Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[In~Plain~Site]

or the more obvious joke..

I'm sure that's generally always true. BUT...
TMI... we do not need to know about your twisted fantasy life.

Something on your mind, HEAD? <-----There's that name again!

Twisted indeed

Head...neg rep AGAIN from you? Shame on you...really. Maybe I'll turn it off before YOU run it down to nothing...10 points is quite a hit. It takes a lot of positives to make up for it...why? At least I didn't BUY mine! If I'm not mistaken, ALL the mods/admin have a full house...

Here is the latest gem he sent me...

"EVERY time you lie about me you will get neg'd."

Aw... "Did the bad man call you a name?"

How many negs have you given me now? I've lost count... People have words for people like you...but you got me banned last time I said it! FU Where's the giving the finger cute cartoon thing?

I was foolish enough to look into this thread again...silly rabbit... Back to skipping over your threads/postings without looking...since I CAN'T PUT YOU ON IGNORE BECAUSE YOU REALLY ARE A MODERATOR/ADMIN despite what you keep telling everyone.

Meh, join the club, it's all part of that "oh so tolerant" until you dissagree with their bullshit crowd.

I'll throw ya' a point, for what it's worth



LOL @ those that think their Gran-pappy's can give them a frame of reference...and the hits keep comin'!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Head...neg rep AGAIN from you? Shame on you...really. Maybe I'll turn it off before YOU run it down to nothing...10 points is quite a hit. It takes a lot of positives to make up for it...why? At least I didn't BUY mine! If I'm not mistaken, ALL the mods/admin have a full house...

Here is the latest gem he sent me...

"EVERY time you lie about me you will get neg'd."

Aw... "Did the bad man call you a name?"

How many negs have you given me now? I've lost count... People have words for people like you...but you got me banned last time I said it! FU Where's the giving the finger cute cartoon thing?

I was foolish enough to look into this thread again...silly rabbit... Back to skipping over your threads/postings without looking...since I CAN'T PUT YOU ON IGNORE BECAUSE YOU REALLY ARE A MODERATOR/ADMIN despite what you keep telling everyone.

Everytime you lie about me I'll neg rep you. I've already told you as much.

 

[ibjamming]

Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

About half way down...

The long term ice core record: the last 800,000 years
Temperature estimates relative to today from over 800,000 years of the EPICA ice cores in Antarctica. Today's date is on the right side of the graph.

Even longer term records exist for few sites: the recent Antarctic EPICA core reaches 800 kyr; many others reach more than 100,000 years. The EPICA core covers eight glacial/interglacial cycles. The NGRIP core from Greenland stretchs back more than 100 kyr, with 5 kyr in the Eemian interglacial. Whilst the large-scale signals from the cores are clear, there are problems interpreting the detail, and connecting the isotopic variation to the temperature signal.

See that? Temperatures have been going up and down forever. What happens in Maine or Tahiti over a few years or a few hundred years...is NOISE in the grand scheme of global temperature cycles. If you can't/don't understand that, you can't/won't understand that it's a made up..."problem". Sure, there may be a short term spike. But it's not statistically significant until it passes a certain magnitude.

That's just the way it is...having the media hype it as something it isn't or MAY not be...doesn't change anything. We're in a NORMAL cycle. When we go above 8, the last high during a NORMAL warming period, then I'll consider alternative explanations.

Why are you going out of your way to CREATE a problem that NO really long term, big picture, data shows any evidence of? You've getting caught up in the frenzy...it's normal...try to fight them leading you where THEY want you to go. Corporations want to make money from it...government wants to tax the profits. It's just another "bubble" to "invest" in that will eventually crash. Government NEEDS these bubbles. It creates "growth", which governments and corporation both need to survive.

It's ALL political...but we're not supposed to talk about politics...so I guess we can't REALLY discuss anything. Because EVERYTHING that is big going on in the world...is political. All we're allowed to do is act like the three monkeys... See, hear no, and speak no "evil". Hopefully all the worlds problems will work themselves out with some peace and love. The problem is...you're the only ones playing by the rules!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Once more, for the slow crowd:

That temperatures have been going up and down forever is nothing but evidence that the climate is sensitive to energy imbalances.

That other energy imbalances have caused fluctuations in the climate in the past, has no bearing on the mountain of evidence demonstrating that this time human activity is causing the imbalance now.

It is not hard to understand.

 

[BlackThumbGrowr]

You really think your POV n opinions means something, huh? seems you think quite a bit of yourself

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I don't think my opinions mean fuck all...
AGW has nothing to do with anyone's opinions.

It's the evidence that has meaning.
and it's meaning is clear to anyone who bothers to take it all in.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein, is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed…Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring,

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

Gday

Above you will find excerts from the 2010 senate minority report on climate change. Its here on pdf. Just scroll down to the 'report' link in red.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...ve-their-say-at-cop16-press-refuses-to-report

Well i have been having a good look around skepticalscience.com and am now even more sure of MY position...

It is clearly a blog for a start.

1.There is no mention of urban heat sinks which have been shown to skew the supposed planetary surface temps. Lots of temperature sensors are in places that 50 to 100 years ago had no buildings. Now because buildings absorb and generate heat it skews the readings.

2. Was looking for the Monkton emails you said were there H3ad but i cannae see em?

3. No mention of above report.

Have a nice day.

 

[DiiZZii3]

getting 18" of snow with 50mph winds.... ima believer

 

[HempKat]

You'd think stuff like that would be obvious... guess grapeman is no sherlock holmes.

No I think Grapeman knew that. I'm thinking also that he was counting on everyone else not knowing.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Well i have been having a good look around skepticalscience.com and am now even more sure of MY position...

It is clearly a blog for a start.

So you only looked at the blog portion... You should look around at everything else.

1.There is no mention of urban heat sinks which have been shown to skew the supposed planetary surface temps. Lots of temperature sensors are in places that 50 to 100 years ago had no buildings. Now because buildings absorb and generate heat it skews the readings.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm

2. Was looking for the Monkton emails you said were there H3ad but i cannae see em?

You're somewhat right, as the only monkton comments I can now find are only linked to not posted. If I manage to find them I'll edit them in.

Here's where they are linked to and discussed:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html

3. No mention of above report.

Have a nice day.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/500-scientists-global-warming-consensus.htm

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

There you are!! Its just a guess as Im a slow learner!!
And not to kiss H3ads ass,but the dude is always rite and I kno that burns alotta a you guys but come on!!I enjoy watching him beat you guys up all the time,ALL THE TIME,wait.....ALL THE TIME!!!!The man stands undefeated and ya's still keep tryin......fools

Thanks for keeping score.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The nature of authority

Guest post by Graham Wayne

In a recent post, John Cook wrote:

"When it comes to complex science, whether it be climate science or heart surgery or how a plane manages to stay up in the air, we defer to the experts who do this stuff for a living. Why? Because they know every nook and cranny of their area of expertise.

Well, I think there is another reason why we should defer to the experts, but we have to be clear about what that deference entails, for words can be misleading. Sometimes, the dual nature of a word leads us to confuse one thing with another. Consider the word authority, for example.

I started out as a musician. I remember meeting plenty of older players, and they would tell me things from time to time. They didn’t equivocate, nor did they leave any room for doubt in the way they put things. Frankly, they sounded just like my dad, and equally certain. Since he was usually wrong, I assumed these musicians were simply as dogmatic as my old man, and probably talking as much bollocks as he did. ‘Don’t tell me what to do’ I would say, mostly to myself. As far as I was concerned, what they knew was like what my father thought he knew – assumptions, dogma, convention. What right did they have to insist certain things were a particular way, and had to be? I was young, ready to rebel, to change things. The world didn’t have to be like they said, like my father said. I could reshape the world in my own image. I acknowledged no authority but my own, and anyone who told me what to do or how to do it could sod off.

Fast forward 20 years. I’m talking to some young musician, and I have that self-conscious experience of listening to myself, and what I’m saying. And bugger me if I don’t sound just like them, just like my dad. What on earth has happened? How did I become so bloody sure of myself?

The answer is that I did the work. In those intervening years, I paid my dues (rather over-paid, I suspect, due to a certain intransigence). I gained experience, I practiced, I learned from mistakes, I worked hard, and with each passing year my knowledge was improved by my education. Out of these experiences, I gained something unexpected: authority over the subject matter I had spent so much time studying. There are rules, and you cannot break them except at your cost (and the cost of your audience). These standards must be met, else you are doomed to be second-rate.

There are, it turns out, inviolable precepts. If you aspire to excellence and consistency, you are obliged to both acknowledge and obey the precepts that apply. Those who think they can get away with it, take a shortcut, cheat a little here and there; they always discover the same thing – exactly as I did. You can’t fool your audience, not for a minute, and it is equally hard to fool yourself. The work must be done and the dues paid, no matter what discipline you seek to acquire or what reasons you have for doing so. Success is built on the foundations of discipline and experience; once you have these attributes, there is nothing that can undermine them because you know they are not arbitrary, they are not personal. I know now, from discussion and experience, that all the people I admire have learned the same thing, and applied that knowledge uncompromisingly. They respect the rules of engagement and obey them, because they are not optional and you ignore them at your great peril.

So, in this personal example, we can use a synonym for authority: we can call it mastery. In art, in science, in business; in any sphere, if you do the work – all of it – and do it diligently, you gain mastery over your subject. Consequently, when I speak about playing or performing, I am not equivocal – I’m telling it like it is. I’ve had students who argued with me, but they lost every argument, because I had paid dear for my knowledge, as did all my peers, and what I gained was a profound certainty in that which I can be certain about, because this kind of authority is tested under fire - every single time we enter the fray. Since what I learned never let me down – not ever – it becomes more than a theory (and when I ignored the rules, I always got my arse kicked). It becomes like the rules of physics, unbending and subject to no negotiation whatever. When I talk about the knowledge I have gained from such effort and discipline, I may end up sounding like my dad, but it turns out he knew a thing or two after all.

***

The other kind of authority is the kind that children resent when they are told to go to bed or wash behind their ears. It is the arbitrary authority of those bigger than us, stronger than us, richer than us, more powerful than us. Teachers deploy this authority. So do bosses, policemen, higher ranks in military establishments; anyone whose position in the pecking order gives them the notion they have the right to tell us what to do. Sometimes, we work for a boss who is smart, so perhaps we don’t mind him or her telling us what to do (and the wages generally provide sufficient leverage to mute our dissent).

What we resent is the arbitrary notion that underlies this authority. Who are these people? How do they assume they are somehow better than us, when they offer nothing more than a bribe or a cuff round the ear? That isn’t authority, it is bullying. Isn’t it? Taking advantage, in other words; getting us to comply with their wishes whether we like it or not, making us do what they want just because they say so. Just like scientists and their bloody climate change theories, right? Who gave them the authority to tell us what to do?

Well, nobody gave them authority. They earned it, and it isn’t authority over us, it is authority over their subject matter. Scientists have to struggle up a learning curve so steep it is beyond the comprehension of most lay people. To start with – before they can lay a hand on a test tube or a microscope – they must learn everything that has gone before. This can take a decade or more, and the rewards are not only paltry, but often unreliable, since many will not ever make the grade or the salary commensurate with all that work they put in.

After what we might call a very long spell in boot camp, after they have negotiated the training courses comprising several centuries of highly detailed work; only then may the fledgling scientist stand upright on the shoulders of the giants who preceded them, and take a look around them. Only then may they start to work on a theory of their own, or collaborate with others whose theories merit investigation. Even to call yourself a research scientist, it is necessary to gain that mastery, that authority, that uncompromising discipline that is defined by the scientific method. And some of these scientists are studying climate change.

————————–

Scientific authority should not be confused with the authority of parents, or teachers, bosses or politicians. I am constantly amazed at the way lay people dispute science, by attributing to it some arbitrary notion of authority. When all other forms of authority seem to be arbitrary, perhaps it is understandable that, when science speaks with an authoritative voice, it seems equally subjective or capricious. When hierarchical authority is exercised in the pursuit of an agenda – political, legal, caring, educative or whatever – its aims may be equivocal, self-serving or arbitrary, where a different aim or agenda would be equally valid.

Science isn’t like that: it tests what it find ruthlessly and repeatedly, for there is only one right answer to any scientific problem, only one theory that is wholly correct. It is often overlooked that scientists cannot afford to promote myths, or self-serving results. Scientific knowledge is a hierarchy too, where the last paper on a subject becomes part of the next paper, through the process of citation. Nobody wants to do all the work all over again – reinventing the wheel – so all scientists have a vested interest in making sure all the work that is incorporated into the body of science is scrupulously accurate and solid, because they may well base their next research project on the same work, the same given, the same method. Bad science puts all scientists at risk, which is one reason why all scientists are so keen to root it out.

When science speaks with authority, we should respect it, not resent it. And we should not be afraid to accept that there are people who are smarter than we are. One common tone I find in discussions about science is generated by a strange notion of equality, a rather topical political trope where all people are rendered so damn equal there isn’t any individuality left. There are a lot of people smarter than me, and it does not demean me to recognize this, or acknowledge them and their achievements. Of all the branches of human endeavor, science is one of the most intellectually demanding and difficult. What these people do astounds and humbles me. That they are cleverer than me at science does not make me less important as a human being. It does remind me that self-importance is a vice we can ill afford, especially when we try to ignore those who speak with genuine authority.

...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Did you mention the Royal Society?

Following complaints, the Royal Society has published a guide to climate science which counts 2 self selected “skeptics” among its co-authors. Traditional skeptical sources have enjoyed the release, including the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and The Daily Mail, with the Mail quoting the Foundation’s Director;

"The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years."

And gleefully reporting that the Royal Society “admits that there are ‘uncertainties’” - I remember a Professor who drilled "numbers mean nothing without uncertainties!" into students, so this shouldn't surprise most people with scientific experience!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carefully includes them with all its statements. The Society report is worth reading if you have time but if you want detail then read the IPCC report: the two agree on everything they both cover.

The Society split simple statements into 3 sections: widespread scientific agreement, widespread consensus but active discussion, and ‘not well understood’.

Widespread agreement
0.8 ± 0.2 °C warming since 1850.
Rise in CO2 caused by humans.
IPCC heating or ‘radiative forcing’ values.
Doubling CO2 causes 1 °C of direct warming, feedbacks are expected to add more.


Wide consensus but continuing debate and discussion

Solar heating less than 10% of CO2’s, but research is checking to see if it’s magnified somehow.
Doubling CO will cause 2-4.5 °C global warming (the IPCC says “likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C“), and IPCC global warming projections are repeated.
Sea levels will rise at least at the rate they have been.


Not well understood

Models struggle with clouds, regional changes, and long term carbon cycle feedback.
Models don’t catch ice sheet breakup, so sea level rise they give is a minimum.


Summary
Non-model evidence for future sea level rise and global warming are ignored. This tends to suggest that doubling CO2 will cause 2-4.5 °C warming and new evidence suggests that sea level rise will be 100%+ more than IPCC estimates.

The GWPF concludes that;

"The UK now formally joins the ranks of denier nations,"

which seems remarkable from the Society's statement that;

"There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. "

Finally, what of the GWPF’s claim that the Society now agrees global warming has halted? Another case of confusing short term trends, being ignorant of heat on Earth and seemingly based on;

"This warming has... been largely concentrated... from around 1975 to around 2000,"

but ignoring;

"The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15 °C warmer than the decade 1990-1999."

Make of that what you will.

 

[HempKat]

Global warming...the THREAT anyway...is political...done to get more of your tax dollars. Do you "liberals" REALLY want $10 gas? Do you REALLY want a $500 power bill? It's EXACTLY what you are asking for if you let them pass all this global warming bullshit they want to pass. fucking "carbon credits"??? Are you KIDDING me? Can you say "Enron"? That scam ALREADY smells like shit...

First of all get it straight, Global Warming itself is fact, fact that can be and has been verified by many over the past several decades. What's political is that it's definately man-made and we can undo it by cutting back our carbon footprint. Because someone believes in Global Warming does not automatically equate to they are a liberal.

As for gas well I doubt it will ever make it that high, the nation balked big time when it hit $4 a gallon and major trend changes happened. Including big players getting off their asses and moving ahead with things like electric cars and other forms of green energy/technology.

As for power bills, mine is all electric and already I routinely see over $500 power bills every month in winter, even when I don't have a grow going. Nobody is waiting for "Cap And Trade" to raise prices and take more money out of the public's pocket.

 

[sac beh]

The above report is not worth mentioning, as it does not concern climate scientists, and it only lists their opinions, not evidences.

It also doesn't appear to include or reference as sources for any of its claims peer-reviewed science in the relevant fields. It reads more like a gossip piece.

Of course this is the main rub in our discussion here. Some people think truth goes to the victor in the battle over opinions. So to them media soundbites, out of context quotes, political propaganda, and gossip pieces are just as legitimate as science.

But truth follows a reasonable consideration of all available information ending with agreement among those who have made such consideration. In science, this is the peer review process, and there's a glaring lack of it among deniers... I guess because at the bottom of their argument is really a larger anti-science agenda influenced by political motives.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Overwhelmingly... the scientists most likely to know, believe in AGW.

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?

There have been various surveys or petitions claiming that thousands of scientists are skeptical that humans are causing global warming. The thing is, when you peruse these lists, you find very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science. So what do the experts think? A 2009 survey found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Now a new study has digged into this topic a little deeper and broader. As well as covering a larger number of climate scientists, they also researched how many papers each scientist published and how often their work was cited (Anderegg 2010). How many published climate scientists think most of recent global warming was due to human activity? Between 97 to 98%.

The results are strikingly consistent with Doran's earlier work. The overwhelming majority of climate experts think humans are causing climate change. Next, they dig a little deeper. They examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. What they find is the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.


Figure 1: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications.

An alternative measure of the quality and credibility of a scientist's contribution is the number of times their work is cited by other scientists. Again, there is a considerable gap between the number of citations of papers by convinced scientists and unconvinced scientists.


Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced and unconvinced of human caused climate change with a given number times cited for each researcher’s average of the first through fourth most-cited papers.
Skeptics claim there is no scientific consensus, that there are many scientists who don't think humans are causing global warming. However, when it comes to climate experts, we have a numbers gap, an expertise gap and a credibility gap between the scientists convinced of human caused global warming and climate skeptics.

 

[sac beh]

Did you mention the Royal Society?

He did, and he mentioned it in the context of an opinion piece that took Royal Society quotes out of context. I've read their full report, wherein they reaffirm the science showing the effects human activity has on climate.

 

[DiiZZii3]

i read a book on this shit, from a famous author i wanna say micheal chricton, anyone kno what im talking about?

A point from that was how rich people who are tryin to raise money, or awareness for global warming fly around in private planes, and they overlook that one trip in the plane burns more fuel than most people would in a year.

 

[Madrus Rose]

China's burning of coal casts a global cloud - Asia - Pacific - International Herald Tribune
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/world/asia/11iht-coal.1947793.html

Is it tea time yet ?

(Sorry to Cut & Paste & run....)

Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad.

The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that is called for under the Kyoto Protocol.

The sulfur dioxide produced in coal combustion poses an immediate threat to the health of China's citizens, contributing to about 400,000 premature deaths a year. It also causes acid rain that poisons lakes, rivers, forests and crops.

The sulfur pollution is so pervasive as to have an extraordinary helpful side effect, but only temporarily: It actually slows global warming. The tiny, airborne particles deflect the sun's hot rays back into space.

But the cooling effect from sulfur is short-lived. By contrast, the carbon dioxide emanating from Chinese coal plants will last for decades, with a cumulative warming effect that will eventually overwhelm the cooling from sulfur and deliver another large kick to global warming, climate scientists say.

cont'd

 

[HempKat]

There is tons more information for you to look at... as long as you're not feigning interest like the other's who've asked.

www.skepticalscience.com

More than enough information and discussion by both sides to remove the doubt of most every skilled critical thinker.

I've explained before why the temps 200,000 years ago are irrelevant.

Mankind and/or CO2 is not the only factor capable of driving the climate. Past fluctuations demonstrate that the climate is very sensitive to energy imbalances. Mankind and CO2 are verifiably causing this particular energy imbalance.

I think you would have better luck getting people onboard with what you're saying if you put it more that Man is involved in this current Global Warming period but not solely responsible. The science I've seen tends to suggest that Man has accelerated it which would explain things like why we're now seeing things happen alot sooner then was previously predicted by the older science.