dissent of AGW like one thinks there is, there would be more than 16 scientists in dissent out of thousands and more than a few papers in dissent of AGW.

Some scientists are in dissent over tobacco too.

I'll say it again. I don't have a DOUBT in my mind on the two most basic premises that started the global warming movement in the first place, which is simple science based on pure observation:

(1) CO2 concentrations are increasing, due to human's increased output of CO2.
(2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes more energy from the sun to be absorbed.

The caveat is: Anything that attempts to predict the future is an inexact science with it comes to meteorology or the climate. Weather forecasters cannot predict an accurate local forecast more than 4 days into the future.


With these two basic "truths", climatalogists have been using more and more complex models to figure out what this means. Early models showed extreme changes based on simple formula. As satellite data became available and and historical models became more complete, climatologists were able to understand the atmosphere better and prediction models are 'hopefully' becoming more accurate. Politicians act on these predictions for political gain and to set policy.

Of course a very large (unpredictable) volcanic eruption can set all of this aside. An unknown variable (such as the Gulf Stream stopping because the heat engine has stopped) can set all of this aside as well.

I will say this, and this is my opinion. Putting one's head in the sand and saying nothing is going to happen is foolish and simple-minded. On the other hand, looking at the future and saying, well, the earth can handle a few degrees even though most of the earth's biodiversity is going to be gone is a political and economical decision too which trades off economic benefits today for unborne financial risks tomorrow.

It's like going to the doctor's office, hearing that something might be wrong with your heart, but decide not to follow up on it because you believe your doctor is part of the medical conspiracy.... you might be all right... nothing may happen to you, but do you want to take that chance? Instead you go onto a Wizard of Vegas forum to get some advice instead.

Using that 97% is a tremendous distortion of the data since 2/3 of the papers didn't take a position on AGW. The papers that didn't take a position could easily have found that the evidence wasn't clear either way, we aren't given that information by the study. Without that information we can only assume that 97% of the 1/3 of the papers were in agreement with AGW not a clear, undeniable and overwhelming majority.

Interesting graphs going back several ice ages. Looks like we are exactly on schedule or possibly falling a little behind.GRAPHS

Quote: kenarman

The bottom line is that 97% of either 1/3 or 96% of 2/3 (from the massaged data) of these published papers conclude that AGW is true. This is a far cry from 97% of all papers and leaves room for further study and discussion which many claim is no longer required.

97% of papers that express an opinion on whether global warming is man-made express that it is. There also are a number of papers in relevant fields that don't express an opinion. There are quite a lot of physics papers that don't express an opinion on luminiferous aether - are you going to use that to manufacture false dissent?

Look how great we're doing on a geologic scale. If we lived on a geologic scale, we'd have nothing to worry about.

Quote: cmc0605

It'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.

Bit late to this thread.

My hat's off to you sir. I signed up for 6 classes my first semester of grad school in chemical engineering at the Univ. of Illinois and planned to drop the hardest 2. One of those classes was in your dept... :-\ So I wouldn't be shocked if you were more intelligent than me, esp. if you went to a strong atmospheric science program like U of I had.

Personally, I am not totally sure about the global warming thing, but I feel human influence since 1850 definitely hasn't improved anything.

And apparently less knowledgeable people in your field ran you off. Not shocked with this forum. If you try to retort, they will never admit you're right. It's pretty pointless. If you have gambling related questions though, we're pretty friendly unless you believe in dice control. :-\

I love how there has been a subtle shift in the pro-global warming side's tactics here. First they issue a challenge to present an opposing argument, yet when one is finally given, they don't want to debate it. They'd rather dismiss it by saying, "Well, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community disagrees, so...blah blah blah."

I never answered the original question...
Climate Change -- conspiracy or is it time we all drive a Prius?

It's a conspiracy to control people, resources and the land.
I drive a convertible, and always will. If there's a Prius convertible,
I will consider it just for the money savings on gas. Can't afford the Tesla.

more drivel

Quote: Beethoven9th

I love how there has been a subtle shift in the pro-global warming side's tactics here. First they issue a challenge to present an opposing argument, yet when one is finally given, they don't want to debate it. They'd rather dismiss it by saying, "Well, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community disagrees, so...blah blah blah."

A real argument, one that addresses those scientists and explains why they're wrong, not one that hopes to push our emotional buttons and maybe make reference to a fact or two.

Debate what? What are we debating?

- Claim 1: Most climate change scientists who believe in AGW are left-leading. Waiting for proof on that claim besides "it's obvious".
- Claim 2: Global warming is a hoax. Waiting for scientific proof on that claim besides "16 scientists said" or "one nobel prize winner of 40 said". The article in the WSJ referred to is published by a medical doctor, not a climatologist.

No one seems to deny that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases energy absorbed by the sun and that we are causing the increased CO2. Even the climate change deniers have no problem with that part of the scientific debate, except the true kooks.

And I explained how climate models have advanced and that climatologists are working to figure out using better models on figuring out what will change. That said, the climate models are far from perfect and there is wide variations that still exist. The earth is a very complex case.

Because of these variations, climate scientists have a range of belief from "little to no effect" to "catastrophic effects". What you choose to believe is up to you but it should be based on the science, not an op-ed piece in a financial journal. The mid-range of these papers point to significant effects that require attention, if not action. And because all future predictions are based on models where the inputs can be modified, it is possible to look at and believe a model which shows little to no change.

In fact, because the IPCC predictions were significantly on the high-side 15 years for temperature leads those to say that the IPCC models were wrong. They were.

The IPCC was also wrong on these accounts:

(1) arctic ice is melting FAR faster than predicted.
(2) sea levels are rising far faster than predicted.
(3) antarctica and greenland are melting far faster than predicted.
(4) The ocean is becoming acid far faster than predicted.
(5) Arctic tundra is disappearing far faster than predicted.

There's plenty of change going on that wasn't predicted.