Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[Ben Tokin]

I have always advocated a free market tech solution and decried additional taxation.

Global warming due to CO2 emission was calculated long before there was any powerful oil industry. It is as pure a science and as pre-agenda as it gets. Corporations and Governments may seek to make nefarious use of the very real situation, but we can prevent them by beating them to the punch. An educated public, and innovators who see the potential of the inevitable energy paradigm shift can fill the gap and rob the plotters of their spoils.

The solution is not to deny the problem... it is to 'out science' them, and solve it without them.

Well, now that we have that cleared up I can agree with you on most everything else.

I agree that progress MUST BE and IS BEING made to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants in the air and waters.

Clearing the air (pun intended) on the tax issues resolves the major differences between political ideologies. I could care less about politics as long as people make the correct decisions.

Increasing living expenses for those that can least afford it makes no sense at all, especially when the only beneficiaries are wealthy weasels and politicians with their hand out.

 

[CLOWD11]

Global cooling is complete rubbish.
2010 IS noted as being in the top three hottest years on record.
Just because there are more severe winters, doesnt mean your summer will be cooler than average. With the rising acidity, ocean temps and melting ice caps, you can expect....climate change. The oceans conveyor belts that deliver warm or cool currents that we rely on for consistancy is changing before our eyes. I expect to see the "slushy effect" for some time yet as surface temps increase the melting effect on our thermostats. (ice caps)
There is no evidence that sun activety is directly related to our rising world temps that ive seen, in fact the tests done on light measurements in the US immediately after 911 shows if our skys were clear of polution, we would be suffering bigtime from increased temps due to greater strenght of sun rays at ground level. Global dimming may very well be masking the true nature of our warming planet.

 

[Ben Tokin]

There are many variables that dictate climate, the solar cycle being a major one. The planet Earth is running out of energy and has been cooling for hundreds of millions of years. This is not disputable, just a fact. Short term increases and decreases of global temperatures have always occurred.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

...

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

I agree with your views on a free market approach H3ad. I just tend to see way more monopolies than free markets and that has to change.

I still see much more pressing issues, especially the contamination of ground water/oceans by radioactive materials, heavy metals and chemicals like corexit. Hopefully we can come up with safe and efficient methods of 'scrubbing' the dirty shit.

I believe there are advancements in the nuclear field.

 

[DiiZZii3]

yea didn't read the whole article but think i get the idea. Remember when half of the us was covered in glaciers, then all that shit melted and that was before people were around. I personally need more hard facts before im gunna buy into this global warming propaganda. Also where i live a little global warming couldn't hurt. Hopefully would extend the season a bit, so no more frosts on sept 12!!!

 

[grapeman]

...



To the above, I'd like to add the people who died in the forest fires in Russia and starved because the drought ruined the crops.


-----------------------

My points stand in spite of your longwinded drivel.

Governments obviously spend tax money... did you expect it to be hoarded?
Did I ever endorse any tax?

How would Extracting greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere and converting them into gasoline and diesel require infrastructure change? How would plug and play grid compatible solar power systems require new infrastructure? How is is a mistake to look to a properly educated free market for workable solutions?

Sell your propaganda to someone else. You're the only one loosing credibility.

Anyhow... despite the tree ring proxies being perfectly credible as evidence... that is but one piece in the jigsaw puzzle, and in no way foundational to any house of cards. Throw them out completely... there is MORE than enough evidence without them considered at all.

For your critical thinking to be worth fuck all, you have to have all the information.


Funny thing... before I learned everything I have learned... I too was a climate skeptic.

Yeah - the forest fire was due to warming. BS. Your plug and play grid doesn't exist, and probably never will. You can buy into this BS under the guise that you are smarter then the average guy, or that you did some research, but in reality, your points are backed up by prayer and hope and nothing else.

You did not address my point that the tree ring data was flawed at best, and skewed to a wanted outcome at worse. The quote I supplied in my last post about the fallacy of the tree ring data was from "Environment" Magazine. Yet you, all on your own, in your ultimate wisdom claim that data "perfectly acceptable. LOL Bullshit.

And you claim that I am losing credibility because I am grounded in reality and never did buy into the hope and dream shit like yourself.

I have been nose to nose with power company officials who were in my area looking for tracts of land to build their solar plants on and they laugh at your dream. I am a real estate broker also with knowledge of land due to my farming background. They are lining up for the government money and nothing else. And your smart grid dream is just that. A dream. It ain't gonna happen in our lifetime. It can't. These power company officials explained all this to me. If you indeed did any research at all, you would know that the problem of distributing power over the grid using non dependable supplies of electricity is so inefficient that the problem cannot be overcome with today's technology. Couple that with the depreciation schedules of infrastructure from SCE, or PGE or any other utility company and maybe you would understand.

Why do you think GE is blowing obama every chance they get (via GE, NBC & MSNBC, their subsidiaries)? They want to be in line to get billions to try to develop something that does not exist.

Your knowledge of green energy is nothing more then your hope and dreams backed by nothing.

And in typical fashion for a progressive, when I point out some hard facts that counter your fancies, you accuse me of becoming political in a "GLOBAL COOLING THREAD".

Progressive just lie with no repercussions. Point in fact was the alarm over your colleagues with their mis-information, who just after Katrina, told us global warming was the culprit and we were to expect 10 to 15 hurricanes hitting the US coast the following year and for years thereafter.

Where is your explanation as to why this has never come to pass?

And where is your answer to the FACT that if we did warm globally by a degree or 2, crops will be more abundant then today? You didn't answer that either. Do I need to google that for you also. Because it is true and all you have to do is look for the answers somewhere other then the IPCC and their propaganda machine.

And no response to why the Antarctic is still growing and NOT shrinking. this is fact that cannot be overcome by a progressive who only reads the UN's version of life. Facts are facts.

And no response to Hal Lewis' letter I posted up for you to read? You know wherein one of our nations top physicist laid out the corruption in the non-science that is global warming. No answer to that either.

If you want to believe in the fantasy that is man made global warming go ahead. Just don't try to peddle that shit here and expect to get a pass when you have no proof or answers for any of the garbage you spout.

Next you'll be calling me a racist just to try to discredit me since your arguments don't hold water but are dreamingly attractive to the kindergarten crowd that "just want to get along" and ban war and have peace on earth and still are waiting for the hope and change.

Phfft. I feel sorry for your kids.

So tell me again as to why we are not experiencing global cooling. Then tell your progressive buddies who are just finishing their "global warming" meeting in Cancun Mexico today, who have just lived through 4 out of 5 RECORD low temperature days in Cancun during their bullshit conference. Hmmm. Just like Copenhagen last year. LOL

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

To reiterate:

The Big Picture

Oftentimes we get bogged down discussing one of the many pieces of evidence behind man-made global warming, and in the process we can't see the forest for the trees. It's important to every so often take a step back and see how all of those trees comprise the forest as a whole. Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence, so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture.

The Earth is warming
We know the planet is warming from surface temperature stations and satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere. We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans. Satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets are all receding. Sea levels are rising. Spring is arriving sooner each year. There's simply no doubt - the planet is warming.

And yes, the warming is continuing. The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s, which were hotter than the 1980s, which were hotter than the 1970s. 2010 is on pace to be at least in the top 4 hottest calendar years on record. In fact, the 12-month running average global temperature broke the record 3 times in 2010, according to NASA GISS data. Sea levels are still rising, ice is still receding, spring is still coming earlier, there's still a planetary energy imbalance, etc. etc. Contrary to what some would like us to believe, the planet has not magically stopped warming.

Humans are causing this warming
There is overwhelming evidence that humans are the dominant cause of this warming, mainly due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Based on fundamental physics and math, we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing, and verify that we're responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades. In fact we expect human greenhouse gas emissions to cause more warming than we've thus far seen, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans (the time it takes to heat them). Human aerosol emissions are also offsetting a significant amount of the warming by causing global dimming.

There are numerous 'fingerprints' which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i.e. more warming at night, at higher latitudes, upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed. Climate models have projected the ensuing global warming to a high level of accuracy, verifying that we have a good understanding of the fundamental physics behind climate change.

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries.

The warming will continue
We also know that if we continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, the planet will continue to warm. We know that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv (we're currently at 390 ppmv) will cause 2–4.5°C of warming. And we're headed for 560 ppmv in the mid-to-late 21st century if we continue business-as-usual emissions.

The net result will be bad
There will be some positive results of this continued warming. For example, an open Northwest Passage, enhanced growth for some plants and improved agriculture at high latitudes (though this will require use of more fertilizers), etc. However, the negatives will almost certainly outweigh the positives, by a long shot. We're talking decreased biodiversity, water shortages, increasing heat waves (both in frequency and intensity), decreased crop yields due to these impacts, damage to infrastructure, displacement of millions of people, etc.

Arguments to the contrary are superficial
One thing I've found in reading skeptic criticisms of climate science is that they're consistently superficial. For example, the criticisms of James Hansen's 1988 global warming projections never go beyond "he was wrong", when in reality it's important to evaluate what caused the discrepancy between his projections and actual climate changes, and what we can learn from this. And those who argue that "it's the Sun" fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate, and that they cannot explain the current global warming trend. And those who argue "it's just a natural cycle" can never seem to identify exactly which natural cycle can explain the current warming, nor can they explain how our understanding of the fundamental climate physics is wrong.

There are legitimate unresolved questions
Much ado is made out of the expression "the science is settled." My personal opinion is that the science is settled in terms of knowing that the planet is warming dangerously rapidly, and that humans are the dominant cause.

There are certainly unresolved issues. There's a big difference between a 2°C and a 4.5°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and it's an important question to resolve, because we need to know how fast the planet will warm in order to know how fast we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. There are significant uncertainties in some feedbacks which play into this question. For example, will clouds act as a net positive feedback (by trapping more heat, causing more warming) or negative feedback (by reflecting more sunlight, causing a cooling effect) as the planet continues to warm?

These are the sorts of questions we should be debating, and the issues that most climate scientists are investigating. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population which is determined to continue arguing the resolved questions for which the science has already been settled. And when climate scientists are forced to respond to the constant propagation of misinformation on these settled issues, it just detracts from our investigation of the legitimate, unresolved, important questions.

The Big Picture
The big picture is that we know the planet is warming, humans are causing it, there is a substantial risk to continuing on our current path, but we don't know exactly how large the risk is. However, uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the risk is not an excuse to ignore it. We also know that if we continue on a business-as-usual path, the risk of catastrophic consequences is very high. In fact, the larger the uncertainty, the greater the potential for the exceptionally high risk scenario to become reality. We need to continue to decrease the uncertainty, but it's also critical to acknowledge what we know and what questions have been resolved, and that taking no action is not an option.

Grapeman... more of your long winded unsubstantiated drivel? really? pffft.

Russian heatwave kills 5,000 as fires rage out of control
Russia's devastating summer heatwave has cost almost 5,000 lives, according to officials who conceded yesterday that the state was struggling to gain control over the worst wildfires in decades.

 

[Nor'Easter]

Global cooling is complete rubbish.
2010 IS noted as being in the top three hottest years on record.
Just because there are more severe winters, doesnt mean your summer will be cooler than average. With the rising acidity, ocean temps and melting ice caps, you can expect....climate change. The oceans conveyor belts that deliver warm or cool currents that we rely on for consistancy is changing before our eyes. I expect to see the "slushy effect" for some time yet as surface temps increase the melting effect on our thermostats. (ice caps)
There is no evidence that sun activety is directly related to our rising world temps that ive seen, in fact the tests done on light measurements in the US immediately after 911 shows if our skys were clear of polution, we would be suffering bigtime from increased temps due to greater strenght of sun rays at ground level. Global dimming may very well be masking the true nature of our warming planet.

Global cooling is complete rubbish, yes I should have just said that! Thanks man!

 

[forty]

some people seem to have a lot of time on their hands and are damn good at cut'n n paste'n... those pasted bits are irrefutable facts btw

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

some people seem to have a lot of time on their hands and are damn good at cut'n n paste'n... those pasted bits are irrefutable facts btw

Those pasted bits contain irrefutable and verifiable evidence, don't get it twisted.
If they do not contain irrefutable and verifiable evidence... refute said evidence.
If you cannot refute said evidence, any comments railing against it are comedic in their impotence.

Maybe that's that point of the clown.

 

[ibjamming]

I don't think much of anything about that, except that lawsuits aren't going to be the answer in the long run...

As for always following the money, yeah it helps sometimes to see the influences involved and better judge the motivations. But other times a myopic concentration on politics and money can be a red herring.

ALWAYS follow the money sister...NOTHING is free! When's the last time you and a dozen of your buddies with PhD's worked a few years for free? MONEY pays for your precious research...MONEY. And that money expects results...the results THEY were after. Don't give it to them...you won't get asked again. Getting research money is as bad as politicians getting campaign contributions...that's what they spend most of their time/effort doing. You don't bite the hand that feeds you...you don't even look at it funny.

I could prove a global conspiracy to demonise and destroy a plant called marijuana. Indeed many esteemed leaders in the field of science, law and politics have come together to warn us of this dire threat to humanity... but then i am a nutter and a pot head.



Edit: Still waiting for the c02 fear mongers (greatest threat to humanity yadda blah blah) to tackle my top 10 or my take on the oil companies profiting the most from cap and trade/carbon tax...

They don't believe them about the Cannabis...but they believe everything else they say...??? Makes you wonder huh? These guys LIE to you about this and that...you KNOW it's true...then WHY listen to ANYTHING they say? Scientists tell you Cannabis is bad. So, scientists DO sometimes lie. So, take EVERYTHING they say as suspect...but you don't...you swallow it hook line and sinker.

Look SilverSurfer, I have nothing personal against you or your views, but you're terribly mistaken in your representation of this issue.

1) This is the great stoner argument to justify all other conspiracy theories. Well what about marijuana prohibition? Governments and corporations have certainly conspired to maintain that injustice!

Yes, indeed. And how can we be so confident in our position of defending cannabis and exposing the injustice of prohibiting it, but that there is a wide consensus (separate from the politics) in the scientific and medical records that cannabis does not represent the threat to society nor to health that prohibition makes it.

This analogy does not transfer the way you would like to the current topic, because here also there is a wide consensus (separate from the politics) that a real climate problem does exist.



2) No one here is fear mongering. Both H3ad and I have stated repeatedly the flaw in your priority list and your political obsession with the carbon tax issue: the political/ethical question of how to prioritize problems and their solutions is independent of the question of the existence of any of these problems.

We know the atom exists because we discovered it and confirmed the data proving its existence. We did not, during the moments of its discovery, take a minute to ponder whether or not we should believe in its existence based on what people might do with this discovery in the future.

YOU say there is a "real threat"...NOT EVERYONE. God, you think you've got the ONLY valid argument, you take conjecture as FACT...because some "scientist" said so. Have you PERSONALLY vetted these people? Looked into their past? Associations? No, you haven't. You're taking the WORD of strangers as believing it as gospel. Gore invented the internet...he also say's there's a great danger from global warming...he lied the first time, why not again?

You "know" an atom exists...but what IS an atom made from? We can't see that. OK...the temperature IS warming...last few years anyway...so? There have been several ice ages and several warming periods...there will be again. We need to adapt to the actual CHANGES and not TRY to fight nature. See...there it is again, we ALWAYS get into trouble when we try to fight nature. Because it is VERY possible that this warming IS natural, that man has NOTHING to do with it...and we better get used to it. So, it's the same as the atom...you "know" it's there...but why? What caused it to be?

Thats right i am just a stoner

I have lots of experience in life with liars and cheats as i am sure do most people.

The 'stoner' conspiracy is one we all take for granted.

Human nature is conspiratorial from the playground to the ceo's office and beyond.

Reality vs propaganda is a constant struggle.

I have picked my side because i see flaws all over the IPCC's.

This is nothing personal.

There is ONLY propaganda...EVERYONE spins for their benefit... We feed ourselves propaganda!

Typical progressive dribble. When I pointed out in my previous post the fallacy of using tree rings as a proxy for actual weather data, or the wiki leaks showing all of the climate change leaders discussing how they will split their booty, or how Hal Lewis, one of the most respected Physicists in the USA details how the M. Mann's and the IPCC's of the world are in in for the money and not the science, I get no fucking answer except the pet response that I'm stupid and they are smart.

LOL
Fucking childish sheep being led to nowhere.

Science is their God...their religion. Think about it...how they defend it tooth and nail...blind faith...it's classic religion.

Global cooling is complete rubbish.
2010 IS noted as being in the top three hottest years on record.
Just because there are more severe winters, doesnt mean your summer will be cooler than average. With the rising acidity, ocean temps and melting ice caps, you can expect....climate change. The oceans conveyor belts that deliver warm or cool currents that we rely on for consistancy is changing before our eyes. I expect to see the "slushy effect" for some time yet as surface temps increase the melting effect on our thermostats. (ice caps)
There is no evidence that sun activety is directly related to our rising world temps that ive seen, in fact the tests done on light measurements in the US immediately after 911 shows if our skys were clear of polution, we would be suffering bigtime from increased temps due to greater strenght of sun rays at ground level. Global dimming may very well be masking the true nature of our warming planet.

We broke a 100+ year record cold the other day and expect more records to fall this weekend. There are cycles within cycles. The jury WILL be out until enough time has passed...unfortunately, that's the way it is. Anything else is merely speculation. A MAJOR cooling period COULD have begun...we CAN'T know at this point in time...we CAN'T...and anyone telling you they KNOW...is delusional.

yea didn't read the whole article but think i get the idea. Remember when half of the us was covered in glaciers, then all that shit melted and that was before people were around. I personally need more hard facts before im gunna buy into this global warming propaganda. Also where i live a little global warming couldn't hurt. Hopefully would extend the season a bit, so no more frosts on sept 12!!!

Cycles...BIG cycles like ice ages...and smaller cycles. Planet orbit, perturbation, sun output, volcanic activity...ALL play a role in global temperature. In fact, ONE major eruption WOULD send the average global temperature back down a degree, maybe more.

It doesn't matter WHY...if it IS man made, it's probably too late to have much effect anyway...it's been 100 years in the making...I'd imagine it like a huge ship...hare to turn and impossible to stop quickly. If it IS warming...it's here...we need to deal with it as it becomes a problem...IF...it becomes a problem. Carbon taxing would be just another...let the "rich" pay for it...well this time...all the 1st and 2nd world is "rich". Are you ready for a bicycle?

some people seem to have a lot of time on their hands and are damn good at cut'n n paste'n... those pasted bits are irrefutable facts btw

Yup...Google search...a quick word search... Maybe why they don't know how anything "really" works. No deep understanding...just cursory tidbits and someone else's interpretation. Agenda...everyone's got one and it shows in their analysis!

Oh...and grapeman...be VERY careful...the truth get's you banned around here sometimes. Watch for the infamous baiting...if they can't get you legally (al la Wikileaks founder), they'll trick you into becoming something sinister...like a rapist or a bigot. Turn popular opinion against you...wag the dogish. Watch your back around here...

Love your thoughts!

 

[sac beh]

They don't believe them about the Cannabis...but they believe everything else they say...??? Makes you wonder huh? These guys LIE to you about this and that...you KNOW it's true...then WHY listen to ANYTHING they say? Scientists tell you Cannabis is bad. So, scientists DO sometimes lie. So, take EVERYTHING they say as suspect...but you don't...you swallow it hook line and sinker.

Wow, you can't even defend cannabis properly. Scientific consensus is on our side here, or maybe you don't want it legalized because you can't stand the thought of taking a position alongside science and reason? You're probably the only member on the whole site who thinks science doesn't support the benefits of cannabis. Good work.

 

[sac beh]

This is what worries me about these anti-science types. They're so obsessed with certain ideas (everything is about politics, money ruins everything, no one can be trusted, everyone is out to get you, etc.) that they can't tell their face from their ass, much less recognize reality even when it benefits their cause.

Their attack on science is based on a politicized definition of science, as if "science" were a department of the US government. So even though this guy over here who enjoys his right to smoke pot all day every day would be benefited by legalization, he's so blind in his hate for politics that he can't accept the scientific evidence that wholeheartedly supports his cause. And he spouts this rubbish about science being responsible for prohibition on a growing site where more moderate-minded folks are applying scientific understanding to grow the best herb, reap cannabis' medical benefit, and prove to the world that it should be legalized, and that the only asshats wanting to keep it prohibited are a few religious and political fanatics in the government and in the community who can't tell their faces from their asses and much less know what science means nor how to defend cannabis.

Read Granny's list lately? Oh, its 420 pages of science, peer-reviewed research from a variety of countries, so it doesn't count in your mind, right? Sorry bro, you needed to be called out because your political views, hate, and irrationality make you an enemy of the herb and a friend to the prohibitionists who agree with you that science doesn't support the benefits of marijuana.

 

[grapeman]

This is what worries me about these anti-science types.

I'll bet no one here, including you is uses more science in their daily life then me.

So that bullshit comment won't fly.

Paris today.

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53454820101209

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b8ad2b8687459883f70fc474ae068b49.51&show_article=1

Mid-West storm today.
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/42704/monster-storm-could-be-winters.asp

Still no comment about Hal Lewis' letter?

Oh! And the effect of a bit additional CO2?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/


See. Anyone can cut and paste. But it takes a bit of intelligence to wade through the facts.
Sadly, your intelligence is lacking.

 

[sac beh]

I'll bet no one here, including you is uses more science in their daily life then me.

If you're not of the belief that science doesn't support the benefits of cannabis and thus legalization, then my comments aren't directed at you. I was obviously responding to ibjamming who made the anti-science comments about cannabis.

As for your links, grapeman, you must not have read through the thread before responding, since the offering up of short-term anomaly weather events as proof of global cooling has been debunked many times from multiple angles in this thread.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

As for your links, grapeman, you must not have read through the thread before responding, since the offering up of short-term anomaly weather events as proof of global cooling has been debunked many times from multiple angles in this thread.

Anyone with a bit of intelligence who'd applied their critical thinking skills to wade thru the verifiable facts would already have known that. Anyone else's intelligence must be sadly lacking.

 

[igrowone]

who could have guessed years ago that climate would become so strongly debated by non-climatologists?
a climatologist today is guaranteed a crowd at party, for a while anyways
i will state for the record that i tend to believe the warming 'advocates', they have the balance of evidence
but does it matter in practice? probably not, as a species we aren't ready to deal with an issue of this scope
as a world issue, there is no way the action needed is going to happen
there may be some token carbon restriction measures, but way too little and too late
my guess is there will be some dramatic events in the next decade
there are large changes taking place in ice volume at the arctic, surface ice changes are noticeable, but what's happening underneath is the scary part
i'll say that we will be near an ice free arctic summer in 10 years or so
just my 2 cents, not a climatologist and guesses are free

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

How often have scientists and the consensus of the day been proven wrong?

Heres a nice article about the change in the Royal Society's stance on the matter.

Scientists Reject Royal Society’s Global Warming Position
Environment & Climate News > September 2010
Climate Change > Alarmism
Climate Change > Consensus
Climate Change > The Debate
Email a Friend
Written By: Thomas Cheplick
Published In: Environment & Climate News > September 2010
Publication date: 08/03/2010
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

The Royal Society of Great Britain, generally considered the nation’s most prestigious scientific society, has announced it will conduct a review of a previous public statement supporting the claims of global warming alarmists. The previous statement had declared the "debate on climate change is over" and the planet was becoming disastrously warmer due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. The Royal Society is reexamining its position after a growing number of member scientists expressed disagreement with the position of its leadership.

Discontent Was Predictable
Professor Bob Carter of the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at James Cook University in Australia finds the Royal Society's backtracking on global warming alarmism shocking.

"Of course, it shouldn’t be stunning" that the Society is reexamining its statement in light of serious scientific concerns about global warming alarmism, Carter said. "But in the unhappy circumstances that the Royal Society has got itself into, it is,” he added, noting politics has often trumped science in the global warming debate.

Carter noted Lord Robert May, president of the Society when its previous statement was issued, is one of the most vocal proponents of global warming alarmism. Now that May is no longer president of the Society, its leadership is listening more to the member scientists, who are much more skeptical of alarmist global warming claims than May was.

‘Taken Over by Climate Zealot’
Carter did not mince words in describing May’s influence on the Royal Society’s global warming position in overcoming the differing opinion of member scientists.

"Leadership of the Society was taken over by an opinionated Australian, climate-zealot President Robert May, who believes it is the role of scientific societies to provide political advice,” said Carter. The Society’s decision to reexamine its position “is also almost certainly [the result of] a large majority of reputable scientists who have long since seen through the [global warming] scam,” Carter added.

“The Royal Society matter was only newsworthy because as a society we are so fixated on authority figures, and the Royal Society is seen as the impeccable authority figure. In actuality, over the last 20 years the Royal Society has transmuted from an impartial science academy into a politically active agency, as has the National Academy of Sciences [in the United States]."

Authorities Losing Credibility
Professor Thomas Derr of Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts says the Royal Society hurt its prestigious reputation by so ardently embracing a theory which lacked concrete evidence. By declaring the scientifically controversial theory behind alarmist global warming predictions as fact, the Society diminished its reputation as an objective scientific organization, Derr says. Even so, Derr says he thinks the Royal Society will not fully recant its mistake.

"For some time the Royal Society, whose pride is in open inquiry and scientific doubt, has been under fire for touting the anthropogenic global warming thesis without any care for proper scientific method—in effect trashing its heritage," he Derr. "The recent hints of remorse are worth investigation, but don't expect anything like recantation. Human nature doesn't allow that."

Derr noted scientists' desire for grant money to study climate change usually acts a deterrent to these 'in-the-field' scientists being skeptical of the global warming theory.

"The pursuit of grants and prestige does not favor skepticism. For a while people noted that biologists who wanted research grants always stuck into their project proposal the hope that it might help cancer research, even if that was pretty marginal, [but it] helped to get approval. It’s the same thing now for global warming: It is the cause that produces the money,” Derr explained.

Michaels Predicts Whitewash
Patrick Michaels, a climate change scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, says the Royal Society has too much already invested in global warming alarmism to back down substantially from its prior statement. While finding it necessary to reexamine its prior statement in light of a backlash from member scientists, the organization’s leadership will inevitably affirm its prior statement after making a few tweaks here and there, he says.

The Royal Society's review of its public statements will likely be a whitewash, says Michaels, just as reviews by Penn State University and the UK’s East Anglia University whitewashed misconduct perpetrated by its faculty in the Climategate scandal.

"What will happen is the Royal Society will release a statement saying, 'Surely, global warming is a horrible and terrible problem and if we do not do something right now there will be massive death and destruction beginning forthwith.' No British university or any government body in Great Britain will say otherwise, because they have become so invested with global warming hysteria. There is no room for them to really back down; there is just too much face to be lost,” said Michaels.

“The Royal Society will continue to prattle on about this issue,” predicted Michaels, “while the British Parliament will not go forward with anything because to do so will be committing the nation to a course of economic self-destruction."

Carter agrees with Michaels’ assessment.

"I have no doubt that the intention of the Royal Society's managers in giving into the request for a reexamination of policy on AGW was to then manipulate the review in the same way that the various Climategate enquiries have been manipulated. They may or may not succeed in that aim," he notes.

Thomas Cheplick ([email protected]) writes from Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

First off... I'll indulge you...
Please do tell... How many times has the scientific consensus been proved wrong?





It is funny how often you post up an article and credit it with making assertions it never makes.
That article is about a review of phraseology, not a change of stance. It is obviously written from a perspective of bias. Global Warming science is over a century old, it is as established and verified as science gets... It is generally only political agenda or wishful thinking and ignorance that make people argue otherwise.

Debate about certain aspects of AGW is over. Like that it is happening.
Like CO2 definitely does measurably retain heat energy in the atmosphere.
Like that man's activities have increased CO2 concentration roughly 25%.
The only debate left is about how bad it might get, and over what time frame.




There is not just a consensus of the scientists... there is a consensus of the evidence.

"scientists have been wrong before" is a nonsensical red herring fallacy.

The overwhelming preponderance of irrefutable verifiable evidence clearly demonstrates the factuality of AGW. Verifiably.

Merely continuing to make contrarian statements, does nothing to further the discussion.
Perhaps someday the deniers can move past the rhetoric and look at the data.