So is climate change and the reasons behind it reproducible? Is it a LAW? Or are there questions yet unanswered? Do we have an exact cause of it?
Is there some scientific proof that climate change exists? Most assuredly. Is there scientific proof that it might be a natural occurrence? Yep, you betcha.
So why all the belittling of the con- Global Warming crowd?
Hint: Decades of research may not be enough. This question may very well, never, get answered. We are talking about hundreds of millions of years this planet has been vibrant with life, no?
Has AGW been proved false? I’d like a link to that.
Doubters are going against the vast majority of climate scientists on Earth, from different countries, political persuasions and organizations. The fact is, when someone learns enough to be an expert on climate science, way more often than not they think the case for AGW is solid. The “deniers” are trying to sway public opinion, not produce real science. If they had a case they would produce peer-reviewed science, not whine on blogs.
It makes me laugh that someone who blindly and ignorantly accepts a small fringe group’s view of climate change thinks he’s being clever.
Honestly, the sheep here is you, you’ve been won over by a PR campaign, and are proud of it.
That is an awful lots of assumptions about my thoughts on the matter since, you know, I never really stated any.
I was referring to your and others ‘dismissal’ of ANY OTHER scientific evidence put into play.
Some of you look at AGW as an equal to gravity. Last I checked it wasn’t a Law. My verdict is out on which way it will fall.
Because for every genuine person who has genuine questions, there are hundreds of others who:
Twist the logic when it suits them
Cherry pick data to bolster their case
Use ad hominem attacks
Are simply afraid of change, so deny that anything is taking place
Are afraid their livelyhoods may be threatened if we acknowledge Climate Change
Hire lobbyists who formerly told us that tobacco did not cause cancer
Accept money from the oil and gas industry
Likes to be on the contrarian side so they are not “sheeple”
See the issue as purely political, and choose to believe what “their” side tells them
Here is where I ask if it is not the same view from the other side of the fence and you reply “Yes but not as bad”
Let me expound to be fair to you:
I feel like the hundreds of others are more into the wanting to find out for sure and the minutia are the ones manipulating numbers to get support one way or the other. Most people are good and just people who most assuredly want to prolong the existence of this here planet.
You did say that AGW was proven false? Were you talking about something else?
There is no scientific evidence put into play. Really. Go to the reputable journal of your choice and do a search on climate change. You’ll find ten thousand articles supporting climate change and none that overturn the consensus.
Certainly not equal to gravity. But the best scientists we have are nearly unanimous in their belief that this is happening. You’ll pardon my indifference to your un-qualified opinion.
What is logical:
Believing the vast majority of scientists in the field.
or
Believing a small minority of scientists in the field and some bloggers.
After all, if you went with the ‘vast majority of scientists in the field’, you would have been wrong several key times in history (Tetonic Plate Theory, Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, etc etc).
Did you miss the part where I said the actual scientific IPCC report was pretty good? I’m not a ‘denier’. I suspect you’re not even reading what I write.
Did you miss the part where the first two scientific authorities I cited were LEAD AUTHORS of their respective chapters in the IPCC report?
As for the people on the list being ‘random’, I take it you didn’t bother to follow the link and actually read it?
They include:
Timothy Ball - Professor of Climatology
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, editor of the Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Olavi Karner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
I could go on and on. Most of the people on the list are directly involved in the sciences centered around climate change. Many of them are IPCC reviewers and have their names on the list of the ‘thousands’ who supposedly support the IPCC’s conclusions - except that they don’t.
You can say that with a straight face after I just posted links to numerous peer-reviewed articles in scientific publications calling into question various aspects of the global warming consensus? Really? I would like to know the logic behind your dismissing this as ‘unscientific’. Do you think the lead authors of the IPCC reports who are disagreeing with the summary report’s twisting of their own findings to be ‘unscientific’?
Of course you always keep an open mind. But remember that we have a lot more scientific capabilities than we used to. And as I said, all the opposition side needs to do is some fancy science to show why they are right. Not whine in blogs and post nitpicks about specific graphs.
As to the list of scientific wrongs you posted, Science has been wrong before. And it was science, not PR and blogs that changed the consensus. Until recently we thought that humans couldn’t warm the planet, but it’s looking like there is an awful lot of evidence that they can.
Well, just this first name rang HUGE alarm bells with me.
Retired in 1996, has published only 4 pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.
His organizations appear to be funded primarily by the energy industry. Not that there’s anything wrong with that… but I wonder why he trys to keep that under wraps?
eta: "professor of climatology? Is that what he’s calling himself now? Ball received a PhD in Geography in the UK in 1982, on a topic in historical climatology. Currently he “consults” for organizations that don’t like to reveal their funding sources.
We have more scientific capabilities today, true, but that doesn’t invalidate the point. Even today theories that were previously dismissed by a majority of scientists in the field can eventually gain acceptance.
The problem is, when the side in the majority attempts (or is able) to shut down debate, that means that there is limited (or no) funding for any kind of opposition. I am confident that eventually the correct theory will win out…but it could take decades if there is a concerted effort to shut down any kind of debate, or cut all funding to any research that doesn’t directly support the majority theory. Do you not see the pit falls to this mentality??
I agree…but I also know just enough about how actual science is done to know that funding (and prestige) is at the heart of the process. And the way that Global Warming has been shaped has meant that, especially in the last 5-10 years, the vast majority of the funding has gone to those who are in the majority camp. Even so, a brief look at Sam’s cites seems to indicate that there IS a solid minority of credible people who have some questions about the current theories and models. Surly that warrants some support and funding, if for no other reason than to explore anomalies and put the questions to rest. No?
‘Keeping it under wraps’? Because he doesn’t go around saying, “Oh, by the way, some of the organizations I work with get some of their funding from the oil industry.”?
According to Wikipedia, Ball’s Ph.D is in Climatology. ‘historical climatology’ is a big part of the science behind AGW. I’m not sure why you think this is a disqualifying point.
This is basically an ad-hominem attack.
You could have stopped at ‘legitimate climate scientist’ and kept his personal faith out of it. That is, if you wanted to be all ‘scientific’ about it.
It’s funny that suddenly we’re no longer talking about science, but going for personal attacks on the scientists themselves instead of noting the points they’ve raised in peer-reviewed journals. I guess the game is, “Hide behind science, but if the science starts going against you, attack the scientists.”
Compared to Plate Theory, Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, etc etc, it would be if now we had a movement to discredit the evidence to all those subjects **after **most scientists got to see how wrong they were.
Some more info on the first person on Sam Stone’s list - Tim Ball:
In 2006 Ball sued the Calgary Herald and Dan Johnson over a letter to the editor that clarified Ball’s background and credentials. In the Herald’s statement of defense,
It’s not bad, it’s necessary. Without getting your message out you won’t get the political will do do what needs to be done. But you’ll notice that the anti-AGW crowd *only *uses PR, they don’t bother with actual science. They just try to point out why it’s wrong with lists of generic scientists who disagree and by nitpicking specific claims. They are smoke and mirrors and they are lying to people to get their message across. That isn’t very cool.
You don’t have any problem when it comes to insinuating that AGW props are motivated by a socialistic agenda. Want a bit of goose sauce for your gander?
