Climate Change: The Non-Issue Crisis

[The_Last_Man]

Rouzbeh,

Not to butt in here, but you cannot refute even a single one of these claims? Just saying “Its not cited correctly” doesnt refute what it actually says. That is a cop-out.

If these facts here are so disreputable and scientifically unsupported as you say, it should be no trouble at all to show this with some of your own facts.

So, you think that “the scientists agree” on climate change? What about the 30,000 scientists who signed a petition along with the founder of the Weather Channel disputing the claim of global warming? All they want is a debate with Al Gore and his supporters, but they refuse to meet in a fair debate every time. http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18812

The evidence that W.C. quotes for us is specific and many. I have no doubt that he could produce citations for each of those, but do you really expect him to give you a link to 50 or so claims? If you can go “Im sure you can find the info yourself”, why cant others pull that too? But Im sure W.C. is not trying to get into a citation war, he is just showing you some arguments against the global warming predictions by IPCC and others. But rather than address any of these claims, which are specifc and easy to understand, youre just going to cop-out because there isnt a link next to it?

Seriously?

I find the following that W.C. posted surprising, and powerful. Add in the fact of the 30,000 scientists who think Al Gore and his science is a fraud, and who cant even get a debate with them no matter how hard they try, and I think the global warming “consensus” of “the debate is over” is quite easily thrown into the wastebasket, shows for the propaganda that it is.

I have no personal interest, investment in or opinion regarding global warming. I do find that there is evidence for both “sides” of the “debate”, but I especially find the propaganda and marginalizing of opposition on the side of mainstream media and the Al Gores of the world disturbing. 30,000 scientists sign a petition that global warming is a fraud, and CNN or MSNBC wont even let them on the air? Sad. Or what about Al Gore refusing to answer questions in a live conference about how the UK courts carefully researched his documentary and found 9 critical flaws in his science, thus ruling teachers who showed his film must also admit these errors to students? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html The journalist asked a simple question of how Al Gore responds to the UK court’s decision, and Gore just got angry and refused to answer the question, and then the journalists mic was cut off. Wow, how professional. It sure seems that Al Gore has faith in his ability to defend his ideas.

So, address all that stuff if you want to appear clear-headed and credible here, because most global warming supporters have no problem selectively ignoring what they do not want to see. Or rather, you can start by addressing some of the claims that W.C. copied for you here:

The following describes feedback factors that reduce the earth’s temperature sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2. Scientific studies suggest the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth for a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 level is much lower than the IPCC’s estimate. Corrected feedbacks in the climate system reduce climate sensitivity to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.

• Scientific research suggests the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth accepted by the IPCC is too large. Corrected feedbacks in the climate system could reduce climate sensitivity to values that are an order of magnitude smaller.

• Scientists may have discovered a connection between cloud creation and sea surface temperature in the tropics that creates a “thermostat-like control” that automatically vents excess heat into space. If confirmed, this could totally compensate for the warming influence of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions experienced to date, as well as all those that are anticipated to occur in the future.

• The IPCC dramatically underestimates the total cooling effect of aerosols. Studies have found their radiative effect is comparable to or larger than the temperature forcing caused by all the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations recorded since pre-industrial times.

• Higher temperatures are known to increase emissions of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) from the world’s oceans, which increases the albedo of marine stratus clouds, which has a cooling effect.

• Iodocompounds-created by marine algae-function as cloud condensation nuclei, which help create new clouds that reflect more incoming solar radiation back to space and thereby cool the planet.

• As the air’s CO2 content-and possibly its temperature-continues to rise, plants emit greater amounts of carbonyl sulfide gas, which eventually makes it way into the stratosphere, where it is transformed into solar-radiation-reflecting sulfate aerosol particles, which have a cooling effect.

• As CO2 enrichment enhances biological growth, atmospheric levels of biosols rise, many of which function as cloud condensation nuclei. Increased cloudiness diffuses light, which stimulates plant growth and transfers more fixed carbon into plant and soil storage reservoirs.

• Since agriculture accounts for almost half of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in some countries, there is concern that enhanced plant growth due to CO2 enrichment might increase the amount and warming effect of this greenhouse gas. But field research shows that N2O emissions fall as CO2 concentrations and temperatures rise, indicating this is actually another negative climate feedback.

• Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas. An enhanced CO2 environment has been shown to have “neither positive nor negative consequences” on atmospheric methane concentrations. Higher temperatures have been shown to result in reduced methane release from peatbeds. Methane emissions from cattle have been reduced considerably by altering diet, immunization, and genetic selection.

---

The following reviews empirical data on past temperatures. We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate. We reveal the methodological errors of the “hockey stick” diagram of Mann et al., evidence for the existence of a global Medieval Warm Period, flaws in the surface-based temperature record of more modern times, evidence from highly accurate satellite data that there has been no net warming over the past 29 years, and evidence that the distribution of modern warming does not bear the “fingerprint” of an anthropogenic effect.

• The IPCC claims to find evidence in temperature records that the warming of the twentieth century was “unprecedented” and more rapid than during any previous period in the past 1,300 years. But the evidence it cites, including the “hockey-stick” representation of earth’s temperature record by Mann et al., has been discredited and contradicted by many independent scholars.

• A corrected temperature record shows temperatures around the world were warmer during the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years ago than they are today, and have averaged 2-3ºF warmer than today’s temperatures over the past 10,000 years.

• Evidence of a global Medieval Warm Period is extensive and irrefutable. Scientists working with a variety of independent methodologies have found it in proxy records from Africa, Antarctica, the Arctic, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

• The IPCC cites as evidence of modern global warming data from surface-based recording stations yielding a 1905-2005 temperature increase of 0.74ºC +/- 0.18ºC. But this temperature record is known to be positively biased by insufficient corrections for the non-greenhouse-gas-induced urban heat island (UHI) effect. It may be impossible to make proper corrections for this deficiency, as the UHI of even small towns dwarfs any concomitant augmented greenhouse effect that may be present.

• Highly accurate satellite data, adjusted for orbit drift and other factors, show a much more modest warming trend in the last two decades of the twentieth century and a dramatic decline in the warming trend in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

• The “fingerprint” or pattern of warming observed in the twentieth century differs from the pattern predicted by global climate models designed to simulate CO2-induced global warming. Evidence reported by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is unequivocal: All greenhouse models show an increasing warming trend with altitude in the tropics, peaking around 10 km at roughly twice the surface value. However, the temperature data from balloons give the opposite result: no increasing warming, but rather a slight cooling with altitude.

• Temperature records in Greenland and other Arctic areas reveal that temperatures reached a maximum around 1930 and have decreased in recent decades. Longer-term studies depict oscillatory cooling since the Climatic Optimum of the mid-Holocene (~9000-5000 years BP), when it was perhaps 2.5º C warmer than it is now.

• The average temperature history of Antarctica provides no evidence of twentieth century warming. While the Antarctic peninsula shows recent warming, several research teams have documented a cooling trend for the interior of the continent since the 1970s.

The following reviews observational data on glacier melting, sea ice area, variation in precipitation, and sea level rise. We find no evidence of trends that could be attributed to the supposedly anthropogenic global warming of the twentieth century.

• Glaciers around the world are continuously advancing and retreating, with a general pattern of retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age. There is no evidence of a increased rate of melting overall since CO2 levels rose above their pre-industrial levels, suggesting CO2 is not responsible for glaciers melting.

• Sea ice area and extent have continued to increase around Antarctica over the past few decades. Evidence shows that much of the reported thinning of Arctic sea ice that occurred in the 1990s was a natural consequence of changes in ice dynamics caused by an atmospheric regime shift, of which there have been several in decades past and will likely be several in the decades to come, totally irrespective of past or future changes in the air’s CO2 content. The Arctic appears to have recovered from its 2007 decline.

• Global studies of precipitation trends show no net increase and no consistent trend with CO2, contradicting climate model predictions that warming should cause increased precipitation. Research on Africa, the Arctic, Asia, Europe, and North and South America all find no evidence of a significant impact on precipitation that could be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

• The cumulative discharge of the world’s rivers remained statistically unchanged between 1951 and 2000, a finding that contradicts computer forecasts that a warmer world would cause large changes in global streamflow characteristics. Droughts and floods have been found to be less frequent and severe during the Current Warm Period than during past periods when temperatures were even higher than they are today.

• The results of several research studies argue strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. In fact, in the case of Antarctica, they suggest just the opposite-i.e., that CO2-induced global warming would tend to buffer the world against such an outcome.

• The mean rate of global sea level rise has not accelerated over the recent past. The determinants of sea level are poorly understood due to considerable uncertainty associated with a number of basic parameters that are related to the water balance of the world’s oceans and the meltwater contribution of Greenland and Antarctica. Until these uncertainties are satisfactorily resolved, we cannot be confident that short-lived changes in global temperature produce corresponding changes in sea level.

---

The following investigates and debunks the widespread fears that global warming might cause more extreme weather. The IPCC claims global warming will cause (or already is causing) more droughts, floods, hurricanes, storms, storm surges, heat waves, and wildfires. We find little or no support in the peer-reviewed literature for these predictions and considerable evidence to support an opposite prediction: That weather would be less extreme in a warmer world.

• The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, characterized by more frequent and severe episodes of drought, flooding, cyclones, precipitation variability, storms, snow, storm surges, temperature variability, and wildfires. But has the last century - during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia - experienced significant trends in any of these extreme weather events?

• Droughts have not become more extreme or erratic in response to global warming. Real-world evidence from Africa, Asia, and other continents find no trend toward more frequent or more severe droughts. In most cases, the worst droughts in recorded meteorological history were much milder than droughts that occurred periodically during much colder times.

• Floods were more frequent and more severe during the Little Ice Age than they have been during the Current Warm Period. Flooding in Asia, Europe, and North America has tended to be less frequent and less severe during the twentieth century.

• The IPCC says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.” But despite the supposedly “unprecedented” warming of the twentieth century, there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally or in any of the specific oceans.

• A number of real-world observations demonstrate that El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions during the latter part of the twentieth century were not unprecedented in terms of their frequency or magnitude. Long-term records suggest that when the earth was significantly warmer than it is currently, ENSO events were substantially reduced or perhaps even absent.

• There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.

• As the earth has warmed over the past 150 years, during its recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of stormy weather.

• Between 1950 and 2002, during which time the air’s CO2 concentration rose by 20 percent, there was no net change in either the mean onset date or duration of snow cover for the continent of North America. There appears to have been a downward trend in blizzards.

• Storm surges have not increased in either frequency or magnitude as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen. In the majority of cases investigated, they have tended to decrease.

• Air temperature variability almost always decreases when mean air temperature rises, be it in cases of temperature change over tens of thousands of years or over mere decades, or even between individual cooler and warmer years when different ENSO states are considered. The claim that global warming will lead to more extremes of climate and weather, including more extremes of temperature itself, is not supported by real-world data.

• Although one can readily identify specific parts of the planet that have experienced both significant increases and decreases in land area burned by wildfires over the last two to three decades of the twentieth century, for the globe as a whole there was no relationship between global warming and total area burned over this period.

You stated, ‘I won’t go into the details of the significant impact of climate change on things like crop yields, and how that will directly affect your wallet’ – is this what you meant?

The following examines the biological effects of rising CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures. This is the largely unreported side of the global warming debate, perhaps because it is unequivocally good news. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests. It is a boon to the world’s forests and prairies, as well as to farmers and ranchers and the growing populations of the developing world.

• A 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content typically raises the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about one-third; and this positive response occurs in plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical pathways (C3, C4, CAM) of photosynthesis. For woody plants, the response is even greater. The productivity benefits of CO2 enrichment are also experienced by aquatic plants, including freshwater algae and macrophytes, and marine microalgae and macroalgae.

• The amount of carbon plants gain per unit of water lost-or water-use efficiency-typically rises as the CO2 content of the air rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. In addition, the CO2-induced percentage increase in plant biomass production is often greater under water-stressed conditions than it is when plants are well watered.

• Atmospheric CO2 enrichment helps ameliorate the detrimental effects of several environmental stresses on plant growth and development, including high soil salinity, high air temperature, low light intensity and low levels of soil fertility. Elevated levels of CO2 have additionally been demonstrated to reduce the severity of low temperature stress, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory. In fact, the percentage growth enhancement produced by an increase in the air’s CO2 concentration is often even greater under stressful and resource-limited conditions than it is when growing conditions are ideal.

• As the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, plants will likely exhibit enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass production that will not be diminished by any global warming that might occur concurrently. In fact, if the ambient air temperature rises, the growth-promoting effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will likely also rise, becoming more and more robust.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content likely will not favor the growth of weedy species over that of crops and native plants.

• The growth of plants is generally not only enhanced by CO2-induced increases in net photosynthesis during the light period of the day, it is also enhanced by CO2-induced decreases in respiration during the dark period.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, as well as any degree of warming that might possibly accompany it, will not materially alter the rate of decomposition of the world’s soil organic matter and will probably enhance biological carbon sequestration. Continued increases in the air’s CO2 concentration and temperature will not result in massive losses of carbon from earth’s peatlands. To the contrary, these environmental changes-if they persist-would likely work together to enhance carbon capture.

• Other biological effects of CO2 enhancement include enhanced plant nitrogen-use efficiency, longer residence time of carbon in the soil, and increased populations of earthworms and soil nematodes.

• The aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 concentration (which greatly enhances vegetative productivity) and its anti-transpiration effect (which enhances plant water-use efficiency and enables plants to grow in areas that were once too dry for them) are stimulating plant growth across the globe in places that previously were too dry or otherwise unfavorable for plant growth, leading to a significant greening of the Earth.

• Elevated CO2 reduces, and nearly always overrides, the negative effects of ozone pollution on plant photosynthesis, growth and yield. It also reduces atmospheric concentrations of isoprene, a highly reactive non-methane hydrocarbon that is emitted in copious quantities by vegetation and is responsible for the production of vast amounts of tropospheric ozone.

. . . If you ask me, all that is pretty damn convincing, and would be even if you were to find flaws in a large number of these claims, which so far no one here has done.

[fuse]

All,

Really? Who here is a scientist? Who really understands any of the claims W.C. threw out here, including W.C.? No, I don’t mean that you’re able to read them, I mean that you know whether they’re likely to be true or not, just based on the words. It’s okay. I know the answer to that. Each of these claims need to be tested OR approved by some authority most of us can agree on - and neither of those seems likely.

@The Last Man

. . . If you ask me, all that is pretty damn convincing, and would be even if you were to find flaws in a large number of these claims, which so far no one here has done.

Can you explain how you are not arguing from ignorance, Last Man?

So I don’t know what else you guys wanted to do in this thread…

[Faust]

Well, we have competing authorities, for one thing. Who here is a professional philosopher, psychologist, artist or economist? Credentialism can be taken too far. I am a food service/restaurant professional. Does that mean that I should ignore a customer complaint, because the customer is not a professional? Can I have an opinion on a law, if I am not a lawyer?

Do you suppose any of us has adopted our particular view based on W. C.'s post alone?

[Rouzbeh]

Last Man, I have no idea where he got that quote. The IPCC report is available on Google. There you go news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8352469.stm ) that shows new CO2 sinks being created. Sure, there’s side effects of warming that might have a counterbalancing effect, but they’re not nearly enough to offset their cause. Noone ever said that “either everything in this direction or it’s wrong”, it’s that the general picture points towards warming. The IPCC models are accepted by the scientific community; whatever that quote is, is not. Credible journals, credible science, says that the content of that quote is wrong. Source credibility is important. There’s too many crackpots in the world, there’s too many political interests in the world to go around getting our information from random sources. I don’t know why this is so controversial.
Fox is another source that isn’t credible. I’ve seen some articles about Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, I don’t know why anyone in their right mind would watch this channel. Sarah Palin? Really? Back to the video, what exactly do these 30k ‘scientist’ do and what do the results have to with a politician? Al Gore’s a politician, not an expert. Someone on that forum says ‘I’m going to be a scientist in a few months and make it 30k+1’, I think that sums up what that 30k means.

Europe doesn’t have Al Gore. There are no Al Gore’s because the people here understand, or would if not for America’s interests, that they don’t have intellectual authority on everything.

None of us have expertise in this sector. I don’t work for the Met Office. A scientist is not someone who knows about everything. Everyone depends on each other to do their part. We need to avoid having an opinion on everything, because we simply don’t have the skills to intelligently debate every issue. At the very best we can cite articles that support a position. If I said “the radiation from the sun account for approximately 67.2% of the earth’s exergy, so it’s geothermal can be concluded to be a significant resource”, do you know if I’m lying or telling the truth? It may have been published by someone as well. This is why the credibility of the sources is important (because it shows that at least some people with expertise agree that it’s a sensible conclusion), and why the scientific community has to keep out crackpots through a specific structure, mainly the peer review process. There’s too much misinformation otherwise.

But here’s an article that addresses some of that quote:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

[fuse]

Faust,

No, I just think we should stop pretending that listing off a number of scientific claims does anything. We would be better to-

1. Talk about laws, government, life, etc. assuming global warming doesn’t exist:

• well never mind that’s easy

2. Talk about laws, government, life, etc. assuming global warming does exist and is significantly influenced by man:

Isn’t #2 really the issue?

[Faust]

I think it shows that the issue isn’t settled. Which is why you don’t see a lot of discussion about laws, government and life etc, assuming that the Earth is flat.

[fuse]

Faust,

No doubt the issue isn’t settled, because part of the issue is settling. We’ve mostly been debating sources and authority. I haven’t seen any arguments here for or against “the issue,” which W.C. calls a non-issue. I don’t know what you were doing with tree rings…

[Faust]

For my part, that’s because this is the Current Events board. As I have stated, my interest here is the politics of the situation itself. I take it as a given, for the purposes of the present discussion, that the science is not settled. On the Science board, I might have a different focus.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@fuse

2. Talk about laws, government, life, etc. assuming global warming does exist and is significantly influenced by man:
   Isn’t #2 really the issue?

Yes, because every time we buckle unders to the environmentalist lobby, it hits the economy with zero or negative results, and most reasons given for doing more are bogus. Polar bears, caribou, sea levels rising, “global-warming”, drilling in the Gulf/Pacific/ANWR, ozone, effects of rising CO2, Kyoto, Copenhagen. We need to know what the hell is going on before we implement any more of this BS or prohibit loosening/abolishing restrictions. Right now, the worst pollution we know of in the US is raw sewage, and guess who’s responsible for that?

[Faust]

Speechmaking politicians?

That was just a guess.

Actually, I think it’s cow farms and wildlife.

[fuse]

Truth,

We need to know what the hell is going on before we implement any more of this BS or prohibit loosening/abolishing restrictions.

Well then we’re back to pretending to talk about the science.

[fuse]

Faust,

As I have stated, my interest here is the politics of the situation itself.

Sure, but the politics of the situation depend on the situation. What’s the situation?

[Faust]

T-h-a-t t-h-e s-c-i-e-n-c-e i-s-n-'-t s-e-t-t-l-e-d.

[fuse]

o i c

[The_Last_Man]

@Rouzbeh

Last Man, I have no idea where he got that quote. The IPCC report is available on Google. There you go news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8352469.stm ) that shows new CO2 sinks being created. Sure, there’s side effects of warming that might have a counterbalancing effect, but they’re not nearly enough to offset their cause. Noone ever said that “either everything in this direction or it’s wrong”, it’s that the general picture points towards warming. The IPCC models are accepted by the scientific community; whatever that quote is, is not. Credible journals, credible science, says that the content of that quote is wrong. Source credibility is important. There’s too many crackpots in the world, there’s too many political interests in the world to go around getting our information from random sources. I don’t know why this is so controversial.
Fox is another source that isn’t credible. I’ve seen some articles about Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, I don’t know why anyone in their right mind would watch this channel. Sarah Palin? Really? Back to the video, what exactly do these 30k ‘scientist’ do and what do the results have to with a politician? Al Gore’s a politician, not an expert. Someone on that forum says ‘I’m going to be a scientist in a few months and make it 30k+1’, I think that sums up what that 30k means.

What? So someone in the climate science field agrees with the conclusions of the 30,000 scientists and that is cause for dismissing all 30,000 scientists out of hand? How is that? I’m confused.

The point is that the debate is NOT over. There are, as Faust points out, conflicting ‘experts’ and theories, and the data is not conclusive. There is data to support one side or another. You are quick to point to crackpots on the anti-global warming side, because you see them as having a clear agenda and incentive to resist global warming mandates, but what about the other side? Pro-global warming also has its incentives and agendas, as well - both sides have experts and crackpots. It is very important to realise the immense incentives that exist for national governments and international policy groups to push global warming theory - does this make the theory wrong? Of course not, but certainly it calls it into question in terms of motives. To dismiss the obvious motives of world governments and international governing bodies involved here would be intellectually dishonest.

Europe doesn’t have Al Gore. There are no Al Gore’s because the people here understand, or would if not for America’s interests, that they don’t have intellectual authority on everything.

The people “understand” over there? So, despite that there is conflicting data and thousands of dissenting scientists, everyone buys into global warming - that sounds like brainwashing to me. Kids are taught about global warming as a fact, all through school, and the BBC and state media outlets have a clear agenda regarding global warming. You just cannot deny this agenda, even if you want to claim that it is irrelevant to the science itself. Perhaps it is irrelevant - but raising people in that environment of propaganda and one-sided “science” without any serioues debate on the issue is of course going to turn out millions of drones who buy into whatever that propaganda tells them. Just look at mainstream religions. Repeat something enough times since birth, and eventually the person grows up believing it. The fact that most people in europe, and the US, “believe” in global warming says nothing at all, other than exposing clearly the propaganda campaign to brainwash these people into becoming unthinking supporters of things that they do not, and cannot, understand.

None of us have expertise in this sector. I don’t work for the Met Office. A scientist is not someone who knows about everything. Everyone depends on each other to do their part. We need to avoid having an opinion on everything, because we simply don’t have the skills to intelligently debate every issue.

This coming from you, who is so certain that global warming is real, and that the 30,000 dissenters are just “crackpots”? What about all those people in europe who are so much smarter, because they “get it”? You seem to have no problem with them forming their opinions on the matter.

At the very best we can cite articles that support a position. If I said “the radiation from the sun account for approximately 67.2% of the earth’s exergy, so it’s geothermal can be concluded to be a significant resource”, do you know if I’m lying or telling the truth? It may have been published by someone as well. This is why the credibility of the sources is important (because it shows that at least some people with expertise agree that it’s a sensible conclusion), and why the scientific community has to keep out crackpots through a specific structure, mainly the peer review process. There’s too much misinformation otherwise.

Of course the source is very important. But the problem is that there are other sources than IPCC, and most of these institutions are tied to government either directly or through funding, so they are not allowed to dissent from the status quo. I realise this does not immediately disprove the science itself, but you just cannot dismiss this fact: that there exists a status quo, there exists an overt incentive and agenda for governments to push global warming theory - and to the extent that climate research organizations are tied to these governments, they cannot deviate very far from this mainstream line.

Why, just look at the non-governmental IPCC, as W.C. references. Cut off ties to government to a large extent, and suddenly the findings change. You shouldn’t be surprised that an intergovernmental panel comes up with conclusions that support the government’s agendas, while the non-governmental panel comes up with different findings. It isn’t rocket science what’s going on.

I admit that I do not know whether global warming is real or not. I am not a climate scientist. But I do know that I have read research supporting either side, I have read and heard scientists talk about it from both sides. I know that the anti-global warming scientists are marginalized in the media, and they have been seeking open debate on global warming for years and cannot get opponents to agree to the debates. The pro-global warming people just show “the debate is over” when in fact, no matter how you look at it, it is not over. I also know that government has a LOT to gain from pushing the global warming agenda, and it is part of a plan to institute massive new tax beauracracies and economic control. So, is the science true or not? I have no idea. I know that the IPCC says global warming is happening, but many others, not tied to government, disagree. That in itself is suspicious. For the average non-scientist like myself, believing the mainstream line of global warming religiously, like you and others here do, would be completely unjustified and would be an indication more of my emotional investment in the idea and my personal need to align myself with the status quo.

There are larger issues here. And you yourself said that the average non-scientist cannot be able to form an opinion regarding global warming science (which I agree with this statement, btw), yet you seem to have such a strong opinion yourself.

Anyways, take it for what you will. I do not try to convince you or anyone else. Everyone needs to think freely and form their own opinions with the facts at their disposal. As long as you are honest with yourself and think as freely as you can, that is all you can do. The science itself is irrelevant in this case, because we are not scientists on the front line of climate research methods and data. We are left to trust one side, or another - I say, look at both sides critically, don’t take anything based on faith, examine the motives and agendas that exist, and go from there.

But here’s an article that addresses some of that quote:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

I would point out that every statement made by that BBC article is also unreferenced and uncited in terms of peer reviewed journals or studies. They are exactly the same caliber as W.C.'s posted points - statements that appear to make sense and be scientific on the surface - and which you dismiss because they are not referenced. So why do you not also dismiss these statements from a media organization as well, for the same reason as you dismiss W.C.'s?

[fuse]

Alright guys.

I still kind of resent this thread because I don’t think it’s gone anywhere, but I stumbled across this and wanted to share. This video contradicts my previously held beliefs and was understandable to me. My position on global warming has somewhat changed, but I am still very unsure about all of it. Here, try not to mind the conspiracy-ish intro, I found the video very worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&ei=6LYcS5D8HNqBlgfB-KmaCg&q=global+warming+swindle

[Rouzbeh]

I’m repeating myself over and over. What I have is not an opinion, it’s a reflection of the views expressed by the mainstream scientific community. If I think the earth is an obloid sphere, my belief doesn’t make it an opinion, but a reflection of the earth’s shape. I trust the people involved in the science to have greater expertise and less of a political motive than Exxon or the Bush administration, or a group of fringe scientists who are financially backed by conservative groups. Even so, just because governments are involved, it doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy. Governments got involved to introduce the minimum wage. That benefited their countries. The Reagan adminsitration cut off all renewable energies funding, making the technologies take even longer to economically mature. That didn’t, not in the long run. Nuclear generation would never have become a competitive technology if not for the significant amount of funds directed to it due to its military use. If you look at capacity factors from nuclear plants, as early as 1990 (40 years after nuclear energy was established), they were operating at 66% on average. Wind turbines can already be operating at +40% on offshore wind farms. That’s where we are now, we need to let the technologies mature.
My comparison of Americans to Europeans was clearly a statement of irritation and not a literal statement about your intelligence, so don’t get defensive.

There’s a huge amount of funds and political power directed against global warming. Who paid the hackers? The scientific case is for warming. Repeating: Just because a counter argument exists, it doesn’t have equal merit. The journals indicate that it doesn’t. Reading two arguments neutrally doesn’t mean we have to have an undecided point of view after assessing them.
The BBC is a credible source, whose purpose is purely to report the news. I’ve stated why crediblity is important. They get a credible expert, or a panel of credible experts, make their report, and publish it.

I’m tired of arguing forever. If you people feel more qualified than the group of relevant experts the vast majority of whom agree that warming is indeed happening, then go ahead, I don’t have the patience to go into a neverending loop of repetition. I’m out.

[Faust]

What I have is not an opinion, it’s a reflection of the views expressed by the mainstream scientific community.

Does that mean it’s an uncritical acceptance?

I trust the people involved in the science to have greater expertise and less of a political motive than Exxon or the Bush administration, or a group of fringe scientists who are financially backed by conservative groups.

That is trust, indeed.

Even so, just because governments are involved, it doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy.

Who said “conspiracy”?

Governments got involved to introduce the minimum wage. That benefited their countries.

There’s some debate about that. Are you making authoritative statements about economics? Without citations?

The Reagan adminsitration cut off all renewable energies funding, making the technologies take even longer to economically mature.

So much for governments being scientifically pure.

we need to let the technologies mature.

I’m confused. When do we “let” and when do we “assist”?

Reading two arguments neutrally doesn’t mean we have to have an undecided point of view after assessing them.

You’re making my (and Last Man’s) point.

[The_Last_Man]

@Rouzbeh

I’m repeating myself over and over. What I have is not an opinion, it’s a reflection of the views expressed by the mainstream scientific community. If I think the earth is an obloid sphere, my belief doesn’t make it an opinion, but a reflection of the earth’s shape. I trust the people involved in the science to have greater expertise and less of a political motive than Exxon or the Bush administration, or a group of fringe scientists who are financially backed by conservative groups. Even so, just because governments are involved, it doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy. Governments got involved to introduce the minimum wage. That benefited their countries. The Reagan adminsitration cut off all renewable energies funding, making the technologies take even longer to economically mature. That didn’t, not in the long run. Nuclear generation would never have become a competitive technology if not for the significant amount of funds directed to it due to its military use. If you look at capacity factors from nuclear plants, as early as 1990 (40 years after nuclear energy was established), they were operating at 66% on average. Wind turbines can already be operating at +40% on offshore wind farms. That’s where we are now, we need to let the technologies mature.
My comparison of Americans to Europeans was clearly a statement of irritation and not a literal statement about your intelligence, so don’t get defensive.

There’s a huge amount of funds and political power directed against global warming. Who paid the hackers? The scientific case is for warming. Repeating: Just because a counter argument exists, it doesn’t have equal merit. The journals indicate that it doesn’t. Reading two arguments neutrally doesn’t mean we have to have an undecided point of view after assessing them.
The BBC is a credible source, whose purpose is purely to report the news. I’ve stated why crediblity is important. They get a credible expert, or a panel of credible experts, make their report, and publish it.

I’m tired of arguing forever. If you people feel more qualified than the group of relevant experts the vast majority of whom agree that warming is indeed happening, then go ahead, I don’t have the patience to go into a neverending loop of repetition. I’m out.

[b]
** 30,000+ scientists disagree with global warming conclusions. The NIPCC disagrees with IPCC.

There is no consensus. The debate is not over. **[/b]

Youre painting a picture that just is not true. If you are only interested in trying to divine what the mainstream status quo “science” is, based on public opinion and governmental conclusions, and are happy to uncritically follow that view, then go for it. I say that is fine, as long as you are admitting to yourself that you are scientifically unable to understand the science involved and thus you are forming your opinion as a faith. Of course you need to ignore all the dissenting opinions and counter information out there, which you are obviously willing to do, so it seems you have a nice comfortable paradigm made for yourself. I suppose, even though its based on selectively ignoring alternative facts and ideas, and blind uncritical faith, at least its warm and comfortable in there.

And you can at least take comfort in the fact that your part of the “in” group. Always nice to be part of the popular crowd. You get to look down on all those “others” and gain an unearned sense of superiority, of being better than them without ever needing to try and look at things from their perspective.

[fuse]

Last Man,

There is no consensus. Consensus is not the point - the truth is.

The debate is not over. I agree. But would you know if it was? (How would you know whether one side found the truth or not?)