The Global Warming Challenge

[SpidermanTUba]

I would have no idea....can you provide me with a list of scientists who HAVE published papers claiming an anthropological cause for global warming that haven't received federal funding for their research?

Why? Because the federal government is conspiring with the scientists to produce politically unpopular scientific theories? Wow. What a scheme. The politicians pay scientists to come up with reasons why they should raise gas taxes and put oil companies out of business. What genius. I'm sure they're raking in the bribes on that one!

Seriously, what funding source would you prefer for your science? Do you honestly believe that for-profit corporations which would lose billions of dollars if the wrong scientific conclusions were drawn are somehow less likely to influence the scientists they fund than scientists which are funded by the public?

[theHawk]

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 30% since the industrial revolution. You appear to not know what you're talking about.

Yes, I know, they've increased from 0.028% to 0.0363%. In other words, a small amount.

Since we all know anthropogenic global warming is such a big hoax, you'd figure that there would be actual science which disproves it. I don't want your layman's opinions of why you "feel" anthropogenic global warming "just isn't possible" because the world is just so gosh darn big - I want the opinion of an expert in the field who claims anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.

If you don't want my or anyone elses laymen's opinions then why did you open this thread? You're doing nothing but giving your laymen's opinion too.

And secondly, where did I ever say that anthropogenic global warming "just isn't possible"? Don't quote me on things I did not say.
It may very well be possible, I said it would be extremely difficult to prove. I do believe that our pollution is effecting our planet, but I nor anyone else, knows to what extent. I think the issue has been politicized and thus highly exaggerated.
Politicians like Al Gore are using it to invoke fear into people. For example in his book he shows a picture from about 100 years ago of a glacier, then shows a picture from today. It clearly shows the glacier retreated. We're supposed to look at this and say "Oh My God" and get outraged. But he fails to mention that these glaciers all over the world have been melting away for the last 10,000 years. You can't accuse him of lying, but it is an omission of the facts in a sly manner in order to get people to rally to his cause.

And like I said, I'm not trying to prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm just asking for one solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper which has disproved it.

Well if you're not trying to prove it, why do the rest of us have to disprove it?
Nobody has to disprove a theory. Its up to scientists to prove their own theories. And anthropogenic global warming is just a scientific theory. I'd like to see a "solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper" that proves that the 0.5 degrees centigrade increase in the global average temperature over the last 130 years is NOT apart of the completly natural and cyclical global warming period followed by an ice age. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.

[PostmodernProphet]

Why?

because if Exxon funding is relevant, federal funding is equally relevant.....if you want to waive the issue of funding for both, it's fine with me....we can concentrate on the facts of the matter....but if funding on one side is of interest, funding on both sides is as well......

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you honestly believe that for-profit corporations which would lose billions of dollars if the wrong scientific conclusions were drawn are somehow less likely to influence the scientists they fund than scientists which are funded by the public?

nope, I honestly believe that both will be influenced equally by the goals of those providing funding......

[PostmodernProphet]

now, speaking of facts.....back to my earlier question.....if global warming is anthropologically caused, how do you explain previous periods of global warming that could not possibly have been anthropologically caused.....



http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/wa...ange/index.htm

**Note: on this particular chart, the labels for 100k years and 150k years appears to be switched.

[PostmodernProphet]

looking at this chart, one might well come to the conclusion that the world's problem is not the 1k-10k periods of global warming......it's the 100k periods of global cooling that are going to kill us.....

[theHawk]

now, speaking of facts.....back to my earlier question.....if global warming is anthropologically caused, how do you explain previous periods of global warming that could not possibly have been anthropologically caused.....



http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/wa...ange/index.htm

**Note: on this particular chart, the labels for 100k years and 150k years appears to be switched.

Don't hold your breath. I've never heard any of the global warming fearmongering liberals acknowledge this scientific fact.

[SpidermanTUba]

Yes, I know, they've increased from 0.028% to 0.0363%. In other words, a small amount.

Yeah, 30% is small, right. Lets see what happens if you get stuck with a 30% tax hike, see if you call it small then.

You don't know much about .. numbers, do you?

If you don't want my or anyone elses laymen's opinions then why did you open this thread?

I started the thread because I wanted to see peer reviewed scientific papers which claim global warming is wrong. You should have picked up on that by now.

You're doing nothing but giving your laymen's opinion too.

I'm not giving an opinion. I'm asking for papers which claim global warming is wrong. That's not "giving an opinion", that's "asking a question"


You don't know much about ... words, do you?

I do believe that our pollution is effecting our planet, but I nor anyone else, knows to what extent. I think the issue has been politicized and thus highly exaggerated.

And what factual basis in the scientific record do you base this on?

Politicians like Al Gore are using it to invoke fear into people. For example in his book he shows a picture from about 100 years ago of a glacier, then shows a picture from today. It clearly shows the glacier retreated. We're supposed to look at this and say "Oh My God" and get outraged. But he fails to mention that these glaciers all over the world have been melting away for the last 10,000 years. You can't accuse him of lying, but it is an omission of the facts in a sly manner in order to get people to rally to his cause.

Politicians? This is the health and science board, isn't it? Have you been able to comprehend my numerous previous posts pointing out that Al Gore doesn't have anything to do with the scientific process?


Well if you're not trying to prove it, why do the rest of us have to disprove it?
Nobody has to disprove a theory. Its up to scientists to prove their own theories. And anthropogenic global warming is just a scientific theory. I'd like to see a "solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper" that proves that the 0.5 degrees centigrade increase in the global average temperature over the last 130 years is NOT apart of the completly natural and cyclical global warming period followed by an ice age. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.[/QUOTE]

[SpidermanTUba]

because if Exxon funding is relevant, federal funding is equally relevant.....if you want to waive the issue of funding for both, it's fine with me....we can concentrate on the facts of the matter....but if funding on one side is of interest, funding on both sides is as well......

You're right. And since one is funded by a for profit corporations which stands to lose billions and billions of dollars if the wrong scientific conclusions were drawn, and the other is a government handing out public dollars through granting agencies such as the NSF, where the peers of the scientists requesting the grants determine who gets the grants - and not CEO's with no scientific experience whatsoever - anyone with any common sense at all would see that Exxon is clearly not as unbiased a source of funding as the NSF.

Do you understand profit motive? Do you understand that the NSF is a not for profit government agency - and Exxon is a for profit private corporation whose goal is not to produce good science but to make money?


You have reduced yourself to the "everything is the same as everything argument" There are blatantly obvious reasons to suspect the scientific research that is paid for by a for profit corporation. You simply choose to ignore them, just like a few years ago when there was a segment of the population that held on to the belief that smoking cigarettes wasn't harmful since Phillip Morris' scientists said they were OK.

[SpidermanTUba]

now, speaking of facts.....back to my earlier question.....if global warming is anthropologically caused, how do you explain previous periods of global warming that could not possibly have been anthropologically caused.....

A molecule of CO2 produced by man is identical to one produced by nature, that's how. You seem to be suggesting that naturally produced greenhouse gases can warm the Earth but man made greenhouse gases cannot. That's absurd.

[MtnBiker]

It is laughable when people do not believe that government bureaucracies do not have self serving funding concerns as well. Government bureaucracies would dry up and die if they could not influence the purse keepers to dole out money to them.

[SpidermanTUba]

looking at this chart, one might well come to the conclusion that the world's problem is not the 1k-10k periods of global warming......it's the 100k periods of global cooling that are going to kill us.....

You're essentially asserting that since its possible to freeze to death it isn't possible to die from being too hot. What bullet proof logic you have.

[MtnBiker]

You're essentially asserting that since its possible to freeze to death it isn't possible to die from being too hot. What bullet proof logic you have.

Not just a person freezing to death you should be more concerned with crop yeilds.

[SpidermanTUba]

It is laughable when people do not believe that government bureaucracies do not have self serving funding concerns as well. Government bureaucracies would dry up and die if they could not influence the purse keepers to dole out money to them.

So you would trust a scientist working for Phillip Morris just the same as an NSF funded university scientist, with regards to the question of whether or not smoking kills?

Not surprising, a lot of people did. The Phillip Morris scientists told them what they wanted to hear - after all, all scientists are equally biased no matter what their funding source? Certainly, we can't expect a publicly funded research scientist WITH TENURE to be any less biased than a scientist hired by a cigarette company to determine if cigarettes kill you. Similarly, university scientists with tenure - who themselves stand nothing to gain or lose financially, since they have tenure and their salaries are being paid by the state or through endowments - should be trusted just the same to talk about global climate as scientists that Exxon hired - which would lose billions upon billions of dollars if the people believed the scientific consensus.

Keep telling yourself that.

[theHawk]

Yeah, 30% is small, right. Lets see what happens if you get stuck with a 30% tax hike, see if you call it small then.

You don't know much about .. numbers, do you?

If my taxes were 0.028% and went up to 0.036% I don't think I'd be complaining at all.

I started the thread because I wanted to see peer reviewed scientific papers which claim global warming is wrong. You should have picked up on that by now.

I'm not giving an opinion. I'm asking for papers which claim global warming is wrong. That's not "giving an opinion", that's "asking a question"

No, you started this thread on a political debate forum to stir up shit, as usual. If you want to search for a particular type of scientific papers then you came to the wrong forum. You knew exactly what you were doing when you started the thread so don't try to downplay it now.

You don't know much about ... words, do you?

I know enough about words to know when someone is tiptoeing around the subject because he doesn't actually want to be held accountable for what he is implying.

And what factual basis in the scientific record do you base this on?

Here's just one. Try searching and finding your own.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=13


Arctic temperature records – According to the computer forecasts, climate over polar latitudes is very sensitive to global warming. The forecasts say that the polar regions should have warmed by roughly 2 C in the last 50 years, enough to begin melting polar ice. Melting the polar ice produces a positive feedback that amplifies any warming. The reason is that ice reflects much of the sunlight and helps keep the polar regions cold. But as the temperature rises and the ice melts, the bare ground or sea underneath absorbs more of the Sun’s energy and magnifies the warming. One long-term view of the lower Arctic (Figure 4) comes from proxy records like tree-ring growth.[9] There is a rapid warming in the record, but it began in the mid-19th century, and must be natural because it predates most of the rise in the air’s carbon dioxide concentration. This record suggests that the Arctic has cooled since 1950. Instrumental measurements (Figure 5) also contradict the intense warming trend projected by the computer scenarios. On the average over the last 40 years, the temperature does not show the large, increasing warming trends projected by the computer simulations.[10] That observed lack of warming may seem contradictory to recent newspaper reports of a thinning or diminishing extent of Arctic sea-ice.[11] However, sea ice will change in response to several factors, including not also temperature, but also ocean currents and salinity, wind, terrain, etc. The recent observed sea-ice changes cannot have been caused by human-made global warming because Arctic temperatures are not showing the expected increasing warming trend. No increasing warming trend of the kind expected from human-made global warming has occurred in recent decades, when most of the increase in the air’s carbon dioxide concentration took place. In the test of the Arctic temperature record, the computer scenarios exaggerate the observed warming by more than ten-fold.

Politicians? This is the health and science board, isn't it? Have you been able to comprehend my numerous previous posts pointing out that Al Gore doesn't have anything to do with the scientific process?

Yes, politicians. Or other yahoos like yourself that pretend to be interested in real science in order to promote your own agenda.
You're a well known political hack from the other board. You're here to make a political point, not to debate factual scientific evidence about global warming. You're not fooling anyone.




I'd like to see a "solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper" that proves that the 0.5 degrees centigrade increase in the global average temperature over the last 130 years is NOT apart of the completly natural and cyclical global warming period followed by an ice age. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.[/QUOTE]

Evidently you not only can't use the quote function properly, but you also avoided my request.