Global warming on Neptune

[sacase]

Okay, so not the environment like "save the environment" but environment like how "environmental control system" is a fancy word for air conditioning. Got it.

While this is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that man has NO effect on climate. Normal ice age cycles mean a 10 or 20 degree swing in temperatures. Even Al Gore is only claiming a doomsday scenario of about 5 degrees.

Well, like I said, I'm not going to try to prove the validity of global warming (I'll leave that to PeterMP), but I simply want to say that the mere fact that "there are far more things that affect the climate on a much larger scale than anything man can do" doesn't mean that man doesn't affect the climate at all.

Honestly short of full nuclear war, I don't think there is much man can do to the overall climate of the planet. I belive that the climate is on a scale much larger than man.

But I do advocate cleaning up the planet. I just think there are a lot of alarmists trying to scare people and get grants, like I said, a eco-fad.

[PeterMP]

Because there is money in it.

Why are more and more scientists coming out everyday questioning Global Warming?

Again, got a link? In this thread, I've posted an interview by a person that did a study in 2003 that concluded that the sun was likely having an impact on global warming based by increased solar output. He then said though, that didn't mean that green house gases weren't having an effect. I then posted essentially an update in 2006 of a group that looked at solar output and clearly concluded that global warming could not be accounted for only by changes in solar output. In my previous post, I included a link to a page that talked about how if anything the effects of green house gases have been minimized by particles from 2003. All of these are based on published scientific literature. I've also have given the wikipedia page that list respectable scientific organizations (e.g. the american chemical society and the national academy of sciences) that support a role for humans in global warming. None of these organizations have changed their stance. I have provided a link to a recent Exxon statement that concludes that global warming is real and we are contributing to it.

And yet you belive more and more scientist EVERYDAY are coming out and challenging global warming. Can you provide a single respectable reference from the last couple of years to support your veiw point (any of your views)?

How is there money in it for Exxon? Exxon is looking to create technology that decrease the effects of their primary product. That normally isn't considered a good business thing. In fact, Exxon for a period of time funded anti-global warming groups.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870

Did they suddenly wake up one morning and say, 'hey, we can make money off this.'?

[sacase]

Again, got a link? In this thread, I've posted an interview by a person that did a study in 2003 that concluded that the sun was likely having an impact on global warming based by increased solar output. He then said though, that didn't mean that green house gases weren't having an effect. I then posted essentially an update in 2006 of a group that looked at solar output and clearly concluded that global warming could not be accounted for only by changes in solar output. In my previous post, I included a link to a page that talked about how if anything the effects of green house gases have been minimized by particles from 2003. All of these are based on published scientific literature. I've also have given the wikipedia page that list respectable scientific organizations (e.g. the american chemical society and the national academy of sciences) that support a role for humans in global warming. None of these organizations have changed their stance. I have provided a link to a recent Exxon statement that concludes that global warming is real and we are contributing to it.

And yet you belive more and more scientist EVERYDAY are coming out and challenging global warming. Can you provide a single respectable reference from the last couple of years to support your veiw point (any of your views)?

How is there money in it for Exxon? Exxon is looking to create technology that decrease the effects of their primary product. That normally isn't considered a good business thing. In fact, Exxon for a period of time funded anti-global warming groups.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870

Did they suddenly wake up one morning and say, 'hey, we can make money off this.'?

As global warming becomes a political issues there is lots of money to make in government grants. You get grant money you create something to fix the problem the government buys it or requires others to use it and you make more money.

HEading home from work I will get you something after I get settled in.

[PeterMP]

As global warming becomes a political issues there is lots of money to make in government grants. You get grant money you create something to fix the problem the government buys it or requires others to use it and you make more money.

HEading home from work I will get you something after I get settled in.

As, I've already stated the goverment actually is funding work looking at things like solar output that would allow you to conclude that green house gases are not causing global warming, but solar output is. Being right is the best way keep getting grants.

[SonOfWashington]

You all know that Al Gore is on here right now taking notes??

[Pwyl]

Did they suddenly wake up one morning and say, 'hey, we can make money off this.'?

Not to take away from anything else you've put forward, but I think they did.

Unless you think that a company that for years was funding anti-global-warming groups had a sudden attack of conscience?

Exxon is looking to create technology that decrease the effects of their primary product.

If true, that would allow them to sell more product with the same emissions, would it not?

[PeterMP]

You all know that Al Gore is on here right now taking notes??

He's almost as bad as sacase. He's looked at the scientific literature (or had somebody else do it for him), taken the worse case scenario, and presented it as if it is the most likely case.

[PeterMP]

Not to take away from anything else you've put forward, but I think they did.

Unless you think that a company that for years was funding anti-global-warming groups had a sudden attack of conscience?

If true, that would allow them to sell more product with the same emissions, would it not?

I think it is likely that the evidence became so overwhelming that they decieded they just look bad by ignoring it. The cigerate companies once did they same thing w/ cancer and different industries once did the the same thing w/ acid rain and CFC's. At some point though, the evidence becomes over whelming, and you just lose credibility by denying it. There was real debate about this for a while in the scientific community. I first started looking at this around 2000, and even then there were people doing legitimate work saying 'Well maybe there is global warming, but the over all effect isn't big, and our contribution is negligible so we don't really need to do anything.' I actually used to argue on that side w/ people. Now if you look at the legitimate scientific literature that point of view is just GONE because the evidence has just become so overwhemling.

Yes, BUT they are spending money NOW on research w/ no benifit and what happens if somebody elses product/method is better. Then that money is just gone or even worse somebody designs something as a result of the "global warming scare" that eliminates the need for their product. Why take the chance for something that isn't real/we can't control? If they could legitimately make that arguement, they'd be much better off doing that, but you can't look at the data and come to that conclusion. Would it be okay w/ you if the goverment was funding research that would put you out of a job for no good reason? On top of that, there is now venture capitialism money in these fields. If they weren't out making statements about how this is real and we should do something, but instead that this isn't real, and we will never have to quit using fossil fuels there would be less of it. What happens if one of those projects invents a whole new technology that drastically decreases the amount of gas we need?

They've done serious harm to their business for no good reason.

[Predicto]

Because there is money in it.

Why are more and more scientists coming out everyday questioning Global Warming?

Link please?

As I understand it, less and less scientists are coming out and questioning global warming every day.

The same handful of scientists are getting trotted out, more and more often, to repeat their previously stated opposition. Grey, Lindzen, Stott... you will see those same names over and over and over.

[Predicto]

He's almost as bad as sacase. He's looked at the scientific literature (or had somebody else do it for him), taken the worse case scenario, and presented it as if it is the most likely case.

I've heard that accusation levelled by his opponents, but I thought it was false. Didn't Gore actually say that it was a worst case scenario in the movie?

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that is how I remember it.

[PeterMP]

I've heard that accusation levelled by his opponents, but I thought it was false. Didn't Gore actually say that it was a worst case scenario in the movie?

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that is how I remember it.

If he did, I don't remember it, and I have certainly seen him give interviews on the subject w/o prefacing his remarks that way. Here is suppossed to be a transcript:

http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/03/17/an-inconvient-truth-transcript/

I don't see it there (but only looked quickly). If he did though, then that would be good. I didn't read the book.

Look, I'm not saying what he is saying won't happen. I'm not saying that what he is saying isn't even likely to happen, but on a little longer time scale. I actually don't know enough about this topic to make that kind of judgement, but there are many published reports that disagree w/ for example his sea level predictions. Even if what he says doesn't happen (or not on the time scale he suggest) that doesn't mean that things won't be bad enough that we shouldn't start making changes.

[Pwyl]

I think it is likely that the evidence became so overwhelming that they decieded they just look bad by ignoring it. The cigerate companies once did they same thing w/ cancer and different industries once did the the same thing w/ acid rain and CFC's. At some point though, the evidence becomes over whelming, and you just lose credibility by denying it. There was real debate about this for a while in the scientific community. I first started looking at this around 2000, and even then there were people doing legitimate work saying 'Well maybe there is global warming, but the over all effect isn't big, and our contribution is negligible so we don't really need to do anything.' I actually used to argue on that side w/ people. Now if you look at the legitimate scientific literature that point of view is just GONE because the evidence has just become so overwhemling.

Yes, BUT they are spending money NOW on research w/ no benifit and what happens if somebody elses product/method is better. Then that money is just gone or even worse somebody designs something as a result of the "global warming scare" that eliminates the need for their product. Why take the chance for something that isn't real/we can't control? If they could legitimately make that arguement, they'd be much better off doing that, but you can't look at the data and come to that conclusion. Would it be okay w/ you if the goverment was funding research that would put you out of a job for no good reason? On top of that, there is now venture capitialism money in these fields. If they weren't out making statements about how this is real and we should do something, but instead that this isn't real, and we will never have to quit using fossil fuels there would be less of it. What happens if one of those projects invents a whole new technology that drastically decreases the amount of gas we need?

They've done serious harm to their business for no good reason.

Can you provide some evidence that exxon is actually spending said money? From everything I've read, they aren't.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-27-oil-invest-usat_x.htm

[PeterMP]

Can you provide some evidence that exxon is actually spending said money? From everything I've read, they aren't.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-27-oil-invest-usat_x.htm

I've given a link somewhere in this thread, but read your own link. It says they've given money to Stanford.

Exxon has not gone the route of BP and Shell and gotten heavily into alternative fuels. There approach has been to find ways to cut back on the emissions from cars and things like that, but they are still spending money.

[Pwyl]

I've given a link somewhere in this thread, but read your own link. It says they've given money to Stanford.

Exxon has not gone the route of BP and Shell and gotten heavily into alternative fuels. There approach has been to find ways to cut back on the emissions from cars and things like that, but they are still spending money.

Good catch. I still stand by the statement that they are spending this money because they think they'll profit from it. I'm not sure how corporate sponsorship of university research works in regards to ownership of the results of the research (especially patents), but I would imagine that they would probably own the results. (or at least have the rights to use them)

A little more info about exxon:

http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/exxonmobil.html

http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Campaign/climate_research.asp

[sacase]

Here are a few links. All within the past 6 months

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4387552

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=9&num=11398

I hope you understand I am not saying the climate is not getting warmer and I am not saying we should have cleaner air, I am just saying that the whole human impact is vastly overblown.

Global Warming is a billion dollar industry (carbon off set scam) where there is money like there you will find lots of corruption.

[PeterMP]

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm

Only one thing here appears even slightly legitimate of this w/ respect to being publishable in science is:

"One of the filmmaker's experts, paleontologist professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa, says that global warming could be caused by increased activity on the sun, such as massive eruptions, and that ice-core samples from Antarctica show that, in fact, warmer periods in Earth's history have come about 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels."

Notice he said COULD. I'll admit that part of global warming IS from increased sun activity, but that doesn't explain it all. The rest of the statement is just really easy to eliminate. No this hasn't happened before because in the past you haven't had CO2 that was essentially buried deep in the ground released into the atmosphere the way we are. A new event (us releasing the CO2 that is buried) is resulting in a new result (green house gases leading to global warming).

"Scientists in the Channel 4 documentary cite what they claim is another discrepancy involving conventional research, saying that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, after which temperatures around the world fell for four decades."

They did fall. We talked about that it was called global cooling. Unfortunately 1940+40= 1980 so they are ignoring everything post 1980, including 2006, which was one of the warmest years ever.

"Another of Mr. Durkin's professors, Paul Reiter of Paris' Pasteur Institute, an expert in malaria, calls the U.N. report a "sham" because, he says, it included the names of scientists -- including his own -- who disagreed with the report and who resigned from the panel."

So you are quoting an expert in malaria w/ respect to the causes of global warming. I won't defend the UN report. I haven't read it, but the UN report does no change the vast majority of scientific literature.

"The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start," Mr. Stott says, "because you can't say that just one factor can have this effect."At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion, and this is dangerous," he says."

This is where claims get ridiculous. I've sited two studies since 2003 that both have concluded that a warmer sun is partly responsible for warming. We were at a high point in the solar cycle it is to be expected, but we NOW we are at a low point and still warming. Nobody in science at least is claiming it is the ONLY cause.

From your own link in the Denver Post:

"Still, a broad scientific consensus has emerged that human activity is contributing to climate change.

Findings by panels created by the National Academy of Science to resolve disputes - such as conflicting satellite and ground temperature records - have supported the trends in global climate change.

And things that the NCAR models predict - such as thinning sea ice and melting glaciers - are coming to pass, although scientists say more data are needed to verify those trends. After more than two decades of research, scientists, even most skeptics, agree that:"

a whole list of things.

That isn't what you want from support.

Again from the Denver Post:

"While Pielke agrees carbon dioxide is forcing changes in the climate, he says, "It is not the only forcing.""

Fine, I agree. A warmer sun did play a role especially in the late 90's early 2000's. I have given you two reports that said that, but so does carbon dioxide (and this is where things get tricky) OTHER man made released green house gasses. This is something you see alot w/ the anti-global warming crowd. They make very specific statements that aren't necessarily false. Nobody would claim only carbon dioxide is causing it, which is why we talk about green house gasses, and even they aren't the only cause.

I have very little problem w/ the Denver Post article espeically Pielke. If he is one of your doubters, you need to look at what he is saying more carefully.

I'm not going to even address the Asian times. It isn't based on a scientist, and I've already explained cooling to you and given you links.

"Canada’s National Post reports that astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young scientists, says the IPCC’s work is based on “speculation” and that he believes global warming is caused more by solar activity than the release of greenhouses gases like CO2."

So they are quoting another source from Canada about an Israeli. Does that seem odd to you? And it isn't even a direct quote so you can't even tell what he really meant. Looks like a hatchet job to me.

Anyway, I'll take it remotely face value. "..cause more.." that certainly leaves a lot of room for CO2 to be involved in increast temps. Again, I've already said that solar increases were involved, and this especially made sense because we were in a high period of solar activity, but now we aren't and temps are still going up.

He's the only science person in there that says anything directly about global warming.

Looking back over my comments, I don't see where you have single person that would be considered to be an expert in climate change saying that green house gases are NOT causing an increase in temps. I see alot of they aren't the only cause, which I admitted before you even posted this.

Did I miss something?

[Corcaigh]

This may help ... How to Talk To A Climate Change Skeptic

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

[PeterMP]

Here are a few links. All within the past 6 months

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4387552

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=9&num=11398

I hope you understand I am not saying the climate is not getting warmer and I am not saying we should have cleaner air, I am just saying that the whole human impact is vastly overblown.

Global Warming is a billion dollar industry (carbon off set scam) where there is money like there you will find lots of corruption.

I'll simplify things for you. You claimed three things that I don't believe. I don't see any one of them addressed by real scientist in your links, but if you think they are please provide a quote:

1. That global cooling wasn't the result of us putting particles into the air via coal power plants and the effect went away when we cleaned up emissions, but was based on faulty science (which I guess means that the Earth wasn't in fact getting cooler?). I don't see where this is really addressed at all in your links.

2. That we aren't contributing to global warming by producing large amounts of greenhouse gases. Several people in your links talk about green house gasses or specifically CO2 not being the ONLY cause, but that isn't the same as what you are claiming. I've actually posted two studies that came to the same conclusion. The flip side of that is that we are a CONTRIBUTOR.

3. That EVERYDAY more scientist are coming out against global warming. Everybody in your links has been against global warming for years, and they describe themselves as the persecuted minority NOT as a growing movement of believers.