31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday

I wonder if any of these people have read the most recent research that again supports global warming as being helped along by man.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

 

I don't understand how any reasonable person can deny that increased carbon dioxide levels directly causes global warming. There may be some question about the degree to which CO2 caused by mankind effects the planet but I don't see how they can deny that it does contribute to warming.

I'd like to see what evidence they put forth to support their position.

 

Most of these people are arguing minutiae of the debate but not the prime hypothesis that CO2 levels created by man-made pollution is helping the green house affect.

 

I think that's just it. Earth has a long history of warming and cooling periods, the question is "is the amount that we contribute enough to cause irreversible damage?".

 

I think with ozone layer damage we've seen that man-made effects can cause long lasting damage to the Earth. Now is global climate change going to be as difficult to reverse, I'm not sure. But limiting our green house gas production isn't going to make the problem worse.

 

Because there's no proof that global warming is even occurring, let alone that carbon dioxide--the chemical formerly known as "the primary composition of the Earth's atmosphere"--contributes to the phenomenon. That's the entire point. No one has shown a cause-effect relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature levels.

I don't understand how anyone can buy into the theory of global warming considering how thoroughly the methodology used by its proponents has been debunked. I particularly like how the temperature data cited by global warming proponents came from measurement stations that were borderline comedic in their placement.

The concept of global warming has become so rightfully and thoroughly mocked that proponents had to engage in semantics--it's now referred to as "climate change," because it's actually been more persuasively argued that the planet is cooling. The irony in all this is that excessive cooling is far more dangerous to life on this planet than excessive warming. (And one degree is not exactly excessive warming.)

 

Incorrect, sir !

While there is no clear data of the degree to which CO2 created by mankind contributes to global warming, no one with a basic understanding of chemistry denies that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and does contribute to global warming.

The earth has gone through cooling and warming phases over the ages, some speculate, due to sunspot activity. However, the latest warming trend that seems to correspond with the widespread use of fossil fuel, exceeded anything in the geological/fossil record. So, it is not unreasonable to connect the dots.

As for the argument that global cooling is potentially more dangerous to man that would global warming, I have made the argument many times in the past.

 

i'm more worried about the chloro-floro carbons that keep eating away at the ozone.

i remember in organic chem, my professor said, that even if we stop using them all together,that the chain reactions of the chloro-floro carbons will still continue to eat away at the ozone for the next 100 years.

 

So how come that literally each and every NASA analysis comes to a different result?

 

I've looked into the hypothesis of Man Centered Global Warming and quite frankly, it is seriously lacking in both modeling, and basic facts to support it.

The idea that "The Globe is on an irreversible warming trend and the results will be catastrophic" is pretty much Hokum, for a start, there exists no way to accurately model clouds, nor track rainfall across the globe at any given moment.

Secondly, while "The north pole ice is melting" the South Pole is gaining ice.

Thirdly, the Atlantic Ocean managed to do what no scientist had ever recorded before, it "bled" off the excessive heat that had built up into the atmosphere, things like that happening, previously unobserved activity is a big hole in the broadside of the Global Warming Titanic.

There are things that should be done to safeguard our shared environment on a global scale, such as handling the smokestack emissions from coal fired power plants in order to reduce the amount of mercury that is making it into our potable waters, but a global fight against an opponent that does not exist is the height of silliness.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

I'm glad that you've taken some time to research this, but there are alot of papers that have been written that agree with the consensus, or don't disagree with it. Here's close to a thousand pieces of seperate research that partly come to similar conclusions, conclusions supported by the scientific bodies that the researchers are a part of.

 

The basic problem is the modeling is flawed because it is incomplete.

For example, now a study has come out stating that the Earth will go through a period of cooling due to naturally occuring shifts in the currents in the oceans:

Now it is not my contention to argue the Science of the matter at hand, I will say that when it was revelead that satellite data collected since 1979 was inaccurate, it became apparent that an attempt to shoe horn studies into a hypothesis was under way for reasons known only to those who are championing the idea.

That hypothesis is that in 50 years, mankind will have implemented a massive warm up of the Earth, 50 years from now based on models that are flawed is B$, that is no way to plan nor even to see the results of the massive changes that they seek even on a mircro level.

 

Because NASA's methodology is flawed and relies on the bad temperature data I've mentioned before.

Just because the government says something doesn't make it true.

Don't waste the energy. It's closing itself. Futhermore, there's some evidence that pollutants serve the same function as ozone--so, basically, all that car exhaust is helping to save the environment.

There's still no proof of it. It's conjecture presented as fact by a specific clique of researchers.

Except there is no warming trend. In fact, the current trend is a slight cooling, not warming. (The only data that shows a warming trend comes from the flawed temperature measurement stations. Are you really going to rely on temperature data taken in part from a sensor placed adjacent to an air conditioning heat vent? I'm not!)

One reason the global warming crowd pisses me off is that the evidence actually points to global coolling, which is a far bigger disaster to this planet than the one degree rise in temperatures pushed by a group of politically-motivated idiots. One degree temperature rise is great for the planet and for us; but if we have another Little Ice Age, say goodbye to sustainable crop yields. Time to start those space-based food gardens NASA's been talking about.

 

Ok so the alternative is to continue producing hydrocarbons at the current rate or even to increase them right? Frankly I think alot of people oppose doing something about CO2 production mainly because it will affect how they get to live their lives. That's a fair place to be coming from, nobody likes to shake the mellon cart particularly if you have most of the mellons, like the USA for example.

I've been reading up about the 31000 signatures against the consensus and have found it interesting that there are not 31000 seperate pieces of research against global warming attached to the petition. Also from what I can tell the majority of signees aren't even climate researchers at all. Now we have to also assume that these 31000 signees have read and reviewed every piece of climate research, yay, or ney, that has been written on the subject and based on their total number invalidates that research based on their number of dissenting votes?!?! I love how that's how it is being presented, that their number invalidates the science. What a joke.

Now the one thing that I will agree on is that there isn't a consensus the way the Gore makes it out to be, and for that I'm glad. The whole point of science isn't to prove something it is to disprove something that's why you put your theory out there, for other to take apart. I would just feel a little better if it was a climate scientist and not a PhD of veterinary medicine doing it.

 

Well, the gore issue is a part of the problem, he has hijacked the research and then painted a picture of death and South Florida under water...good thing we're the Dolphins...

Seriously though, one of the large clubs the "pro" camp used was "5,000 scientists agree" now "31,000 scientists disagree" what the fact of the matter is seems to be a muddle, "yes" there was a period of warming, "yes" the warming curve was steep.

However, those effects have stopped, or at the very least, not followed the upward curve that had been projected.

The real issue here (to me) is not the use of carbons, it is the North American reliance on them to operate our economies, our political lack of willingness to take positive steps to reduce the dependence on carbons not the effects of using them.

 

But can't a reduction on our reliance to fossil fuels and a reduction in CO2 emissions go hand in hand?

Alot of the climate research that I've been reading is based on science up here in Canuckistan where the effects of climate change are seen throughout the arctic.

 

There absolutely is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can contribute to global warming.

Please show me the evidence of this wide-spread faulty measurements.

As for your second argument. I'd like to see your evidence of that as well.

NASA

Coorelations between CO2 and temperature


http://www.epa.gov/



EPA

Information about greenhouse gases:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

Again, there is no clear evidence to what degree greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming but the fact remains that CO2 and methane generated by humans can contribute to global warming and the rate of temperature change seems to correlate with the rate at which man generates CO2 and methane.

 

Just an fyi even if the north pole is melting while the south pole is getting larger, it still will equal a shift in earth's magnetic field which will be disastrous.

 

It doesn't matter whether global warming is or isn't real.

We take horrible care of the Earth and have destroyed more than our share of it. It's wrong whether it threatens to kill us off or not.

 

Doesn't the orientation of the magnetic field have to do with the spin of the liquid iron core of the earth? What role does the size of the polar caps have to do with it?

I am confused.

 

I'm curious Celtkin, why does your chart stop at 2006?

From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

The writer is a paleoclimatologist, the "hockey stick" graph is deeply flawed as well Celtkin:

from:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011848/posts

(The original article from National Post is no longer available. )

 

You are right but I believe, and I guess I shouldn't quote this as absolute since its a theory, that the sudden shift in weight will throw the rotation of the earth off, thus causing a change in the liquid metal flow thus causing a change in the magnetic field.

 

I disagree with this whole heartedly, it does matter, if action is called for, then it should be based on "facts" not "feelings" otherwise no problem will ever be properly "fixed" because it won't be "fixed" it will "feel" like something has been done and that is a huge mistake.

 

You don't only take action when it is needed. If the human species were smart enough to limit it's impact on nature in the first place we wouldn't have this issue.

Personally I don't face issues when they come up, because I make sure they don't come up before they ever have a chance to.

 

You also don't take needless actions based on bad information, that would be like buying Super Bowl tickets for 2010 , because a consensus of experts said the Dolphins were going to be in the Super Bowl.

As long as you base that on accurate information, then "certainly" not "I feel we have so thrashed the Earth that we must do something, anything, to "fix" the "damage".

 

Bro, I didn't make the chart. I copied it from the source I cited. There is probably a contact link if you are truly curious.

Your Telegraph source claims that global warming ended in 1998 but the chart from NASA shows the temperature climbing throughout the range of the NASA chart.

Here is some data up to and including 2008:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Here is the 2007 summation

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Also:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

Certainly, earth has been warmer. The atmosphere was primarily CO2 from volcanic activity eons ago.

 

Uh... if you concede that global warming isn't real, then you also concede that we're fairly good stewards of the planet.

Celt, without quoting your entire gigantic post, I'll say that you are citing data that has been proven to be wrong. padre31 did a good chunk of the replying, but I want to mention that your graphs don't go nearly far back enough in time. Look up some charts of temperature data over the past few million years, not the past 150 or 1000 years.

 

Thanks. I understand now.

 

No one yet has proven that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that can contribute to global warming. That is the whole point I have been making. That is where you jumped in.

EDIT: Bro, if you have a chart that goes back farther than the ones I found, please post a link. I would be interested in seeing the data.

 

Does that include the "updated" numbers:

So 5 of the 10 warmest year on record were in the 30's, before the time of massive industrial expansion.

Here McIntyre corrects the Nasa algorithm error:

Now Mcintyre does question the "whys" of Nasa's actions:

Now let me guess, Mcintyre is "A shill for Big Oil"? or "Not a scientist"? If I had a nickel for everytime that is said in one of these discussions, I could afford to go to the 2010 Super bowl to see the Dolphins...

 

Thanks for the insight and the data.

Like I have before, I don't believe that there is any conclusive data about the degree to which CO2 and methane contributed by man has on global warming but there is no doubt in my mind that sufficient CO2 and methane can lead to global warming.

 

I most worried about planet life turning against us and releasing deadly toxins into the air. There is a new documentry about this coming out soon called The Happening, it should be interesting.

 

Exactly the point of global warming scientists, that it could be a factor and more research is needed to absolutely prove it. But in the mean time the mean temperature is rising, glaciers are melting, drought is becoming more common and we should be taking steps to prevent man-made effects if at all possible.

 

You are preaching to the choir. Worst case scenario, if we cut down on CO2 emissions and find out that CO2 was not the primary cause of global warming, we will still have far less toxic carbon dioxide to breath and deal with in form of acid rain.

 

Nice...

For me, the problem is that Global Warming is a Scarecrow, a sort of "50 years from now X, Y, and Z will happen" when "we" have larger problems with envirotoxins that turn normally decent and clean potable water into cancer causing liquid destruction.

PCB's in NY State, have polluted a river so badly that the fish are dangerous to consume.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3D9103EF93BA25754C0A965958260

I mean can we afford the risk of having larger hordes of mentally deficient Jets fans? It would look like 28 days in green and white jerseys....

Mercury from Coal Power Plants have made waters in Ohio dangerous to drink or use fish from.

Fisherman tests positive for high levels of mercury:

http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/oct/29/coal_power_and_poison/

http://freepress.org/journal.php?strFunc=display&strID=264&strJournal=29

I think I understand Bengals and Browns fans better now, it really is Environment over Genes there...

Anywho, Global Warming sucks all of the air out of the room in dealing with those issues, and the real rub is, there exists technology to scrub the mercury out of the emissions, the problem is, those plants are "grandfathered" in, if they attempt to make the switch to cleaner coal tech, the Enviros will sue them on every word of a preliminary permit application, so the companies's hands are tied.

 

I agree bro. My Ph.D. project is in geomicrobiology but my first love is environmental microbiology. My lab's main focus is on bioremediation and my major professor is highly regarded in soil and water bioremediation. Currently our major funding comes from the DOE and Department of Natural Resources to study perchlorate reduction in water.

 

Excellent Celtkin.

These types of major problems can be fixed, if we wait for some sort of Global Treaty that will never be signed by countries like China and India, our environment will never even be relatively toxin free.

The South Carolina fisherman's mercury level was 4,000 times what it should have been in the average person, I can only imagine what those levels are in some folks.

Percholate, as I recall, that is the stuff that goes into the groundwater and stays there?

 

Frankly at this point it's North America that really needs to get on the climate change treaty bandwagon considering we produce the highest concentration of green house gases, with the USA being the worst of the bunch worldwide.