Koch funded climate skeptics confirm global warming

[araneae]

I'm aware that the climate is, has been, and will continue to change. So are many scientists. Most sources use this as a basis to assume that scientists also agree that man is largely responsible, when this is often simply not the case.

Continually beating the same drum about "EVERYBODY KNOWS AND AGREES SO CONVERSATION IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF SCIENCE" does *not* support the scientific method in any way. It is the standard tactic of politics on almost all scientific or pseudoscientific matters. And having Al Gore, the UN, and some scientists run around telling people how to live their lives while many of the major proponents get rich off of these ideas, no matter how difficult to make these changes are for regular people, is neither science nor human progress. It is pretty much cult-like behavior. That the country that was founded on freedom of (and from) religion is skeptical should not be that alarming.

You are incorrect in your assumption that there is no consensus on the role of humans in climate change. The overwhelming majority believe that humans are driving the phenomena. If you can provide peer reviewed scientific articles/associations that say otherwise I would like to see them.

Here is an abstract from the The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published April 9, 2010.

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

[jabba359]

...I do believe that humans have made a contribution to the rapidity with which temperatures have risen the last century...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that man isn't contributing to the warming cycle.

Most scientific researchers are academics who are paid to teach and their research is often carried out by their graduate students. Few are making any real money by doing research alone. Losing funding for particular research doesn't mean job loss. Your accusation that this is all a hoax to make some cash is pretty ridiculous and frankly insulting to the people who do the research. There is always funding to look at the alternative theory and disproving a theory is often regarded as highly as proving it in the scientific community.

Maybe you should try rereading what I have stated, not once, but twice. I specifically said that global warming is happening and that -while not the only cause- man is contributing to it. For someone claiming to love science, you blatantly ignored what didn't support your conclusion: that I was saying it all was a hoax. Poor science on your part. Part of the scientific process is considering what outside influences (one possible influence being financial) may affect the data, which is what I did. If you read it as a slam on all climate scientists and researches, you took it completely the wrong way and out of context with everything else I wrote.

A little background on myself and how much I love and respect the sciences: As a kid, one of my favorite toys was my Tasco microscope, my most read book was probably "The Way Things Work," and I wanted to be a scientist (a paleontologist). If I ever had below a 100% in science class in junior high and high school, I considered myself as failing (because I did all the extra credit on top of working hard to get top scores on all my work). Two of my biggest heroes are Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking, physicists by trade (Greene is also a professor) and I buy and read all their books. Look at my avatar. That's my #1 hero Nikola Tesla, one of the most gifted scientists of the late 1800's/early 1900's. Einstein, Sagan, and more are all welcome on my bookshelves and I always look forward to acquiring more knowledge of the sciences.

While I may not be a scientist by training, formal education, or employment, I try to keep abreast with current scientific concepts and progress and at least have a fairly solid understanding of scientific topics. No, I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as the actual practitioners in any given field, and I realize that, but I'm at least willing to keep an open mind about the causes, both natural and anthropogenic. To completely ignore the very real possibility of one or the other (or both) is a very dangerous stance to take and stifles true scientific progress.

[TomH]

An article in the Investor's Business Daily gives a refute to the Berkeley study.

http://news.investors.com/Article/58996 ... tinues.htm

[defenestrate]

While I may not be a scientist by training, formal education, or employment, I try to keep abreast with current scientific concepts and progress and at least have a fairly solid understanding of scientific topics. No, I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as the actual practitioners in any given field, and I realize that, but I'm at least willing to keep an open mind about the causes, both natural and anthropogenic. To completely ignore the very real possibility of one or the other (or both) is a very dangerous stance to take and stifles true scientific progress.

Tesla is the man!

I am trying to work up some of his underutilized patents for modern purposes.

[thombrogan]

It is best to be skeptical considering the skepticism of BEST's best "skeptic."

Skewed charts and unsupportable quotes.

There's been a lot of information out lately showing that CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere doesn't behave the way it does in doomsday climatologist computer models. Okay, it's been more than lately. Then there's the trouble of measuring temperatures using tree rings (Nibblegate). Add to that the known errors for recording stations in the USA (with a variance of 2-3 degrees they're allegedly measuring a 1 degree change in temperature? And how accurate are the sites in other countries? And this is taken as objective fact and not holy writ? Why?). Let's keep adding. Who's been keeping tabs on oceanic temperatures for the past century? At which depths?

Okay, so dead at step one and worthless before proceeding, let's be indulgent and move to step two: how do these "manmade CO2 will kill us all with increased growing periods and larger tracts of hospitable land" proclaimations deal with, como se dice the Sun? Exactly how are solar variations on temperature (and consequent changes in photosynthetic behavior) being removed from the equations?

[Bolster]

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever (known Obama supporter, BTW) recently resigned from the American Physical Society (Global Warmers, all) with a letter that begins:

[INDENT]"I did not renew my membership because I cannot live with the APS policy statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring'...In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" [/INDENT]

As the number of scientific "heretics" grows with each passing year, and the much balyhooed "consensus" for drastic action is falling apart, the cries of the Global Warmers get more shrill, demanding faith-based allegiance to their ideas and policies.

Is Global Warming a science, or a religion?

If you believe hard enough, it could be either. This is the dawning of the age of faith-based science.

[Sequimite]

So, if you'd like to debate lets use a new thread and start by agreeing that the matter will be decided by a preponderance of evidence, not vivid anecdotes. Is that agreed?

[Sequimite]

Bolster, I suggest we each start with a summary of evidence for whether Global Warming is happening and to what extent it's happening. We can then take issue with each other's statements.

I'm on the go today and so won't be able to put my statement together until tomorrow.

[Blerv]

Isn't the better topic on if humans have a significant impact on it?

If the dawn of the apocalypse is coming the only thing we can do is try to change it or prepare for it. At this point the latter is more realistic given hundreds of years of ecological negligence. If there is no way to survive it there are far more pressing things to worry about.

Pragmatic complacency? Perhaps. Better than the Bovine Massacre of 2014 led by General Gore.

[Sequimite]

Isn't the better topic on if humans have a significant impact on it?

If the dawn of the apocalypse is coming the only thing we can do is try to change it or prepare for it. At this point the latter is more realistic given hundreds of years of ecological negligence. If there is no way to survive it there are far more pressing things to worry about.

Pragmatic complacency? Perhaps. Better than the Bovine Massacre of 2014 led by General Gore.

The problem is that Bolster doesn't believe in Global Warming so until there is agreement that there is Global Warming there is no point in debating what the causes are.

[Blerv]

The problem is that Bolster doesn't believe in Global Warming so until there is agreement that there is Global Warming there is no point in debating what the causes are.

Ah touche. :)

[dbcad]

This topic stirs me.....

Unless an individual is omniscient a certain trust in other individuals is needed in disciplines that are not are familiar. Climate science is one of those disciplines for me.

From what I've read and heard, and I choose my information consumption carefully, the climate is changing at a pretty rapid rate. There have been no super volcanic eruptions that could account for this, the only probable cause is the increase of warming gasses present in the atmosphere, the vast majority of which are put there by man.

The science professionals studying this try to analyse it mathematically. The majority think they have found a mathematical function that fits the average warming data. It's a very scary curve that will only be tempered by the constant that is attached to it. That curve says the rate of average warming will increase exponentially if current trends continue. Mathematical analysis is the heart of most practical predictive science.

From what I gather this average increase in temperatures is happening much more quickly than natural climate changes in the past. Past changes can be measured via ice and ocean floor samples.

Having been trained in some pretty advanced mathematics and physics I have an appreciation for this kind of evidence :)

If folks think of Climate Change as the "apocalypse" they are taking a different approach than the scientists who really only like to focus on raw data, analyse the trend mathematically and come to some kind of hypothesis. The quoted terms serve only to polarize the debate

What the evidence means is that there is going to be a change in weather patterns some of which are already being felt, especially in the polar and equatorial regions.

I would say the differences of opinion on the forum in this debate are directly proportional to depth of scientific and mathematical training. Good old commom sense short term thinking, valid in it's own realm, does not apply to this issue, knowledge and trust in the vast majority of scientists does. Understanding how the data is compiled and analysed helps also.

I believe, based on my own scientific and mathematical experience and the evidence that has been presented in the scientific arena, that this trend of climate change will continue and accelerate no matter what is done. Hold on and brace for the ride :eek:

[Sequimite]

Global warming is the scientific consensus on climate change and so I think it appropriate to use the term.

I'll debate anyone that agrees that the debate will be decided on the preponderance of evidence. I have way to much experience debating issues where I put out a pile of evidence and the other side criticizes one or two points, quotes incorrect conclusions by non-scientists and concludes they have won.

See the signature \

[dbcad]

Hey Sequimite :) Glad you started this thread a few months ago.

Understand what you said. I'll edit my post with regard to the global warming term. When a lot lot of folks read "global warming", they automatically think short term, year to year. The term "Global Warming" is also politically loaded which almost never serves well for real understanding.

I believe we both have an understanding about what is going on with the climate. I was just trying to enlighten folks as to how the the reality of this climactic trend was arrived at.

The term Global Warming is decieving to a lot of non scientific people, even it is the final result we will all see. It will show it's face as climate change first. as it is doing now......

[darkstar29]

C'mon, you think truth matters if you have money on your side? :rolleyes: Really, now... :o

Couldn't have said it any better.. Nor will I try to. Such an attempt would see me banned for life..

[Tdog]

I often enjoy crunchy peanut butter with strawberry preserves and a thin layer of cream cheese. Really good. :D The PB w banana and honey is also a favorite. The weather and climate change every day. My guess is as good as any "scientist" as to what the weather will be 10 years from now. We might not even be here 10 years from now?? Hurricane predictors have given up because they are wrong more than right. Is another tax gonna prevent global warming? For those that believe in global warming donate to the cause or do whatever you think will help the situation. Please don't attempt to force "theories" or costs associated to this on others. There have been 6 "green" companies go bankrupt costing the taxpayer billions of dollars in recent times (Solyndra 535 million). Political cronyism and payoffs. Personally I do all I can to conserve resources and be environmentally friendly. I compost, recycle, have a solar water heater and drive fuel effecient cars. I hunt and fish often so I know and appreciate the importance of our environment. Weather is being used as a political tool.

[jabba359]

The weather and climate change every day.

Weather changes every day, but climate, by definition, does not. Climate is a measure of weather over long periods, with the standard averaging period being 30 years. So a little bit longer than a day.

[Sequimite]

I often enjoy crunchy peanut butter with strawberry preserves and a thin layer of cream cheese. Really good. :D The PB w banana and honey is also a favorite. The weather and climate change every day. My guess is as good as any "scientist" as to what the weather will be 10 years from now. ...

Your etiquette is atrocious. PBJ is never served with a rant that pours gas on the fire of the ongoing thread discussion. It is to be served with an invitation to calm down and talk about something more important: peanut butter or knives.

[Tdog]

Your etiquette is atrocious. PBJ is never served with a rant that pours gas on the fire of the ongoing thread discussion. It is to be served with an invitation to calm down and talk about something more important: peanut butter or knives.

With all due respect, perhaps your etiquette is atrocious for pointing out my etiquette is atrocious. :rolleyes: I have not been arrogant, rude, or shown in any manner to be "uncalm". That being said I will gladly and Thankfully accept your invitation to talk about more important things. The weather was beautiful here today and I'm in the company of good folks who share common interests. I apologize if you were offended. Now on to more important things......knives :)

[dbcad]

This is a good discusion, We can be calm and logical about it, and stick to the facts. I have respect for all of the other members here. Honest dialogue without judgement is good :)