31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wildsage

It has never been called the IPGW; it is the International Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC's conclusion is that man-made effects are now overcoming the natural climate-influencing factors.
It makes sense if you study it.

No, it doesn't. The warming of the early part of the century was huge, and there was no man-made effect on it. Then cooling and stabilization. Then, about thirty years of warming. What you posted shows only thirty consistent years of warming. That's insignificant. And, when you compare it with the large NON-man-made warming, it makes it a pointless blip of data.

There has always been variation in the planet's climate because it is a dynamic system. The many phenomena that influnce global temps have various interactions, not easy to understand in just a few sentences. One example: clouds reflect solar energy from space (albedo) creating a net cooling; they also reflect back heat from the earth's surface, which is why overcast nights are warmer than clear nights. This seemingly simple occurrence does not act alone; other things will affect the net gain or loss of heat -- GHG concentrations, aerosols, relative temp, etc.
For a good primer, see NOAA's Q&A (Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions) or see other links in earlier posts.

I saw, I read. I've read others. Nothing, not a single thing, points to any EVIDENCE of man-made effects on the very short term warming that may (if the data were accurate) be occuring. But, even the data has huge question marks around its accuracy. Not to mention that significant points changed with the change of the USSR. A little unbiased research points to short term potential minor warming, nothing outside of the normal band of global temperatures.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by This_person

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. The natural phenomena and physical laws are pretty cut-and-dried. Then again, so is the evidence supporting evolution by natural selection but a vocal minority insists that science is bogus, as well.

Originally Posted by This_person

What you posted shows only thirty consistent years of warming. That's insignificant. And, when you compare it with the large NON-man-made warming, it makes it a pointless blip of data.

Most of the people (by far the majority) who specialize in this area of knowledge do not consider the information pointless, insignificant or a blip. It's nice to know that you disagree with them but how do your credentials match up?

Originally Posted by This_person

I saw, I read. I've read others. Nothing, not a single thing, points to any EVIDENCE of man-made effects on the very short term warming that may (if the data were accurate) be occuring.

You are welcome to your opinion but I'll put more weight behind the conclusion summarized by the IPCC after synthesizing the vast collection of data related to global climate change. There are a few dissenters -- and, yes, still significant arguments over some of the details, no one is claiming absolute unanimity -- but the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the relevant fields agree with the IPCC's conclusion.
If you want to satisfy yourself of undisputably unbiased research, I guess you would have to review all of the climate change data from all reliable (peer-reviewed) sources -- not just those from the handful of deniers & obfuscators -- and publish your own conclusion. Please use footnotes.
I'll wait.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wildsage

Yes, it does. The natural phenomena and physical laws are pretty cut-and-dried.

So, everybody agrees then, right?

Most of the people (by far the majority) who specialize in this area of knowledge do not consider the information pointless, insignificant or a blip.

And, by far the majority believe in God, so He's true, too, right (hey, if you can bring up meaningless comparrisons, so can I).

You are welcome to your opinion but I'll put more weight behind the conclusion summarized by the IPCC after synthesizing the vast collection of data related to global climate change. There are a few dissenters -- and, yes, still significant arguments over some of the details, no one is claiming absolute unanimity -- but the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the relevant fields agree with the IPCC's conclusion.

Well, the IPCC is pretty biased in how it works, and there are MANY skeptics, not "a few". Some even work for us. Here's a short list of "skeptics" (I prefer "realists")

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, everybody agrees then, right?

Dammit! You caught them again in their empty argument. If it's cut-and-dried, nobody who is relevant can disagree. Course, they are the only ones using the C&D argument.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, everybody agrees then, right? And, by far the majority believe in God, so He's true, too, right (hey, if you can bring up meaningless comparrisons, so can I).

Believe in which one? Oh, nevermind, we were discussing science not mythology.

Originally Posted by This_person

Well, the IPCC is pretty biased in how it works, and there are MANY skeptics, not "a few". Some even work for us. Here's a short list of "skeptics" (I prefer "realists")

All you have is a short list, what is it 41? Mea culpa, I should have written "a RELATIVE few." (Guess how many people's work was studied by the IPCC in order for them to reach its consensus.) Still, a far cry from claims in the "news" post that started this thread. Let's see 41 versus 31,000 -- wow, that's way less than one percent!

So if your sourced list is of "scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions" do you concur that at least some of them agree with two of the principal conclusions and more agree with at least one?
Biased how? Some scientists criticize the IPCC for being too conservative in its predictions. Sounds kind of middle-of-the-road to me.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by Lenny

Dammit! You caught them again in their empty argument. If it's cut-and-dried, nobody who is relevant can disagree. Course, they are the only ones using the C&D argument.

In this universe, the science is cut & dried. Now maybe you have magical powers that alter physical properties and circumvent natural laws. How fortunate for you!

[diehardstroker]

The global warming zealots are the same ones that thought their cars, elevators, ovens, well basically the whole world was going to shut down at 12:00:00 January 1st, 2000, anyone remember what actually happened?

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by diehardstroker

The global warming zealots are the same ones that thought their cars, elevators, ovens, well basically the whole world was going to shut down at 12:00:00 January 1st, 2000, anyone remember what actually happened?

No, that was the Millennialismites. Keep your zealots straight.
And be patient, I'm sure someone remembers what actually happened.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wildsage

Believe in which one? Oh, nevermind, we were discussing science not mythology.

No, if we're talking global warming, we're talking mythology - not science.

All you have is a short list, what is it 41? Mea culpa, I should have written "a RELATIVE few." (Guess how many people's work was studied by the IPCC in order for them to reach its consensus.) Still, a far cry from claims in the "news" post that started this thread. Let's see 41 versus 31,000 -- wow, that's way less than one percent!

Um, the 31,000 ALSO disagree, not agree, with global warming.....

So if your sourced list is of "scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions" do you concur that at least some of them agree with two of the principal conclusions and more agree with at least one?

I'm sure there are unintentional nuggets of truth in there, yes

Biased how? Some scientists criticize the IPCC for being too conservative in its predictions. Sounds kind of middle-of-the-road to me.

Biased in having an agenda for their results. Biased in not looking at the bad data provided because they had a predetermined outcome. That kind of biased.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wildsage

In this universe, the science is cut & dried. Now maybe you have magical powers that alter physical properties and circumvent natural laws. How fortunate for you!

If man made global warming is actually occuring, and the science is cut and dried, where do all of the legitimate scientists who disagree get their opinions from? Why is there a controversy at all?

Could it be it's NOT so plain and clear?