No Need to Panic About Global Warming?
inlet13
Posts: 1,979
Interesting article from the wsj.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Carousel_1
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
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.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
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.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
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. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Carousel_1
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
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.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
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.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
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. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Here's a new demo called "in the fire":
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I hear all this back and forth about global warming and I just cant believe that the amounts of shit we pump into out atmosphere that it cant have some slight detrimental effect. Maybe its not warming, but wasnt there specific evidence that we put a HOLE in our ozone layer? I know thats not evidence for Global warming, but I see abuse of our environment as a whole.
Bottom line is, I dont know who to believe, but we need to treat our planet better. And for folks who say that global warming is not happening, I hope that doesnt just give them the idea that chemicals from industry and automobiles are simply OK, and we shouldnt conserve and make a better push for cleaner renewable energy.
if you lived anywhere but the US - you would probably have a better understanding of global warming but alas - you live in a country where lies and misinformation and PR campaigns are functional tools in promoting corporate agendas ... for the same reasons why you guys are in multiple wars and why so many people still believe obama was not born in the US - is the reason why you don't understand global warming ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
actually - no shit storm ... these threads follow the identical pattern ... OP will post something that speaks to his bias ... we refute it ... we ask to discuss the basic science of global warming ... people leave ... there are at least 100 of these similar threads all ending the same way ... this is just another piece that is not based on any legitimate science whatsoever that is pushed by the fox agenda under the guise of the WSJ ... this is the same playbook they've been using for years ... why not - it works on people ... :(
http://www.desmogblog.com/students-get- ... 1-lectures
Seriously? This is a political forum. I posted this because it was a different point of view from the typical "Global Warming will kill us tomorrow or next week" rhetoric that's posted here. It's the alternative point of view, that typically gets muffled in these parts. See your posts in this thread. You immediately dismiss it, despite the fact that there are a group of scientists supporting the article. You also immediately dismiss them. Why? It's ironic how the article itself speaks of how these scientists fear speaking out due to backlash... that's not happening in this very thread is it?
As for me - I posted this strictly because I found it interesting and thought it may provide a good discussion piece for me to read. That's all. I, personally believe, there's an economic (big government) agenda behind Global Warming, and was never quite convinced in it. This article touched on both those elements. So, I figured I would share.
All that said, I'm very environmentally conscious for other reasons. I think pollution is wrong, so I understand concern over polluting... just not so sure the stuff we breathe out and plants breathe in is going to cause the end of times.
Enjoy.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Its not that I dont understand it, I get it and I believe its a problem (I have seen the dozens of threads on here and have mostly sorted through the bullshit)...but you do have a point -- On average, i'll bet most AMericans are misinformed. Likely because its hard to sort through all the shit, and many are only exposed to what lying politicians tell them. There are hundreds of studies and experts that say NO its not happening, then there are hundreds who say YES it is happening. But identifying who says what, for what reasons, is what is important obviously. Corporate agenda gets in the way i'm sure.
I find it difficult to debate because I dont trust most sources -- Do you have any single easy sources that you most rely on to explain why global warming is happening? Say a source would convince someone on the fence?
but this isn't a discussion about whether you think we should have the tax rate at x% over another ... your article has been refuted (see previous post) ... what you are posting is lobbyist propaganda - aimed to confuse the public ... it's like me continuing to post that cigarettes are good for your health ... it's simply not factual what you post ... it also touches at the heart of what is wrong with everything ... the use of PR companies and lobbyists to spread lies and mistruths ... these aren't opinions formed from scientific research - these are flat out lies ...
What is desmosblog?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
what i try to do is get people to go straight to the science ... not the complicated stuff trying to measure the potential impacts - you'll go stir crazy just reading the abstract ... but just the basic scientific principles ...
it starts with the greenhouse effect ... it's not overly complex and should be easily grasped ... if you believe in the greenhouse effect then the next thing you need to understand is that temperature is the singular most important variable in determining weather (not the only variable but the most influential) ... that's it ... pick away at those two basic principles and see what you come up with ...
the problem with these threads is that when you ask people to think critically about them or to discuss the science - they're out of here ... all they have is what others tell them and that is the singular most frustrating aspect of it all ... the talking points put forth by the lobbyists to arm these folks in these discussions ... all easily refutable ...
some guy's blog ... but he provides all his sources ... all you have to do is click the links ...
Yeh, I'm sure there's no bias or hidden interests there.
So, anyway, you used "some guy's blog" which focused one piece on one guy, to disprove an entire article in a major periodical signed by almost twenty scientists?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
ha ha. I didn't mean to cause a shit storm. I figured people "HERE" won't buy it, but was curious of how they would respond. I'm finding out.
So far, they look up the people and try to say "see this guy's bad". That's why what they say is wrong. Meanwhile, I'm left thinking to myself....
...this shows it's a debate (on global warming). Nothing's proven here. But, like the article suggest, if some dissent they are treated like Galileo.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
oh geez ... dude - you are totally getting played here ... set the ego aside and read through it all ... it's the same old thing ...
they are all linked ... all these guys used the same research from the same guys ... this is an example of what is happening:
1. imperial tobacco gives me money to write a "scientific" article that says cigarettes are good for you
2. I publish it ... the tobacco industry seizes on it and pays a bunch of other people to form other "scientific" articles about it based on it ... and so on and so on ...
3. they then get OP-Ed type outlets and media friendly (money) to push this agenda
where is the failsafe in science? ... it's peer-review ... because it's been the achilles of these lobbyists - their new tactic was to discredit the peer-review process ... despite numerous independent agencies saying they did nothing wrong - it worked to continue to fuel the campaign against AGW ...
what is truly sad - is that in our multiple discussions about this topic spanning several different threads ... you are unwilling to educate yourself on the science of global warming to progress this debate ... rather continue to rely on sources that have no credibility ...
despite the WSJ being a fox venture and knowing rupert murdoch has close ties with big oil - i didn't refute your article by pointing out its from the WSJ - i did it by discrediting the so called scientists your article was based on ... so, feel free to ignore the info coming from a blog despite that the links to all the studies are there ...
it is January 27
and it is 60 degrees F outside today
rain and THUNDER!!
no global warming ?
its been like this except for a half dozen days at the freezing mark all season long
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
it's not a debate ... you are posting lies and concluding there is a debate ... huge difference ... but i see now that you have nothing to back up your side ... you want to discredit the response by applying a prejudiced associated with this forum ...
here's a start, re: scientific consensus on the issue:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5 ... 6.full.pdf
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
But, you didn't discredit anyone. You used "some guy's blog" (who apparently doesn't have a bias of their own, which is ridiculous assumption given "that guy's" site) to try to discredit one person. You said he was tied in with lobbyists. My response, ok... not sure I believe that or not given your shady blog source.... But, do you think your "blog guy" isn't? Further, do you think the scientists on your side of the issue aren't? Finally, there was a lot of scientists that signed that thing.... not one.
Also, just because someone disagrees with you does not make them uneducated. If you "educate" yourself with bias and propaganda, does that make you educated on a subject matter?
This topic is filled with propaganda, and that was the point of the article.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
ha ha... seriously? I don't have a side that I care about deeply here. I posted an article that I thought was interesting and still do. It's not posting "lies". And there is a debate on this subject, you just don't want there to be. Living in a bubble, doesn't mean there's not a world outside.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
dude ... i said go to his sources ... and because i knew you weren't gonna do that ... i posted the actual case study ... and in my last response i didn't discredit your publication source (WSJ) even tho there is ample evidence to do so ... so, feel free to discredit my publication source (the blog) even tho that isn't what i did ...
all those scientists are the same ... i've been doing this on this forum for years and it gets tiring having to do all the work because you guys don't care to do so ... if i tried to sell you a car that had great mileage, excellent reliability, looks great, super fast, super safe and super cheap ... would you just say great and buy it or would you do your own research? ... why won't you do the research in the articles you are posting yourself? ... that is what critical thinking is all about ...
look at all the scientific associations that support the science behind global warming ... it's overwhelming ... yet, you continue to post big-oil funded pieces and try to say there is a debate ...
i tried showing you how these PR firms do it but apparently you aren't interested ... i get it now ... i tried yet again but alas it's the same old response ...
Good point, it has been warm this year. I'd admit that.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
whenever you decide to educate yourself on the topic - let me know ... i'll be happy to debate it with you ... but right now, all you are doing is posting propaganda pieces that have no credibility ... that is not a debate ...
all these scientific associations and agencies representing thousands of scientists support the consensus on global warming ...
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences
My response is some guy's blog doesn't really give me faith in fair journalism or fact-checking. No offense, but I'm not going to sit around for hours digging through your guy's blog's publication sources. If you want to refute the article with a publication, go ahead. Post the publication. I'm just not going to sit around and poke through your guy's blog, then check his sources. That's kinda ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but seriously... no offense, I think you're passionate on this issue. Fair enough. I get that. But, my take is just because you've been on a rock band's forum saying global warming will kill us, doesn't make you right. You can point to the majority of quasi-scientists saying "sun revolves around earth" during Galileo's time... they were wrong. And in my opinion, the most interesting part about this article was it was telling why scientists who don't buy Global Warming are being muffled, which is what you're trying to do. To my knowledge, you're not a scientist who does this for a living. If you are show me some of your own data, don't point to a publication. The problem with this field and the ardent supporters is that they use other people's work to prove their opinions.
I said it before, I'll say it again, my opinion is there's a big sect of people who are "green" who are green for big government purposes, they use the "green" aspect to gain support. Others are green because they truly believe it... I think you probably fall into the latter, but I don't know.
We hear about the people who support global warming a lot. We know they are well-funded, after all they support big-government (by my logic) and have PR firms behind them too. We rarely hear the dissenters.
My point is for you to look at it as an issue that's not 100% finalized. If you do, you're showing you're instilled bias.... right from the jump.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
but, it is unequivocal that global warming is happening, and 97.4% of climatologists say it is caused by man. I'd say it is pretty much "finalized."
note that only 58% of the general public believe it is caused by man. it is bullshit articles like the one WSJ printed that cause the discrepancy.
the question is; what is the motive behind their propaganda?
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
again - why do you continue to bring up the fact we are discussing this on a PJ forum? ... that has nothing to do with anything ... i can then turn around and say everything you write about economics is a joke for the same reason ... i am pointing you towards credible sources but you have no interest in reading them ...
that is the truly sad part ... so, again - whenever you decide you want to educate yourself on the topic ... let me know ..
I've read your refutes and I've responded to them. I posted an article. You refuted it by putting out a post by what you called "some guy who's a blogger". I explained that he's a blogger, who could be influenced or be bias. You said he cites things, you are required to read the citations and you can't be bothered to post them. I said I read his response, but I'm not going to dig into his references and read them for the sake of a message board argument, if it supports your cause, post them. Then you turn around and say this.
Re-read... you brought up the forum. I responded to you saying you've discussed it here for years, as if that's some sort of achievement. I am fine with discussing issues here. I think it's fine. But, I wouldn't brag about it, like it holds me in high regard educationally, like you did.
If you'd like to say what I say about economics is a joke, you're free to do so. From my perspective (on econ) - I don't simple adhere to papers by academics on the subject, I know the subject, have proven that academically, worked as an economist and can use data to show someone my take on it. I'd encourage those who are in the "green" community to learn to do that sort of thing, rather than point at papers by other people (who for all they know could be influenced).
Open-minded much? No offense, but in this thread you remind me or Rick Santorum. You know what you believe is 100% fact, regardless if there's a sect of smart people who disagree.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="