I consider the possibility...but I don't get all the smug hippy crap.  I think there may be a point to global warming, but the people that are involved are total dickwads...so I can understand everyone else's aversion to it.

Kinda like that South Park episode about smugness and hybrid cars and people who like the smell of their own farts.

~Zoo

Draginol,

Zealots find themselves in all walks and dispositions of life. There are indeed zealots in left wing politics, right wing politics, economics, etc. And yes, there are global warming zealots.

I agree with you that global warming is just a hypothesis, it's not proven fact. I do however think that therre's a pretty good chance that hypothesis is true, due to the fact that the majority of credentialed scientists who have studied this have produced results and papers that support global warming. Every major legitimate scientific organization in North America, Europe and Asia have signed on to it, and not because they've had their arms twisted by an outside party.

Yes, you are right that Al Gore's movie isn't science. It's more like a kitschy public service anouncement. Yes, you are right that the majority of folks haven't done in-depth research and call it good after seeing Al Gore's movie. While I do think this is unfortunate, most folks aren't climatologists or even know about the scientific journals in which climatologists work is published. That should be the battleground over whether or not global warming is caused by man. CNN, MSN, FOX are all just galleries of public opinion.

Now, because I believe there's a good chance that global warming is caused by man, does that make me a zealot? I don't think so. If a credentialed scientist finds that global warming is indeed not related to man at all, and publishes his work in a recognized scientific journal and it stands up to peer review and scrutiny then we're in business.

In the meantime, organizations like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Heartland foundation are actually looking quite ridiculous in holding anti-global warming conferences in which they invite a handful of scientists who have a wide range of theories that could possibly dispute global warming. This is ridiculous because they are political and ideological stunt shows, because they are not involving the body proper of the scientific community.

I would like to put forward the position that while there certainly are "global warming zealots", there are also "anti-global warming zealots". Both camps share the same traits. Just as the global warming zealots believe with a religious and ideological fervor that the issue is caused entirely by man, no ifs ands or buts, so there are zealots on the other side who will never accept that global warming is caused by man, regardless of how much evidence, research and reasoning is presented to them.

So, I'd say both camps are guilty of zealotry, and in the end rational, un-biased scientific investigation into the matter is what suffers as both sides avoid the real issue in a childish game of keeping score how many wins their side has over the other!

I find this to be all so very true from my experience.  Global warming, happens to now be the one topic where I usually refuse to debate a believer on it face to face.  I generally have no problem debating other controversial topics such as abortion or religion in general with others face to face, but none seems to bring about more anger and condescending looks than debating about the merits of the hypothesis of global warming. 

I myself used to believe in the hypothesis in global warming, mostly in part since everything I read and saw, from the news to articles in Scientific American seemed to point to it being true.  Later I actually saw some very valid arguments arguing against the hypothesis and I flipped to the other side.  Right now, I'd consider myself relatively neutral, probably leaning a bit more towards being against the idea of man made global warming rather than for it.  Label me a skeptic as I try to be with most things. 

But it is true that many believers in MM GW are very vicious in their attacks on skeptics of the hypothesis, to the point where I rarely find it worth it to even debate the topic personally.

This isn't just the global warming zealots, it's the anything that potentially harms mother earth zealots. The same groups that chained themselves to trees or rammed whaling ships are now onto global warming. The reasons are obvious, it's the first potentially harmful effect of pollution that effects the whole planet equally. It's the perfect environmental cause and the fact that there are people passionate about the health of the only known friendly place in the universe is not something I consider a threat to my way of life. There are whole habitats and numerous species still around because of this passion and in the end it may be our own species that this passion saves.  For the most part we're a lazy keep the party going species that needs squeaky wheels. I don't understand what you find so threatening about them. In a way there the "movers and shakers" of the world as well, just with different motivations.

The problem is, what you say isn't actually true. There are plenty of well known, credentialed scientists who haven't signed on.

Heck, the founder of the weather channel, a life long meteorologist, has said it's the biggest scam in history.

Also, the issue is straight forward enough that I don't really need a scientist to tell me what to think. You either think that the increase in CO2 (caused mostly by humans) is the principle cause of the slight warming trend since 1976 or you don't.

I've yet to see someone explain why the temperature was going down from 1940 to 1975. Nor has anyone bothered to explain how global temperatures have steadied since 1998 despite CO2 increasing at massive rates.

The point is, the people who believe in global warming are militant about it. Those of us who are skeptics are treated like heathens or pagans who are dangerous because we speak heresy about their religion and must be dealt with as such.

I believe the evidence before your very eyes (the fact that you are reading this on your computer screen) wholly contradicts that.

We are where we are because of our supreme survival (& thriving) skills, pure and simple. I have complete faith that mankind will adapt to climate change as it has in the past and that mankind won't be so stupid as to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Barring the 10-mile wide asteroid hit, the planet will remain sufficiently hospitable for awhile. And if it becomes rapidly inhospitable, it won't be because of man's contribution to greenhouse gasses.

Sorry, who are these people you speak of? I asked you for a list of them in another article but you have failed to produce one. I gave you quotes from a major scientific organization in Canada that begged the Prime Minister of your country not to fall in with the man made global warming hoax and you have not disputed it. Are we back to it being a religion because you have yet to provide it, so you have a belief in things unseen and unproven. You see it works like this, you have an idea, then a hypothesis then if there is enough proof it moves to theory, and if it can be independently verified it becomes the accepted theory, and if all the facts bare out then it becomes a scientific fact. Global warming is somewhere between idea and hypothesis but it is treated like scientific fact. Nothing on global warming has been brought up to a level of theory yet.

Pretty much the way Columbus was treated in 1492.

And of course since all the scientist of the time knew that the Earth was flat - it was.

Wait a minute! Are you suggesting the earth is round like a ball? When did that happen? I think you made that up, you have a website to prove this, and should I resign from the flat earth society? Next you will be telling me that the sun does not revolve around the earth like those crazy Christians!   

My apologies, been busy lately!

Okay, as to your "major scientific organization" in Canada that sent the letter, it was no such thing. It was a letter to the prime minister from 60 scientists from around the world (not part of any major recognized group) basically asking the prime minister to reconsider Canada's signing of the Kyoto accords, and to pursue further research into climate change. Collectively, they are NOT a major organization, and the letter was entirely political in nature- it basically says "we don't believe global warming is real, don't spend money on trying to reduce emmissions. Signed, scientists- A thru Z." Some of them are from various universities in Canada, the U.S, South Africa, UK etc etc.

The thing about this letter is, as credentialled scientists they know it's useless to do this. The way to prove or disprove climate change is to publish your work in scientific journals, and then see if it stands up to the scrutiny of other credentialled scientists. 

As to the people who have published papers that came to the conclusion global warming is probably man-made:

The United States National Academy of Sciences-

1,922 members, more than 170 members have won a nobel prize. Go to their website and take a look see through some of their papers. They have thousands of papers available to the public and this organization is and has been one of the major scientific advisory boards for the United States since the civil war. If you go to

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

You will see a joint statement issued by the national academy of sciences in conjunction with the major scientific advisory boards of 11 countries-

United States, Canada, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, China, India, Japan, Russia, France and Brazil.

The organizations here represent thousands of credentialled scientists from around the globe, and they would not sign off on a document without consensus of the majority of their members. This is also not the only such declaration of large scientific groups.

Additionally we have:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science- one of the world's largest scientific societies with over 120,000 members and recognized publications.

American Geological Society

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

The list goes on, and on. In fact, go here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Yes, everything that I posted here I grabbed from other websites in about 5 minutes. That's all it takes to look it up.

Long story short, there are thousands of scientists from every major recognized scientific body stating that there is a good chance that man is significantly contributing to global warming.

No one is saying that this shouldn't be disputed. Absolutely more research needs to be done, and the facts should speak for themselves.

This has been researched exhaustively over several decades. The amount of scientific papers produced and reviewed by credentialled peers is overwhelming.

Well, you spelled Son wrong.

Probably? The best they can do is say probably, I don’t see any scientific facts here only the best guess of some people and a consensus of that best guess.

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system
as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now
strong evidence that significant global warming is
occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements
of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in
average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes
to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that
most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
led to changes in the Earth's climate.

First the report has never been released because it is so flawed. Second the above excerpt is from the joint academies of science that you gave the link to. It is based on a flawed report. That means the report has not valid because they did not do their own research they only comment on a summary released by the UN that is not independent verification of any kind. So this does not meet the criteria YOU say is the standard.



Yeah, the best guess is not a fact, my best guess is that they are wrong. My best scientific facts say they ARE wrong. The reports you site all base their findings on a flawed report, that an official independent reviewer says is flawed at its core. Yet you still cling to this false report as if it is fact, no one has done independent study beyond the IPCC report. Every other report has been just as flawed, like the report of rising temperatures until it became public that the sensors used to measure the temps were placed under exhaust fans of buildings where there is a higher than normal temperature.

You ignore the fact that since 1989 the temp has been dropping just as it had in the last century unless NASA is telling a lie to help the Bush Administration. These are scientific facts that go against all these reports. CO2 is not a pollutant and in the beginning it was Methane that was the big bad greenhouse gas, until it was pointed out that man does not produce more methane than nature. Then they shifted to CO2 which is also naturally occurring in greater numbers than man. At one time most of the free oxygen was trapped with CO2 and SO2 bringing the oxygen level down to 9% we had an ice age not global warming. The Earth has been coming out of the last ice age which means we are warming up to normal then we will cool off again. It has been happening for millennia but all of a sudden with only a few decades of research we know man is the cause of this. And you call that scientific? As I said before there is not enough scientific evidence to hint that the warming trend is near man’s fault.



Ok this is wrong and easily proven. Up until 1984 these nuts were still screaming global cooling, the next ice age is only two decades away. The change happened when all the evidence showed that the temperature was rising they changed to global warming. By 1989 the temp was starting to drop again, and by 2000 the IPCC report came out saying that global warming was man made. All those same people that screamed ice age screamed global warming and three years ago faced with the fact that they were proven wrong again they change the tune to Global Climate Change. This way they can be right no matter what the facts say. So you don’t have decades of data proving global warming and the so called champions of the environment have been flip flopping as I wrote about every 20 to 30 years. Go back and look that up. Somewhere around the 2050’s we are going to be hit with a decade of blizzards and everyone will be screaming the next ice age is on the way, just like they did in the 1949, as we go through this 100 year cycle.

Oh, okay. your assertion that all these organizations were hoodwinked by a single report is preposterous and ridiculous. These organizations have all had papers published by their own members over a span of many years investigating global warming and climate change. They did not all suddenly get deceived by a single IPCC report, nor are their findings all based on that report. That is not how the scientific process works.

But since you claim to have scientific facts stating that, well, all of the scientists are wrong, why don't you put together a paper and get it published stating this? Clearly you must have some pretty powerful stuff if all of the major recognized climate groups in the world are wrong!

 

 

I don't believe that's what he's saying. It was 'scientific consensus' that the sun revolved around the earth prior to Gallileo's time; there simply was no evidence to support it, but that didn't matter. 'Probably man-made' doesn't even rise to the status of theory when it comes to global climate change; it's a hypothesis at best, based on selective 'correlations,' a technique that is unscientific at best and pure hogwash at worst. The Venn diagrams you learned about in high-school can identify 'correlations' all over the place, but the presence of a correlation is not evidence of any cause-effect relationship.

The entire "theory" (I'm being generous here) is based on two simple statements:
1) The Earth is in a period of relative warming.
2) Man generates greenhouse gases.

Both are true. Whether 2) has anything to do with 1) has yet to be tested, let alone proven.

I thought I answered that the last time you posed this challenge to me. All the data is out there, the studies have been done, the full reports have been published, but just like when the bible said the Earth was round and everyone on the planet except religious zealots said the earth is flat, man made global warming is a hoax and has been disproven over and over yet they still push that agenda because it is what they want to be true for whatever reason. If you believe the Earth is round try telling that to the flat Earth society which is still around with over a million members, some of them creatable scientist.

“Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?”

The above quote is from the flat earth society website. The IPCC report is a kin to the above.



He was told this long ago and he still does not get that. But you did say it in a much clearer way.