'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here

[chomerics]

double post, nm

[Duncan]

When we've spent over $500billion on Iraq, complaining about spending $10billion to help reduce pollution levels is a no-brainer, but don't let the facts get in the way of the argument

I have no problem spending money to reduce pollution levels. The benefits to everyone are obvious. However, the current global warming hysteria is clearly agenda driven and the science has become politicized.

"we might not be right, but think of the consequences if we are" rings hollow.

Produce sound, unbiased science and I'd immediately be on board.

[Duncan]

i believe the problem is the way the right does business, so they automatically assume the left does it the same way, which is not correct at all.

The right will fund frauds to back their case, and hold these frauds up front and center despite how ludicrous the situation.

Instead they let the facts decide the outcome, not let the outcome decide the facts. Two distinct differences, yet it should also be noted in how the operate.

Sure, the left never plays politics with science and all of the funding is transparent, blah blah blah.

I thought the speech was excellent. He pointed out the problem with politicizing science which I thought you would agree with, and then provides an excellent solution.

[CandaceM23]

If there's global warming going on, then why is it so cold in my office?

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

If there's global warming going on, then why is it so cold in my office?

Maybe because your office is in space. Separate from the affects of Global Warming. DUH!!!!

[The Sir]

Didn't realize so many people on this board didn't believe in Global Warming. First time I clicked one of these threads, I was wondering why threads like this are always so long. There's actually people that don't believe it.

[McMetal]

Global Warming critics=Holocaust Deniers

I'm totally serious. One day you will be reviled by future generations for your callous disregard for the environment and stubborn refusal to accept the ever growing MOUNTAIN of evidence for global warming.

At least the schmucks who insisted the world was flat weren't bargaining with their children's future.

And I'm not talking about average people that are skeptical or unsure. I'm talking about professionals who should know better.

[Kilmer17]

Im sure all of the global warming chicken littles ride bikes to work and dont use A/C in August right?

[kameuh]

While you shudder in fear as the right uses their scare tactics to warn of a terrorist threat from a country that has no interest in attacking us, nor has the capability to carry it out. . .

Unfortunately for us all, the left relies on science, and the right relies on god. . .why is it not surprising the right is wrong so often?

Not totally right or wrong, but needs a few corrections.

The ultraliberal depend on emotional appeals and the far right depends on the word of god. The majority of people depend on facts, personal experience, and intuition to solve problems.

As for global warming it is hard to say. Now the better debate would be how much climate change is occuring and how much is due to the influence of man vs the influence of nature. Currently it's just the far left running around like chicken little screaming the sky is warming, the sky is warming.

Or conversely so as to not appear to be picking on the ultraliberal, the far right would probably say its gods work to punish us sinners before god himself comes down from heaven and establishes heaven on earth. The 4th seal someone said in this very thread.

Taking common sense approach of wait and see while conducting research is probably the most prudent direction atm. :2cents:

[The 12th Commandment]

Global Warming critics=Holocaust Deniers

I'm totally serious. One day you will be reviled by future generations for your callous disregard for the environment and stubborn refusal to accept the ever growing MOUNTAIN of evidence for global warming.

At least the schmucks who insisted the world was flat weren't bargaining with their children's future.

And I'm not talking about average people that are skeptical or unsure. I'm talking about professionals who should know better.

Do you actually think if we adopt severe restrictions on anything that contributes to the green house effect that the earth will remain at it's current temp for eternity? That's what it sounds like and that's more ignorant than any of the denials.

Fact: Future generations are going to have to deal with climate change whether it's because of us, or not. You don't deny that, do you?

[SnyderShrugged]

Global Warming critics=Holocaust Deniers

I'm totally serious. One day you will be reviled by future generations for your callous disregard for the environment and stubborn refusal to accept the ever growing MOUNTAIN of evidence for global warming.

At least the schmucks who insisted the world was flat weren't bargaining with their children's future.

And I'm not talking about average people that are skeptical or unsure. I'm talking about professionals who should know better.

Or the Growing MOUNTAIN of evidence against it.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

[EersSkins05]

You can see a person's lungs when they are healthy and you can see their lungs when they are smokers. I cannot see the earth's weather patterns for anything over the last century. .

Scientists can.

Deep ice tells long climate story

On a separate note, because this seems to be the key hang-up for the non-believers (of man-accelerated global warming), this needs to be pointed out:

Yes, the earth has warmed and cooled in its own natural cycle for millions of years. Scientists now, though, have the ability to measure the precise temperature and CO2 levels throughout these ice ages and warm periods. And this much is undeniable- The earth is currently experiencing the most rapid accelaration in temperature in its measurable existence (which spans to millions of year before man even walked the earth) and such a change directly correlates with the years since the industrial revolution and the CO2 emissions that accompanied that period.

In short, yes, the earth has been known to warm up on its own. But not this fast, not this dramatically, and its happening at a rate that cannot be naturally accounted for.

[Predicto]

Or the Growing MOUNTAIN of evidence against it.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Ahh, good ole Senator Inhofe. He controlled that committee with an iron hand, and loved to put his propoganda on the Senate committee website as though that made it somehow more "official."

We had a thread about this practice in the past, as I recall.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174824&highlight=Inhofe

Anyhow, there is no growing mountain of evidence against man-made global climate change. More like an ever thinning smokescreen.

[Reic]

Anyhow, there is no growing mountain of evidence against man-made global climate change. More like an ever thinning smokescreen.

Show me proof and then I will believe you...

On a topic like global warming there is always going to be just as much information disproving it as there is trying to prove it.

Think I am wrong? Just read this thread

[Reic]

Ahh, good ole Senator Inhofe. He controlled that committee with an iron hand, and loved to put his propoganda on the Senate committee website as though that made it somehow more "official."

So because Inhofe wrote the article all those scientists are figments of everyones imaginations and the research and studies those scientists have done are also fictional?

[Predicto]

So because Inhofe wrote the article all those scientists are figments of everyones imaginations and the research and studies those scientists have done are also fictional?

No, not fictional. Hand-picked for their views, yes. Funded by the oil industry, yes. Honestly wrong, perhaps even.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

But they do not stop there. The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.

The document reads as follows: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson's 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

The paper maintained that: "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.

[Predicto]

Show me proof and then I will believe you...

On a topic like global warming there is always going to be just as much information disproving it as there is trying to prove it.

Think I am wrong? Just read this thread

Again I ask - what level of proof do you need? As long as there is one scientist still saying that global warming is a myth, does that mean that it remains a genuine controversy?

There are plenty of "historians" that claim that the Holocaust never happened.

[The Evil Genius]

Again I ask - what level of proof do you need? As long as there is one scientist still saying that global warming is a myth, does that mean that it remains a genuine controversy?

There are plenty of "historians" that claim that the Holocaust never happened.

Absolute proof will never be achieved. Well, it will...but then it will be too late.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I'm pro-global warming for several reasons. 1) I hate cold weather, 2) I hate snow, 3) I like wearing shorts and sandals, and 4) I'll be dead in 50 years anyway.

[Johnny Punani]

Or the Growing MOUNTAIN of evidence against it.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Interesting report.

I found this especially interesting. See this Predicto?

"Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party"

[Johnny Punani]

No, not fictional. Hand-picked for their views, yes. Funded by the oil industry, yes. Honestly wrong, perhaps even.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

Sorry but that is a load of crap. This doesn't prove that the opinions of the scientists are wrong. Also, I would like to add that the oil companies fund these people AFTER they came to their own conclusions on global warming. They are paid to express their view point.

Since the unbiased folks at the guardian think the opinion of scientists other then climatologists are invalid in this article. I'm sure they are ready to issue retractions for all the reports they have made on climate change using sources other then climatologist. I'm not holding my breath.

[Predicto]

Interesting report.

I found this especially interesting. See this Predicto?

"Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party"

Umm, ok?

I guess Socialists are always right? Is that your point? :laugh:

[Predicto]

Sorry but that is a load of crap. This doesn't prove that the opinions of the scientists are wrong. Also, I would like to add that the oil companies fund these people AFTER they came to their own conclusions on global warming. They are paid to express their view point.

No, they do both. They fund studies up front to get the results they want (avoiding peer review whenever possible), and they ALSO trumpet any studies or articles that favor their side - even long after those studies have been thoroughly debunked, or even withdrawn by their original authors.

[Johnny Punani]

Umm, ok?

I guess Socialists are always right? Is that your point? :laugh:

No. My point is this is further proof of Marxist ideology involved in this.

[Duncan]

No, they do both. They fund studies up front to get the results they want (avoiding peer review whenever possible), and they ALSO trumpet any studies or articles that favor their side - even long after those studies have been thoroughly debunked, or even withdrawn by their original authors.

Care to track the funding of the global warming proponents? Somehow I doubt it.

"Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this."

I doubt the global warming alarmists would like this excellent idea.