That was a great article about welfare and religion. Its rare that someone in the media has the balls to point out that when the researcher has an agenda, they can manipulate the numbers to 'prove' their hypothesis.

Now if they would hold this whole 'Man-Made Global Warming' theory up to the same kind of scrutiny...

Now if they would hold this whole 'Man-Made Global Warming' theory up to the same kind of scrutiny...

Eh? Is that a joke?

From the actual facts I've seen, the consensus within the scientific community is currently that climate change is definitely occurring, and that humans are having a significant effect. The only real arguments about man-made global warming are taking place on a political level, not on a scientific level.

That is not to say that there is absolute certainty that the scientists (thousands of them, all over the world) will ultimately be seen as correct. The point is just that these scientists are probably our most reliable authority, and that we should probably err on the side of our best evidence to date, and not on "what-if". Sure, the scientific community has been wrong about the climate in the past, but there is no other group (conspiracy theories aside) with better methods or more credibility.

Note that the assertions above are taken from many thirdhand sources that claim to be authoritative. If you have any definitive information to the effect that a significant part of the scientific community is not in consensus regarding man-made climate change, please provide it. I have seen many small groups of scientists disagree, but the community at large is generally seen to believe climate change is man-made.

Here is a little proof that there are plenty of prominent climate scientists that don't buy the man-made part: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml

If you are at all interested in why they think the earth is warming check these links: http://dpa.aapg.org/correlator/2006/globalwarming.cfm http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

and finally if you want to know why so many people want man-made global warming to be a reality, check this: http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&newsheadline=globalwarmingisliesclaimsdocumentary

I have no problem with people wanting to devise ways to redistribute wealth around the world but to hide them behind fake 'save the planet' campaigns that scare children and divert attention from real pollution problems is despicable.

Test - Am I blocked?

If you post something with more than two links it gets sent to the junk folder. Have you read the commenting policy? Blocked, no. Blockhead, the jury is still out. :+)

Sorry Norm :-(

Syngas, you have not proven that plenty of prominent climate scientists that don't buy the man-made part. Your reference source is out of date and has been refuted throughly. < <

Your reference for this point on 1 May 2005 refers to the work by Benny Peiser, an anthropologist not a scientist, who "frequently cites a study performed by Dennis Bray which and claims “a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes.”1,2,3 However, further analysis shows that was an anonymous online survey that had no way of confirming who or even what was filling out the questions...

...In 2004 Naomi Oreskes published a study claiming that not a single peer-review journal containing the words "global climate change" from 1993 to 2003 disagreed with the consensus. Benny Peiser retaliated by performing a study of his own. A study which the peer review journals Science and Nature refused to publish. He had read 1,247 peer-review journals/abstracts on climate change and claimed that there were 34 that refuted climate change. After being rejected, Peiser complained to the press. He said there was a conspiracy against his work because he was a global warming skeptic. When Tim Lambert and William M. Connolley reviewed the 34 abstracts Peiser provided, they found the following results...

A quick look at Connolley's results shows that Peiser's study is seriouly flawed. Only one of the papers disagreed with the consensus and it wasn't even peer reviewed. Therefore Benny found ZERO peer-reviewed papers that disagreed with the scientific concensus. Several of the abstracts (#34) dealt with carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration has only one purpose which is to fight global warming. So how Benny Peiser came to the conclusion that a paper on carbon sequestration refutes global warming is a bit of a mystery. Benny Peiser's work has been refuted on numerous other sites as well.1,

William Connolley and many others debunked Peiser's study on May 6th, 2005 and Peiser admitted his mistakes on March 19, 2006. Despite his study being refuted by numerous people, Peiser continues to use his discredited study to say a scientific consensus regarding climate change doesn't exist..." < <

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html

Here's Benny Peiser's attempt to defend himself:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

=========

Syngas, I have to disagree with you on another point. I find that the people who disagree with man-made global warming are the ones with the hidden agenda i.e. often a fat check from the oil industry. < <

Syngas, I'm sorry if you think I'm nitpicking. With your background in statistics, I assume your focus is on the figures.

With my background in research and analysis, my concern is on the questions, assumptions and premises that is used to construct a method of analysis. I always see a need to know a personal's backgound, motivations and biases before I let myself buy his argument.

The How (of what a man does) is always a derivative of The Why (he is who he is).

==========

Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL and ANDREW C. REVKIN http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

PARIS, Feb. 2 — In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

They said the world was in for centuries of climbing temperatures, rising seas and shifting weather patterns — unavoidable results of the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

But their report, released here on Friday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said warming and its harmful consequences could be substantially blunted by prompt action.

While the report provided scant new evidence of a climate apocalypse now, and while it expressly avoided recommending courses of action, officials from the United Nations agencies that created the panel in 1988 said it spoke of the urgent need to limit looming and momentous risks.

“In our daily lives we all respond urgently to dangers that are much less likely than climate change to affect the future of our children,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, which administers the panel along with the World Meteorological Organization.

“Feb. 2 will be remembered as the date when uncertainty was removed as to whether humans had anything to do with climate change on this planet,” he went on. “The evidence is on the table.”

The report is the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century.

In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, said the confidence level for its projections was “likely,” or 66 to 90 percent. That level has now been raised to “very likely,” better than 90 percent. Both reports are online at www.ipcc.ch.

Live in fear if you want to Kes. I doubt anything I can do will change your mind. WE'RE ALL GONNA DROWN or BURN or SOME TERRIBLE THING UNLESS WE RENOUNCE CAPITALISM!!!!

Syngas, fear is nothing more than an acknowledgement of unpleasant truth or reality.

Without acknowledging the problems of life, we will simply let them careen out of control. Each of us has a small prt to paly to prevent this. Have you done yours? I've done mine. I don't drive at all and I rely on electricty-driven public transport and I habe helped raise funds for "Green" initiatives.

Facing the facts and reality and doing something about it is courage.

I refuse to let anyone pull the wool over my eyes because I know I can handle the truth and the facts.

This is how I defined maturity.

Anything else is escapism.

"Keep dreaming" is not the way I want to lead this life.

BTw, I practise conservative traditional values to a degree that I doubt most conservatives practise in US.

And I've always voted for a conservative party about conservative values, small government with an emphasis on fiscal discipline

Hi Syngas, again I must highlight that I bear no ill will against you.

It's just that I believed that everyone has the freedom to choose and act based on their convictions and beliefs.

My only caveat is that they based their thinking on a grasp of the real facts of the matter and engage primary resources for their understanding, rather than waiting for people to spoonfeed them.

With the right information as a basis, no figures and analaysis will ever be correct.

http://www.kansasenergy.org/documents/GerhardClimateChange.pdf

I know I already linked you to this (within another link) but just in case you missed it, you should check it out.

Don't get me wrong Kes, I'm all for conserving resources, protecting natural habitats, restoring ecosystems etc... These are all important issues that are perfectly capable of standing on their own.

I don't know all the reasons for warming and cooling cycles but it looks clear to me that they are just that - cycles.

I did build a solar domestic hot water system - mostly because I like a challenge ;-}

Hi Syngas, your link does not work.

Btw, the science behind human actions in causing global warming has been established.

The issue here is whether we are precipating a man-made cycle in climate changes all overthe world.

I live in a part of Asia where every year the people of a neighbouring country burn vast expenses of their forests for subsistence agriculture.

This creates a haze or smog which is hard to breathe in.

And by trapping heat, this smog also makes it uncomfortably hot for my people to live in.

This is a man-made cyle at work.

Warm Winters Upset Rhythms of Maple Sugar. 3 March 07

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/03maple.html?th&emc=th

... Warmer-than-usual winters are throwing things out of kilter, causing confusion among maple syrup producers, called sugar makers, and stoking fears for the survival of New England’s maple forests.

...For at least 10 years some farmers have been starting sooner. But last year Mr. Morse tapped his trees in February and still missed out on so much sap that instead of producing his usual 1,000 gallons of syrup, he made only 700.

“You might be tempted to say, well that’s a bunch of baloney — global warming,” said Mr. Morse, drilling his first tap holes this season in mid-February, as snow hugged the maples and Vermont braced for a record snowfall. “But the way I feel, we get too much warm. How many winters are we going to go with Decembers turning into short-sleeve weather, before the maple trees say, ‘I don’t like it here any more?’ ”

There is no way to know for certain, but scientists are increasingly persuaded that human-caused global warming is changing climate conditions that affect sugaring.

While some farmers and other Vermonters suggest the recent warm years could be just a cyclical hiccup of nature or the result of El Niño, many maple researchers now say it seems more like a long-term trend. Since 1971, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased by 2.8 degrees..."

I don't know why I can't post the direct link but with some effort, you'll find it here: http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/index.htm

I didn't say global warming wasn't happening, I just don't think we are causing it. Clearly you do. So do most of the scientists that depend on politicians for their funding. I get it.

I'll be away from the computer for the next couple days. I think we've beat this horse to death but if you insist, I'll indulge you when I return.

Later!

Hi Syngas, I do think we can stop here. I'll take a look at your link and we can debate this topic on a relevant thread next time.

Btw, many if not, most, of the scientists who are contesting the fact that humans cause or are worsening global warming are paid by politicians from the oil lobby or the oil industry itself.

Hi Syngas, no offenese but you do know that your link against human induced global warming showcases the work of a geologist from the oil industry?

"Dr. Lee C. Gerhard is currently principal geologyist of the Kansas Geological Survey. His career has included petroleum exploration, reservoir geology, and research management. His research has been dominated by carbonate studies, petroleum occurence, and environment and resources public policy. Prior to returning to Kansas, he was Getty Professor of Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines and operated an independent petroleum exploration company. Lee is an Honory Member of the AAPG."

http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/4/466

Dr Gerhad is known for penning letters about his claims, rather than an actual peer-reviewed work.

Such tactics are not new for climate skeptics.

'Oregon Petition'

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

Leipzig declarations

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

The most credible way is still to go to the recognised journals that publish on climate science, by climatologists, with the inbuilt process of public exposure of results and criticism by peers. < <

After all, just take a look of the background of the Oregon Petition.

The Oregon Petition was sponsored by the OSIM, a 6-man operation on a farm.

Funny thing is that in its IRS Form 990 for 1999, OISM reported revenues totalling $355,224, most of in the form of contributions from unspecified sources. As president, Arthur Robinson received $16,691 in salary and benefits. Robinson is also the only paid memeber of the staff.

... Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet...

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. ... worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=OregonInstituteofScienceand_Medicine

Hi Syngas, I'll stop here.

We can debate this topic on a relevant thread next time.

Btw, many if not, most, of the scientists who are contesting the fact that humans cause or are worsening global warming are paid by politicians from the oil lobby or the oil industry itself.

So let's not use anyone's research if they are from the Green Lobby or the oil industry or right waing group, shall we?

See you at another thread.

I didn't say global warming wasn't happening, I just don't think we are causing it. Clearly you do. So do most of the scientists that depend on politicians for their funding. I get it.

I've worked at a conservative think tank that funds global warming skepticism, and I know very well that there is plenty of money available if you want to be a global warming denialist. There are people out there who argue that themometers in Siberia are faulty, that cosmic rays cause global warming, etc. etc. who are well funded and get their books published by the Cato Institute and become pretty big stars in DC. Unfortunately they don't publish their findings in respected scientific journals, and it's a good question why that is.

I'm not a climatologist, so if someone made an argument to me that global warming is not man-made, then I don't really know anything that could refute it scientifically. But the idea that the major scientific journals in Europe and the U.S. have some kind of ideological bias against global warming skeptics is really ridiculous. If real scientists make that kind of claim publicly, then they are cutting themselves loose from their discipline and turning to the media and public opinion to decide scientific matters, which is irresponsible to say the least. If global warming skeptics can't get published, it's almost certainly because it's bad or unoriginal science, not because there is some massive global conspiracy against skeptics. On the other hand, if you are a die hard skeptic who believes that liberal claims can only be established by subterfuge, then of course a global scientific conspiracy makes perfect sense, and no other conclusion seems possible, whether or not you know anything about climatology at all.

The next time I get an article rejected by a peer-reviewed journal in my field, I'm sure I could run to the conservative or liberal press and claim that I was rejected because of some ideological dogma at work. It would really show how little respect I have for my discipline if I did that, and it would really say a lot about the people who immediately believed my claims of bias, without knowing anything about the principles and standards of my academic discipline.

Live in fear if you want to Kes. I doubt anything I can do will change your mind. WE'RE ALL GONNA DROWN or BURN or SOME TERRIBLE THING UNLESS WE RENOUNCE CAPITALISM!!!!

What exactly is the connection that you imply between capitalism and global warming?

Are you talking about the pentagon report?

Here

"So let's not use anyone's research if they are from the Green Lobby or the oil industry or right waing group, shall we?"

That is a great thing for all of us to strive for Kes but for every source we find, there will always be a political organization on one side or the other that will throw mud at it (Center for Media and Democracy is one of them). I know you don't live here but I have studied at the Colorado School of Mines (co-op program - I'm not that smart) and even partied there (too much). CSM is one of the most respected science and engineering schools in the world and hardly the right wing institution Sourcewatch (CMD) would have you believe.

Lots of geologists work to find sources of fuel in the earth. Other than working for the politician controlled governments (who would love to have more power over the masses), there aren't many jobs out there for geologists. I don't feel this should discredit them.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion Dande and Dar. I mean no disrespect by not addressing your points. I'm just tired of this discussion.

No response needed, I have a pretty good idea where you are getting your information.

Wrong Dar,

Comedians are not sources of information.

Please disregard my last post. What I meant to say say:

How did you know!?!?!

Are you okay Kes?

Syngas, I understand your problem but you can rely on UN sources or even from sources like the Pentagon, which have no vested interest in proving or disaproving global warming.

For example, I used to rebut jonathan's claim that I was anti-semite by deliberately using Jewish sources, Israeli historians and UN sources to make my case against Israel.

It's not difficult to find a credible source.

My advice to you is to do a background check before you use any source that falls into your lap.

You don't think the diplomats from less-than-superpower countries at the UN get erections when they fantasize about Kyoto style schemes? I think Kyoto is a second step towards a one world government.

Was your area hit by the earthquakes?

It's been hit or near hit by the tsunamis, a minor earthquakes or 2, global warming and freakish heat waves for the last few years.

Hi syngas, my part of the country was not hit by the earthquake. Some other parts did much worse.

Lucked out : P