From here.
I think global warming and the whole environmental movement of late has been a fraud: a complete fraud. Let’s get on with business and ditch all these scare tactics about reducing carbon footprints and other crap science.
Interesting: the same claim was made last year by a Russian astronomer (Prof. Abdumussatov). The correlation between sunspot activity and solar output is well known.
I wonder if the increase in CO2 may actually AMPLIFY the effect of global cooling? Suppose that the sulfates that we are putting into the atmosphere (output of cola nad oil-fired electric plants) wind up amplifying the cooling effect-what then?
Well, the *last *time Gunter made this claim about solar activity was in February. So I suspect that this is (at best) more motivated wishful thinking.
Well, I’ll wait for a specific response before saying anything too authoritative, but his alleging that the only reason AGW denial doesn’t get a seat at the grown-up table is because of some nasty journal gatekeepers is not a good sign.
Resort to doing “science” proper on blogs, and op-eds, where you don’t have to stand up to peer-review, is pretty easy and not very convincing.
Also, the reference to a supposed influx of scientists taking a stance against AGW wouldn’t happen to be the Heartland Foundation’s gig now would it?
First of all, it’s not “global warming,” it’s “anthropogenic climate change.” Everybody agrees the process will not necessarily mean warming everywhere. E.g., if a rise in the average temperature of the Atlantic disrupts the Gulf Stream, Western Europe will eventually have the same long-winter climate as Russia. (Rome is on roughly the same latitude as New York; it has a warmer climate only because of the Gulf Stream.)
Nitpick: I think you mean the Heartland Institute.
Well, not quite, all the big examples presented by the contrarians in the SDMB have been shown to be lacking much support, or the proof is missing an important element, or it was misleading.
In other words, it is really, really inaccurate to say “more proof”, well see if this pans out and then becomes the first valid proof that I see that shows that the mountain of evidence for Global Warming has a problem.
I didn’t know that the definition of proof is exactly the same as the definition of evidence.
Yep, thanks! :smack:
Sheesh, that global trend line’s placement is almost comical. Ask a second grade to gauge the trend on that graph, and even they’ll point out that it is moving upwards. As has been repeated over and over again, graphical representation of agw isn’t going to be a nice smooth incline, but instead varied measurements from the standard, but over time an obvious trend up. I like how he anchors the trend line to a lowpoint of the season. And why is he plotting just from 1979?
Also, it has been mentioned on these boards before but bears repeating. There is not a cabal of publishers refusing to recognize it. If an editorial board saw a conclusive study proving AGW to be incorrect, they would be falling all over themselves to publish it! The amount of prestige that would come along with being known as the publication that got it right would be immense.
What’s the difference?
I work with a few dozen solar scientists, and none of them would make a statement as extreme as to say that the Sun is entering a thirty-year quiet phase. About the only thing we can predict about the Sun’s future activity is the eleven-year dynamo cycle. Yes, sometimes it’s quieter than other times, for decades or more in a row, but we still don’t know what causes these extended calms, much less know how to predict them.
For what it’s worth, my solar physicist colleagues don’t seem to think the sun is entering a “particularly inactive phase.” The current solar minimum is unusually quiet, but that doesn’t mean the next cycle will be weak.
Here’s a prediction of the next cycle, issued earlier this year. Actually two predictions because this cycle the different models don’t agree. But neither prediction is unusually weak.
How can it be a “slam dunk” if we suck really hard at predicting long term solar activity?
Even if it is a “slam dunk” for thirty years, doesn’t that imply that 35 years from now, when the sun returns to normal, all our anthropogenic effects on global climate are going to come home to roost very suddenly? It seems to me that precipitous climate change is far more dangerous than gradual climate change.
In my opinion, Christy’s work is not proof (yet), but I do think that the case for CAGW was never very strong – to say the least. I have laid out my arguments on my blog.
I don’t really get it. I am firmly in the camp of science. Since I don’t know enough about the matter at hand, I trust what the overall scientific community says. The verdict within those circles is that global warming is real.
If there were solid proof that climate change were no big deal then I’d be very happy to believe. That’s what I don’t understand about it. Why are there so many people out there who are trying to deny global warming? I personally believe that science is dictating that we need to pursue conservation. Conservation is normally the domain of tree-huggers, so the right-wing is simply not ready to admit that it is necessary.
I’ve heard there’s a spot that gets it hot, but we haven’t been to it.
I never understood where the fraud started. Is it a complete rejection of how the greenhouse effect works in the first place? Is it in the estimation of the amount of anthropogenic GHGs? I do a lot of work in climate change, from a stint at the Smithsonian in the late 90s as a focal point to current projects setting up a large-scale global emissions trading programme and I’ve never quite understood the “fraud” mentality. Ignorant; yes. Disagreement; of course. But those claiming “fraud” are akin to conspiracy theorists and biblical literalists – no interest in facts or reason (as the majority of the world perceives them) that doesn’t fit their agenda. I think the primary difference between them is that UFOs, moon hoaxers, et al don’t have a multi-billion dollar a year industry lobbying on their behalf.
Of course there is reasonable debate about the severity, extent, outcome, etc. and a large amount of variation in many predictions, but this does not excuse the blanket disparagement of the subject as a whole. Leaffan, are you asking an actual question or are open to debate (i.e., were you using the term hyperboliclly), or is this just part of your faith?
First, thanks for the Frank Zappa reference!
Second. I don’t know what to believe anymore. There’s a whole money making industry behind AGW and it seems to me that every now and again someone comes along and pokes holes in the theory. Then anyone who agrees that AGW could be completely wrong gets skewered for siding with the disbelievers.
I’m open for debate, but am very skeptical that we have all the evidence on hand to proclaim that humans are responsible for any, ANY increase in average global temperatures.
:rolleyes: There’s a lot more money in the ACC-denial industry, you know. Who do you think funds all those astroturf skeptic think-tanks?
The problem is that the phrase “global warming is real” is ambiguous. Does it mean (1) that temperatures have warmed recently for whatever reason? Does it mean (2) that CO2 emissions are likely to cause average global surface temperatures to increase by some small amount in the future? Does it mean that (3) CO2 emissions will cause an increase in temperature, which will cause water vapor levels to rise, which will cause temperatures to rise further, which will cause water vapor levels to rise further, continuing until there is a huge negative impact?
I’m not exactly sure what “overall scientific community” means, but nobody has made a convincing case to me that some overwhelming majority of scientists accepts number 3.
Because the case for global warming (#3) is quite weak on close inspection. I’ve laid out my case for this on my blog