Did you actually read what you wrote? “There is a good chance that our activities are contributing noticeably to climate change.” A good chance is not a scientific fact. Nothing has been proven enough to take it past the hypothesis stage of the scientific method.



And as I have stated before this information is already published. It has already been reviewed. It has already been scientifically accepted. What you are suggesting I do is the equivalent of taking out a full page ad in every news paper in the world to inform them that there is air on the planet Earth. The only competing theory to this scientifically accepted belief is the global climate change thesis. The people that believe in global climate change are trying to supplant the belief that the sun is the cause of our temperature changes.



I am glad you feel that way. The point that the climate change nuts want us to forget is the Sun. once you take the sun out of the equation then their theory begins to make sense. If you eliminate all scientific discovery in the last 30 years that contradicts global climate change then the theory is perfect!

Let me put it like this.
Every 20 to 30 thousand years the Earth goes through sever weather changes or mini ice ages. The last major ice age is what we are coming out of and that allowed man to roam the Earth. Continental drift is what caused the last ice age. Think of the planet as a ball of ice, there was a two mile thick coating of ice around the entire planet. The other cause of the ice age was at the same time the Atlantic conveyer was blocked the orbit of the Earth was elliptical giving us less warmth for most of the year. That has stabilized for now but will change again. All of this is public knowledge and has passed scientific review. All of it has to be ignored in order to make the man made climate change work.

The purpose that I see as the reason for this man made change crap is that the people behind it don’t want anyone to succeed at progress. The largest green house gas is water vapor. But man is not the cause of water vapor so that got dropped off the list. The next largest green house gas is methane, but man is not the cause of methane, so drop that off the list, when you get to carbon dioxide you are talking about a gas that rates as 36 parts per billion. So for ever billion molecules of our atmosphere there are 36 molecules of carbon dioxide, but because that is the one gas that can be attributed to man in some small way that is touted as the cause for man made global climate change.
A respected, credentialed climatologist stated that if we continue to pollute the air with carbon dioxide at the same rate we are doing right now for 100 years we will have raised that ratio from 36 parts per billion to 37 parts per billion. So the math does not work for the climate change nuts.



Actually the scientific review is done by independent scientists with the hope of duplicating the results. If it can’t be duplicated independently then the theory is crushed. Remember the cold fusion craze in the 80’s great results, very promising until the review process. Not one lab anywhere in the world was able to duplicate the results and the theory and data was ridiculed and the reputations of the scientists destroyed.

Okay, where is it published? Please provide link or reference to the scientific journal in which this has been published, and further references to the "acceptance" you speak of. FYI, an article from Washtington Post or other such outlet doesn't count as it must be an actual journal where credentialed folk are published. Furthermore, if what you say is true it would mean that every major scientific organization in your own country has violated the basic premise of the scientific method in rejecting this "scientifically accepted" theory you state.

I read what you wrote just fine. There is very little in this world that is considered 100 % scientific fact. That's the beauty of pure science, it doesn't have an agenda or goal to prove some ideological bent. The only goal is to discover the truth, and the truth is that indeed we humans still know very little about the universe around us.

This is true, but doesn't contradict what I said earlier. It still holds true that all it takes is one legitimate experiment (reproducable as you say) that contradicts a theory which then forces the community to revise or reject the theory altogether!

WWW Link

You know it is depressing to see you ask for a link or reference when they were provided to you the last time we discussed this topic. I guess you were such a true believer back then that you did not bother to look, or do any research on your own you just took what was spoon fed to you as gospel. First go to NASA, they will provide for you the atmospheres of all the planets and their temperatures. To support the claim that Venus, Earth and Mars are all rising in temp over the last three decades at the same rate.

Next to look up Dr. Roy Spencer, you know I think he was one of the founders of the weather channel. He has written several books, articles and can better lay out what I have tried to do for you.



You missed my point, re-read.



I was trying to contradict you I was trying to make it clearer. There is one other part that you don’t understand about peer review. Politics are heavily involved. The Atlantic conveyer system that causes ice ages was theorized by someone who was not a climatologist. As a result he work was not seriously considered for 25 years. Only after a political shift did he get any one willing to review his work and then it became accepted 6 years later. Scientists are catty, petty people that trash anyone that go against the grain. This is why most of the discoveries are made people outside the particular field because most within the field are myopic.



I know how the review process works I watched my son agonize over his work when he was published for his PhD. Have you ever tried to get something published? It is not easy if you are going against the popular beliefs. Any why the link I put up top will get you started.

Yes, absolutely politics are heavily involved. Especially when governments around the world have been dragging their heels for the last 30 years ignoring the data put forth by scientists. You keep going back and saying that NASA's data supports the assertion that climate change is not affected or caused by man. But it's scientists from NASA that have been trying the raise the alarm bell for decades with no response! Back in the 1980's NASA climatologist James Hansen accurately predicted global temperature levels 30 years in advance and presented his conclusions to several different administrations, all of which was ignored!

No, you missed my point. I was agreeing with you!!

I actually quite enjoyed reading the page you supplied the link for, thank you for sharing! And to be quite honest, I am glad to see someone actually getting their work published that questions the consensus. That is the beauty of the scientific method at work! I am not a "true believer" in global warming. With that said-

While this link was very interesting, and it's a good first step to get their theory published, it does not prove that climate change isn't caused by man. It brings into question the sensitivity of tests to measure climate change and puts forth some very interesting questions that I absolutely agree should be pursued. But nowhere in this entire page does it support your assertion that it proves and has been scientifically accepted that the sun is entirely to blame for climate change and not man's activities.

 

okay, you still don’t get it, what I am saying is within the scientific community there is politics, not republican or democrat politics, not left or right politics but scientific politics. All are jockeying for position and each camp wants to the smartest group in the room. The camp with the power. The camp that rules the scientific community for that area of study. So when they sign on to something like the earth is flat, (a consensus at the time that gained great favor for a while and even influenced the Roman Catholic Church to change their view to agree with the scientific consensus) pointing out that the earth is round took a few hundred years before it was accepted by the scientific community. The analogy holds true in the case of man made global warming. It does not mean they are right, just in charge.



Sorry but according to your standards they don’t count because their statements have not passed peer review yet.



What is your point here? Global warming is not new, as I pointed out NASA proved it 4 decades ago. What is in dispute is if man is the cause, a contributing factor, or negligible. Just because the scientist was able to predict the rise in temperature does to prove one way or the other if man is in one of the three categories. Please don’t confuse the three camps in this argument. By the way which camp do you believe in?



Like I said, this work has been out there for decades. It has passed the peer review process. It has been accepted by the community, and the man made global warming is the junk science that has not passed the full peer review process. The first step is getting published, the next step is to have the data checked by independent scientists or laboratories. This data must then be published in a peer review format. Refuting or accepting the original results. This is then tested by another independent group or lab. Just being published is not enough.



Once again you really don’t understand. The proof is on the global warming nuts. The accepted science to date is that the Sun is the cause of our weather. The challenge is that man is the cause. Under peer review the people publishing statements and papers against man made global warming are the majority dealing with a minority opinion. Dr. Spenser reviewed the data and reported the flaws in it; it is the global warming hoax that is currently under peer review not the other way around.

Yes, Paladin, you're absolutely right. Clearly I just don't understand. Clearly, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science also don't understand. Clearly, you understand climatology far better than the above organizations, so like I keep saying, you need to share your knowledge with the scientific community and show them the error of their ways!

An interesting little tidbit here- http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

Which states that between 1993 and 2003 there were 928 papers published in scientific journals by credentialed folk. Not one of them disagreed with the consensus position.

Sounds more like a conclusion looking for validation than a scientific analysis.

What was it they said? Something about if there are 928 people that always agree, 927 of them are superfluous?

There is good reason for this statement. It is called misinformation designed to make people like you feel that there is this huge group and no one found anything wrong with the reports until politics got involved. The problem is that scientific journals produce a plethora of documents every year. This global warming hoax has been building over the years and culminated with the fourth IPCC report. Each report got bolder and more strained as people wanted to prove this global warming.

The one report was the tipping point. It was the fourth IPCC report on global climate change. It was not produced until 2007 the first assessment was produced in 1990 so between 1990 and 2007 the reports went out but had not passed peer review. When the peer review started coming in is when you had the negative reports. As I pointed out earlier the peer review process takes years. For the purposes of publication it only takes hours and sometimes months but for the work to be accepted by the community it needs to be tested, to replicate the findings of the reports. It was not until the third assessment of 2001 did people in the community start to have doubts as to the validity of the IPCC and their report. The fourth assessment of 2007 has so many flaws that the consensus of the 1990’s has faded away. The claims in it are over the top and the errors are so blatant laymen can point to them with little trouble.

So you are correct the report has a consensus but the third and fourth version of the report does not. This last report claims that we will have more and stronger storms because of man. This has been proven wrong because the storms are getting weaker and less frequent. Had the authors of the report bothered to ask the solar climatologists they would have understood that the period they studied for the report was during the solar max where we have an increase in storm activity. It runs on an 11 year cycle of high storm activity and 11 years of calm activity and has been known since the 60’s. The other reports did not make this claim. This report states that man is the cause of global warming but if you read the report and I accurately quoted from the report that man’s contribution to global warming is .05 degree over 100 years. That is not some outlandish claim by a detractor it is the claim of the people that wrote the report. For a fiftieth of a degree the people supporting man made global warming want to put a trillion dollar economy into a tail spin. This is not rational, and it is not scientific. The report ignores verified, established repeatedly tested facts in order to throw the blame solely on man. The problem is dogma, all the great scientific communities of the world have signed onto the original report and now their reputations are on the line. To admit the report is no longer factual is to admit they were wrong, to admit they were wrong would destroy their credibility. Pride forces them to stick with this misinformation for as long as they can. To do this they have killed the peer review process as far as publishing. Accredited scientists that wish to keep their reputation are speaking out. They are not shills of the oil companies or coal companies or big business they are doing their job by pointing out the flaws.

I picked Dr. Spencer for a reason, he was never paid by the oil companies but he was and is a paid consultant to the environmental groups and lobbies. He disagrees with the third and fourth assessment of the IPCC report on global climate change. He has stood peer review and is published. All the things you say are a requirement in order to be listened to he has done. After finding people and Dr. Spencer is not the only one. Your reply to this is 900 papers were published and not one disagreed. You moved the goal post; you changed your standard in order to exclude the people so your beliefs won’t be challenged. Until the last two reports there was little to disagree with. Notice the claim stops at the year 2003, which is because the review of the 2001 report started getting negative feedback in 2004. The 2007 report was so bad it did not even need years to dispute it. So sure the first two assessments were okay with few flaws worth noting so you had few people saying anything bad about it.

It is like making the claim that there is oxygen in the air. Everyone agrees. Later I make the claim that there is nitrogen in the air. Still people agree. Then I make the claim that because there is oxygen and nitrogen in the air and man is here man is the cause of nitrogen and oxygen in the air. Then I claim that because man is here and there is nitrogen and oxygen in the air and man burns oxygen to breathe there is going to be no oxygen for us to live. All of the statements are true to a point. By the time you sit and think of the third statement the fourth statement is published and people start to point out the mistakes in logic and science. Everyone agreed with the first two statements and maybe did not even pay close attention to the third statement so you must be come kind of nut to complain about these facts. It is not the facts that are in dispute it is the conclusions that are in dispute.

Artysim:
You never answered my question. When I asked what was your point you never cleared that up.



And each time I point to where this information has been published by accredited scientists, has gone through your standard of peer review, and you ignore it. Your attitude comes across to me as if you believe I am making this stuff up rather than looking at the facts. My views have not changed because I have a hobby of astrophysics and astronomy. Almost anything space related I eat the journals for breakfast. When I first read the 2007 IPCC report on global climate change I noticed a lot of things that were incorrect but figured since I am a layman I must be missing something. Then I did some digging and found I was not missing anything. They left out the Sun as even a contributing factor in our warming trend. They left out the warming and cooling cycles, that explain why we have gone from warm to cold to warm again. They failed to take into account simple things like the fact the planet is just a few million years out of a period of time when the planet was covered in ice two miles thick. They left out orbital mechanics that were a contributing factor in the Earth being so cold for half a billion years.

The report does show that CO2 is a precursor to global cooling but the people that reported on the report such as Vice president Gore who flipped the numbers around to show it as precursor to global warming.
No climatologist on the planet agrees with this. It is more than a consensus it is a verifiable fact that CO2 levels go up after we have gone through a warming period and is part of the cooling process. When CO2 goes up it means we have reached our peek heat and will start to cool down. Amazingly this has been verified again. The last ten years the Earth has been cooling. Even the IPCC has had to admit this. It is all part of a cycle that has not changed in thousands of years.

My concern is pollution not necessarily global warming. What happens to the clean air when China builds a thousand more coal plants and puts a billion cars on the road?

tee hee!

Well, I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I see it the other way around; this is no different than the misinformation campaign the tobacco industry launched to try and discredit the scientific evidence that smoking was bad for you. Eventually, despite all the money they threw at the issue, the truth prevailed, which I suspect will occur here as well. Back in the 80's and 90's, there was an overwhelming amount of information and scientific consensus that smoking can and does cause cancer. The tobacco industry fought back by conducting a massive disinformation campaign to make people think that scientists were still largely in disagreement.

Also, whenever a paper would be published that would link smoking to cancer, they would immediately have experts (on their payroll of course) state that the manner of collecting data was flawed.

What we see today is a reproduction of that same campaign. We have a multitude of 'think tank' groups that are politically and ideologically motivated to prove that climate change isn't caused by man. These are not skeptics, they are deniers, who will deny any information that goes against their ideological goals. In reality, most of the major scientific groups out there long ago linked our greenhouse gas emmissions to increased temperature. Long ago most major scientific groups did in fact reach a consensus- and no, consensus does not mean that 100% of everyone out there agrees. That happens rarely or never at all on most issues.

In reference to James Hansen? I was illustrating that members of NASA have been stating that global warming is real, and most likely caused by man for years now with very little notice from government until recently.

No, I'm not ignoring it. I've read the links you've provided. They question the validity of previous testing methods and pose alternate hypothesis as to why the planet may be warming, which is great. But they do not disprove the theory that our industrial emmissions are contributing to the issue!

And that's great. Tear the IPCC a new arsehole! I am confused that you keep bringing the IPCC into this, as I really couldn't care less about their reports. What I do care about is that the greater scientific community at large still believes that our emmissions are contributing to global warming. This can be found from a quick visit to most major groups, the U.S geological survey, the APS, hell google can get you all the links you need if you're willing to spend more than a few minutes on all the folks who have signed on.

I'm not going to defend the IPCC report, but just as an aside it does make sense that they wouldn't mention everything that you've stated... because in order to do that, they would have to produce a paper all encompassing about our entire climate, ecosystem, and solar system, replete with references to valid experiments by accredited individuals in all of those areas. In order to produce the kind of report you seek, we would have to dedicate years to research with assets and technology that quite frankly our civilization doesn't possess, with an army of scientists devoted to nothing else. And even if they did produce such a report, due to the very nature of an "all encompassing" report there would undoubtedly remain many areas that could still be questionned, and rightfully so.  For the IPCC report to include everything that you seek and how it all inter-relates definitely wouldn't be available on a yearly basis, but yet the organization must produce a yearly report. So, they can only publish material that they can back up with referenced experiments that have undergone peer review etc. Sure, they might be able to raise questions about solar effects, but as a recognized international organization they have to be able to back up anything that they say!

What about the thousands of nukes set off in our atmosphere in the 50's and 60's? What about the amount of plankton in the ocean and deforestation which are huge carbon sinks, how do they equate into the picture? The truth is that there are a million different possible permutations we can think of and ask, and absolutely we need to explore these areas using the scientific method! However, we also have to go with what we know using current science, most of which supports the theory that the 85 million barrels of oil and thousands of tonnes of coal we burn everyday, will indeed contribute to greenhouse gas levels considerably and cause a noticeable impact on our climate through accelerated warming!

 

Not much, most pollution is kept local so very little of it will reach outsied of China.

As is mine. I think we need to (and some countries are making great strides in that area) look at polution as the problem, as that affects our health. TO see the contortions China is going through this summer is to laugh - and they are exempt from any of the Kyoto limits! The GW crowd does not care about people, just their religion.

Back in the 60’s it was known that smoking can cause cancer. It is not the cause it is a contributing factor. This is why it is so difficult to blame the cigarette companies for defending their product. If smoking were the cause of cancer then everyone that smoked would get cancer. This is not true and has not happened. It took 30 years just to get doctors to stop smoking. My girlfriend is an ICU nurse and I see the doctors standing outside the hospital building smoking as late as yesterday. It is a personal choice not like global warming where people are told they have no choice. There is no pollution industry to fight the information that is coming out. No one is running around trying to discredit the reports in order to support big pollution. What we have are scientists that disagree with each other. One side says man is the problem but has no proof, the other side says we don’t see any proof that man is the cause but we do have proof that the Sun is the cause. Give us proof and we will see where it leads.



This is where I point again that you don’t get what I am pointing out to you. The IPCC report on climate change states that man’s contribution to global warming amounts to .05 of one degree over 100 years. You point to livescience.com as a place of credibility so I dug up a report from January on that same site that says the actual data conflicted with the models. In stead of 1.4 degree rise in temp they were only able to document a .4 degree rise in temp. Are you now going to tell me that the source for your information has been corrupted by politics? Somehow big oil slipped that one past peer review got it published and then reported on your website? The “deniers” as you call them point out that the methods of arriving at this huge number is flawed. Having read the report I came to the conclusion that I can live with .05 of a degree over the next hundred years as an average spread out over the entire planet. And if it is as flawed as the skeptics say it is then we are talking about .00021 of a degree over 100 years. Either way the amount is negligible. It does not matter who is right here because if we live that long we will not feel the difference either way.



In reference to Dr. Roy Spencer, he was a scientist at NASA, he disagrees with Dr. Hansen, I don’t know about Dr. Hansen but I do know that Dr. Spencer just finished testifying in front of the U.S. Senate yesterday when they wanted to know about global climate change. The worse thing anyone said about him that day was that he is the official climatologist for Rush Limbaugh. Since leaving NASA he is a full professor in some dinky little collage or university. His published papers have passed peer review, and he is highly respected in his community, and has not taken any money from big oil but has taken money from environmental groups. He has no political axe to grind that I or his opponents have been able to find. So you have two accredited scientists with different opinions of the same set of facts. I have not seen Dr. Hansen’s published work so I can’t comment on it. Care to tell me where I might find it?



So if the methods of arriving at a conclusion are flawed would that not mean that the conclusion was flawed?

Here is an old joke they told in class when discussing scientific observation.

A scientist took a frog and set it on the table and yelled jump. The frog jumped. He picks up the frog cuts off its right front leg, and then sets it on the table again. Jump he yells. The frog jumps. He cuts off the left front leg and repeats the process. Taking copious notes as he goes. The frog still jumped so he cuts off the left hind leg and yells jump. The frog jumps. He cuts off the right hind leg and yells jump. The frog does not move. Based on scientific observation the scientist concluded that if you cut off the right hind leg the frog goes deaf. The point my professor was trying to make was that you can have all the facts but still come to the wrong conclusion.

In the case of global climate change you have a field of study that is flawed to begin with. No climatologist can accurately predict the weather more than three or four days in advance. To prove this watch your local news every day for seven days and write down the forecast for each day. Look at was predicted five six and seven days out and watch how that changes each day. Now you want to try to predict the weather conditions for the entire planet 100 years from now. If you read the IPCC report you will find they have a bunch of models and eight to ten scenarios for each model for each prediction. With that they take what they think is most likely to be accurate and write their report based on that.

Now I have shown you from livescience that people working purely on a scientific mode have found that the models were off by a full degree. This is independent confirmation the “deniers” were correct when they said the models are flawed. You ignored this information. All of what I posted on the flaw was based on published work that had passed peer review because that was your standard of proof. Or it was until the work you support was disproven then it did not matter that it was done by accredited scientists under peer review. It does not matter that authors of the report support global warming and published a finding of fact that contradicts their view. (As a scientist is supposed to do)

With proof of flawed data, models, and conclusions the work is invalid by scientific standards. The theory may still be valid but that body of work is not. I have read theories that I dismiss like the flat Earth society that publishes a bunch of papers each year, all subject to peer review. And if you will just discount math, physics, hydrodynamics, astrophysics, geometry and gravity then most of those theories have merit. There is a consensus among the flat earth community of scientists that the earth is flat.

To accept the IPCC’s fourth report you have to ignore little things like astrophysics, thermal dynamics, gravity, orbital mechanics, and the heat from the Sun and its effect on the Earth. Every single one of those things is part of our climate. Not to mention meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and the list goes on. In the IPCC report only volcanoes are listed as a contributing factor, but excluded super volcanoes. Just so you know the last time a super volcano erupted man’s population dropped from tens of millions down to under 10 thousand. Earth is due for two such eruptions within the next 10 thousand years and we are about 300 years over due for one in America. All of this has to be ignored in order to make man made global climate change work.

May I suggest to you that you forget the politicians that are pushing global warming and look at the facts yourself? Read the reports and challenge them, sort of like your own peer review. Tell me how .05th of a degree spread out over 100 years is going to make a difference one way or the other. Learn the solar systems orbital mechanics and tell me how can one predict a weather system on a planet that takes 250 million years to complete one circle of the galaxy? Tell me how a science that is less than 40 years old is going to accurately predict the weather 100 years from now? they don’t even have 25 years of accurate data and they will freely admit that they can’t really predict the weather past four days with any certainty but you want to trust them to predict the weather conditions 100 years from now. I can do that! In the spring it will be warm, in the summer it will be hot, in the winter it will be cold and in the fall it will be cool.

While you are doing this peer review try this brain teaser.
The earth spins a little faster than a thousand miles an hour. Man uses a 24 hour clock. The extra minutes we discard each year adds up to about a day every four years. This means that every 100 years we add 25 days this will mean that our summers come late by 25 days could this be the reason why the summers are not as hot and the winters don’t get cold till almost spring?


This is the reason I keep bringing it up. All your scientists that claim that the emissions from man are such a hazard have at their root the IPCC report on global warming. Every link you have provided quotes or links to that report you don’t like as proof of their claim including Dr. Hansen. Yes, I went to his website and read his work. Most of it is his hatred of coal produced CO2, he makes a good argument but it is undercut by his reliance on the IPCC report that we all, including you, agree is worthless.