* it's a suggestion from another gather participant. I am not making this up!
"Try this physical experiment: lock yourself in a sealed room with a thermometer. Take note of the temperature, then exhale, inhale and exhale many times. You will increase the room's concentration of CO2 several times. Observe the thermometer. Does the temperature rise or fall or stay flat. To enhance the experiment, try having water present and see if the water really vaporizes and causes a runnaway greenhouse effect."
okay dude, here is the thing that you are missing about the CO2 greenhouse effect. When we discuss this physical phenomenon, we are discussing SOLAR RADIATION. You can't conduct an experiment to reveals the mechanisms of solar radiation in a locked room. Really, there is no validity to this concept that you are putting forth.
Let's start at the beginning with the way that modern climatology thinks this whole thing works. Climatologists believe that carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and a few other related gasses, most of which have been increasing in the past couple centuries due to human activities in our planetary atmosphere, act as heat trapping substances. They do NOT do this by means of magically telling the world to heat up. Nope, it's not like that.
All of the heat on earth, excluding an occasional volcano, comes from solar radiation, what you and I usually call "light". Some of this radiation penetrates our atmosphere and reaches the surface, raising the temperature of the earth and the world ocean. Carbon dioxide and the other "greenhouse gases" operate by allowing a tiny bit less of the solar radiation to bounce back out into space.
It's clear to me, fellow Gather posting person, due to your suggested "experiment", that you totally fail to understand what modern climatology has discovered. No wonder you are in the denial camp! Do you follow what I am saying here? The Earth and the Sun are not exactly a closed system. They are not locked in a big room with closed windows so that all the energy stays in the room. Solar radiation is sprayed all over the solar system and beyond. We just catch a little bit of it that manages to come our way, and out of that little bit, some of it is reflected away by white ice or clouds or what not. IT's VERY IMPORTANT that some of the radiation gets reflected away. If we were to actually absorb all the solar radiation that hits earth, we would eventually all be cooked, no kidding. That is why it is so very important that carbon dioxide tends to trap the radiation. Scientists believe that it does so in this way. Some of the radiation that enters our atmosphere and hits the surface of our planet is reflected back up. Normally, when this happens, the radiation zips back up into the sky and is gone back into outer space. You remember the photographs of the earth made by the Apollo astronauts on the moon back in the day? They used some of that reflected light to take the pictures. Carbon dioxide messes that up. Some of the radiation hits CO2 molecules, and bingo, it is reflected back down to the Earth's surface, where it often is absorbed, thereby raising our temperature.
Got it? Good. Now please, scribble about something you understand. Because climate change obviously is not it. You are suggesting this experiment because you are confident that it will not result in a runaway greenhouse effect. Well, duh, Of course it won't. That's because it's a bogus experiment that is unrelated completely to the entire concept of the CO2 greenhouse effect. You are setting up a strawman here, and having such fun knocking him down!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62 ( 7 removed by Chris W. )
So unless you live on Venus or pre oxygen creating plants Earth, CO2 is a result not a cause of climate change. Cloud cover also brings about rain that causes plants to grow and the amount of CO2 the oceans can hold depends on temperature.
You can’t take the earth and run multiple experiments on it. Even if you could you can only test one element at a time and keeping all other elements constant is almost impossible. Just to give you an example of how complex the earth is, consider that there are some theories that suggest dust whipped into the upper atmosphere from deserts in Africa can have a significant impact on the strengths of Atlantic hurricanes. There is a theory that the “global cooling” crisis of the 70’s was probably caused by aerosol pollution (the same stuff that was blamed for upper atmosphere ozone depletion around the poles).
It's like saying that because free market organizations have no scientific background and a history of denying the root causes that that flaw can somehow be projected onto thousands of scientists over thirty years of research publishing tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers.
That's rather bizarre logic.
CB, I appreciate your feedback, but isolating CO2 for testing does not imply I lack understanding of the other elements involved in climate conditions. The idea of the experiment is to test the impact of CO2 on water and temperature. CO2 is all that needs to be tested, since that is the gas we emit. The sealed room allows the CO2 concentration to build. Allegedly, absent other conditions, CO2 should cause a runnaway greenhouse effect as long as you have IR available and water. Of course the experiment fails, but that only falisies the fool notion that our emissions have a majority impact.
Here's a nice summary. And it really doesn't matter what you anticipate, since science isn't based on an opinion poll. It's based on actual research totalling tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies over more than thirty years.
Which has been interpreted by the IPCC through models to mean that man is the cause of global warming, which current observations have shown to be inaccurate.
Well let's see, Gary and Dan think that the IPCC report, which is based on the sum total of all research on climate change by all scientists in the world, is a sign of "ignorance," but cut-and-pasting from a blog associated with the anti-science free market groups or "calculating" how CO2 can't even be in the atmosphere (which even S. Fred Singer says is an idiotic posing) is somehow reliable science?
That speaks for itself.
that's according to you. Your views are not consistent with modern climatology. I do not argue that CO2 is the only factor that influences Earth's planetary climate system. But it is one of the factors. And the denial squad has not been able to come with a convincing mechanism to explain the observed temperature rise on our planet without referencing CO2 and the other greenhouse gases.
You appear to basically be arguing, it's too complicated, give up trying to understand it. But it's getting warmer, and if it keeps getting warmer our grandkids have a big problem to look forward to. I don't think we have the luxury of saying no problem.
I would disagree with Larry that he should be just "let alone," though I do agree that he seems to have other problems. It is important for scientists to not allow posers, liars, and free marketers to disinform the public. As scientists, we must assure that the science itself is communicated accurately. People can't discuss policy options if they have been trainted by the falsehoods and disinformation spewed by the writer of that quote and the free market lobbying organizations that seek to obfuscate the science.
But consider this. Despite you nor any of the commenters to date as I write this mentioned by name the writer of the quote, anyone who has read any climate change related articles here on Gather knows exactly of whom you speak. That speaks volumes about the quote writer's credibility and intellectual integrity.
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth: One-sided, Misleading, Exaggerated, Speculative, Wrong (October, 2007)
CO2, Temperatures and ice ages...
I'm sorry but your references come from ICECAP and the Competitive Enterprise Institute both of those organizations are well known for their opposing of the IPCC doctrine...so they don't count!
See only sources that support the IPCC's doctrine are valid! Those that don't must be dismissed without a mention, the research doesn't matter, the credentials of the researchers doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is that they don't agree with the IPCC!
The rest of Dan's comment is, of course, his usual distortion of what everyone else has said, because distortion is the only way his logic works.
In reality, all relevant and reliable scientific information that can pass the muster of peer-review is included in the analysis, whether it would appear that it supports the consensus or not. It is the sum total of all of the data that leads to the overwhelming conclusions.
The fact that Dan and others continue to set up idiotic straw men like claiming Al Gore invented climate change or the IPCC sat down in a room one day and took a poll shows just how divorced from reality and/or dishonest they are in discussing this issue.
David, anyone who knows anything about history knows Margaret Thatcher (The Iron Lady) invented Global Warming; Al Gore invented the internet. She invented it because she needed a solid argument to give the coal miners union the heave ho (I was going to use a more colorful metaphor more related to coal mining) and seeing Middle East oil was unreliable, she needed a solid reason for why Great Britain should go nuclear.
So perhaps there are no “free” scientists anymore; they have all sold out to one group or another. Perhaps there never were. Perhaps all science boils down to religious wars between one groups set of high priests and the other groups set of high priests; each claiming that their research is true and the other side is the false research.
That’s not what I learned at R.P.I. and I will never accept that theory.
I'm also sorry you seem confused about who are politicians versus who are the scientists whose research they relied upon for informing policy-making.
I'm also sorry you don't seem to know any scientists, since as a class scientists tend not to be particularly wealthy, unlike the free market group folks. They also tend not to be very politically savvy, which is why they haven't been fast enough to defend real science from the free market lobbyists.
And finally, I'm sorry that you can't be honest about discussing the situation realistically, and instead resort to the bumper sticker accusation of equating the three decade plus work of thousands of scientists working independently for every scientific organization worldwide and publishing tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers with religious zealots. For once I would like to know who you think is coordinating all these scientists from all these organizations over all these years.
As opposed, of course, to the handful of skeptic scientists all associated with free market lobbying firms whose coordination has been documented and found out through Freedom of Information Act requests.
See what David is trying to say, is that they've already taken all things into consideration...and that is of course why they got the predictions so wrong;
Temperature trend since 2000
Temperature trend since 2005
Notice the red line on the chart which extends slightly downward? that is the temperature trend.
The pink lines pointing drastically upward is what the IPCC models predicted would happen if we kept expelling man made C02 into the atmosphere.
The IPCC agrees that the earths temperature has moderated over the last several years:
Stated in 2008,
"Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash," he said."
Prometheus
And the science indicates that the temperature has moderated, even those grand global warmists over at Real Climate have come out saying they think the current temperature moderation trend will continue for another ten years.
How could the science of the IPCC be so correct yet result in predictions so far off?
Answer it can't. It isn't correct, it is a compilation of computer model predictions, models are known by climate scientists to be inaccurate in their predictions, and not trusted by them for their accuracy.
Odd that you don't question the denialist data even after it has been shown to be specious and come from free market organizations mandated to deny the science, yet you are quick to attribute more than thirty years and tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers by thousands of thousands from every type of scientific organization imaginable as "political."
Yep, great judgment there. Add in your endorsement of lying is okay as long as it supports the views of the free market organizations and you rank right up there with the most credible people in your fantasy land.
Says a lot about you.
You're just going to continue to claim you have, right David?
Says a lot about you too.
Chris, I am sorry my sarcasm went clean over your head. LOL!
"okay dude, here is the thing that you are missing about the CO2 greenhouse effect. When we discuss this physical phenomenon, we are discussing SOLAR RADIATION. You can't conduct an experiment to reveals the mechanisms of solar radiation in a locked room. Really, there is no validity to this concept that you are putting forth."
But professor Chris! What about the IR radiation that the floor and walls of the sealed room emit? If the room temperature is around 300 K, then you have IR wavelengths of about 10 microns to work with.
"Let's start at the beginning with the way that modern climatology thinks this whole thing works."
Oh good! Professor Chris explains the mysteries of the Universe!
"Climatologists believe that carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and a few other related gasses, most of which have been increasing in the past couple centuries due to human activities in our planetary atmosphere, act as heat trapping substances. They do NOT do this by means of magically telling the world to heat up."
Good to know! LOL!
"Nope, it's not like that."
Confirmed and verified! LOL!
"All of the heat on earth, excluding an occasional volcano, comes from solar radiation,"
I am glad you cleared that up. I have been under the mistaken impression that some heat comes from the Earth's core. You did however mention volcanoes but heat would come from the Earth even in the absence of volcanic activity.
"what you and I usually call "light"."
Uh huh. This is getting deep. LOL!
"Some of this radiation penetrates our atmosphere and reaches the surface, raising the temperature of the earth and the world ocean."
Wow! Professor Chris! You're a genius! Well...maybe not...
"Carbon dioxide and the other "greenhouse gases" operate by allowing a tiny bit less of the solar radiation to bounce back out into space."
How tiny? Less than six inches? LOL! Seriously, professor, can you even tell us the magnitude of this "trapped radiation" in watts per square or cubic meter? Does the so-called consensus ever agree on said amount?
"It's clear to me, fellow Gather posting person, due to your suggested "experiment", that you totally fail to understand what modern climatology has discovered."
Really what have they discovered? That IR radiation does not exist in your sealed room? Surely professor Chris, if most of the energy comes from the sun then all the energy in the sealed room, including your body heat, came mostly from the sun.
"No wonder you are in the denial camp!"
LOL! No wonder you are a mad professor!
"Do you follow what I am saying here?"
A better question is: Do YOU follow what you are saying?
"The Earth and the Sun are not exactly a closed system."
Neither is a sealed room. Energy can enter and escape by means of radiation, convection and/or conduction.
"They are not locked in a big room with closed windows so that all the energy stays in the room."
Exactly, that is why the CO2 in the room would have a negligible impact on the rooms temperature. Even in a sealed container, heat can escape. Imagine how inadequate CO2 would be in an open system?
"Solar radiation is sprayed all over the solar system and beyond."
Sprayed? Any particular fragrance? LOL!
"We just catch a little bit of it that manages to come our way, and out of that little bit, some of it is reflected away by white ice or clouds or what not."
Yes, I think you are stumbling and fumbling for the term "albedo."
"IT's VERY IMPORTANT that some of the radiation gets reflected away. If we were to actually absorb all the solar radiation that hits earth, we would eventually all be cooked, no kidding."
No kidding. (Yawn.)
"That is why it is so very important that carbon dioxide tends to trap the radiation. Scientists believe that it does so in this way. Some of the radiation that enters our atmosphere and hits the surface of our planet is reflected back up. Normally, when this happens, the radiation zips back up into the sky and is gone back into outer space."
Professor, your exposition here is a little simplistic. Allegedly carbon dioxide fails to absorb and scatter visible light, so more visible light reaches the Earth's surface. Some of it is reflected by albedo, and some is absorbed. The absorbed radiation is then emitted toward space in long infrared wavelengths (around 10 microns). Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases then allegedly absorb and scatter the IR radiation. Some allegedly heads back to Earth while the rest escapes to space. Caveat: There is no empirical evidence that shows that CO2 can absorb and scatter IR at 10 micron wavelengths to any significant degree. CO2 tends to be sensitive to around 4 microns and 14 microns. The bottom line is our planet would have to be much hotter or colder to have any significant greenhouse activity cause by CO2. Hence the real reason I am a skeptic.
"You remember the photographs of the earth made by the Apollo astronauts on the moon back in the day? They used some of that reflected light to take the pictures. Carbon dioxide messes that up."
LOL! So now the pictures are messed up?
"Some of the radiation hits CO2 molecules, and bingo, it is reflected back down to the Earth's surface, where it often is absorbed, thereby raising our temperature."
What about the second law of thermodynamics? There is more heat coming up from Earth than any CO2 emitted radiation coming back down, so the overall flow would be toward space which has a temperature closer to absolute zero. Convection should distribute any heat produced by greenhouse activity, and so the heat would eventually be lost anyway to outers-pace. What skeptics and proponents can't seem to agree upon are the actual definitive quantities and effects of greenhouse activity, convection, and so forth. Even the models that the IPCC relies on are in disagreement. No two are identical. That is one reason why I think the "consensus" claim is bunk.
"Got it? Good. Now please, right about something you understand."
Right? You mean "write" about something I understand? LMAO!
"Because climate change obviously is not it. You are suggesting this experiment because you are confident that it will not result in a runaway greenhouse effect. Well, duh, Of course it won't."
LOL! Chris, this is what happens when you argue from ignorance. You end up showing that CO2 is insignificant when you are trying to prove that it is!
"That's because it's a bogus experiment that is unrelated completely to the entire concept of the CO2 greenhouse effect. You are setting up a strawman here, and having such fun knocking him down!"
Well actually, professor, I am having fun knocking you down. Now if you ever make it to OZ, ask the Wizard for a brain! ROFLMAO!
What you fail to understand is that the IPCC has taken all of that into account!
And that is why their model's have been so accurate in their predictions.
See!
Note how he changes his story after being caught in ridiculous fabrications, even to the point of making it sound like others said what he, in fact, said. So he goes beyond posing and freely makes stuff up (that's called lying to most folks).
It says a lot about him.
Which is why I disconnected from them. There are plenty of people on Gather that can have civil disagreements without resorting to fabrication. I see no reason to continue giving them a forum.
I do note that they love to play tag team. They don't seem to eat or sleep either. Too busy rolling-on-the-floor-laughing to do that.
i'll think it over.
The first amendment also does not give the right to one small handful of people to impinge on the rights of others. Again, their goal is to so pollute every thread that exposes their methods to the point where legitimate commenters cannot get a word in edgewise. At its most extreme, they try to saturate a thread with so many comments that it slows its loading time, again to limit the free speech and the intellectual knowledge seeking of others.
Personally, I've discovered that they largely talk to themselves. They have every first amendment free speech to do so. But I have every free speech right not to waste my time or waste the time of others in my network with their obvious deceit. My articles have pretty much allowed them to dig their own holes, and I'm happy to let them live in them.
Honest disagreement begins with honesty. They offer none.
Best regards
You mean like what Al Gore has been doing...Or even if unintentional (or maybe not)
The IPCC who's claims that man made C02 is responsible for global warming, which observations now show is incorrect?
Should the IPCC be made to reimburse all of those countries for damage done by carbon taxes imposed on their recomendations?
How do they predict the weather? With those handy dandy weather models and how often are they correct? Incorrect? So we should trust to these global models when the local ones are so fantastic?
What about the 30K+ scientist who've signed a petition rejecting global warming? Did they all get it wrong too?
What happened to that 70's ice age that was coming? Oh thats ok this time they got it right.
The Earth has been and always will be in constant change, so if the temp goes up a degree or down a degree (as it's done so many times in the past) whats that really mean? Did you expect the Earth to keep it just perfect for you always?
I think you nailed it.
and
What about the 30K+ scientist who've signed a petition rejecting global warming? Did they all get it wrong too?
So Captain Nomind, by this logic either your 30K+ scientists are not climate scientists or they don't need jobs because they are all supported by free market anti-science organizations. The first is mostly true since only about 200 of the 30K+ "scientists" are actually climate scientists who are skeptical about the science. The rest are a combination of other non-climate scientists who have no knowledge on which to base an opinion, or they are simply made up names by the free market organizations.
What happened to that 70's ice age that was coming? Oh thats ok this time they got it right.
Repeating the repeatedly debunked "ice age/global cooling" falsehood just shows that you are either rather outdated in your knowledge base or intentionally misrepresenting the history. Please catch up with the current knowledge.
If you know the breakdown of real climate scientists why don't you know the breakdown of the "fake" names?
Sorry but I was alive in the 70's and heard what they said about us heading into an ice age or global cooling so why tell me something that was a reality then is now debunked? I was there, they said it then, I am not misrepresenting history....you are.
In other words, the fake list.
The consensus is represented by the current state of our knowledge and the consensus is that climate change is a reality and the major contribution is manmade CO2 emissions.
As for the 1970s climate cooling, my guess is that you were paying more attention to other things and your "memory" is substantially influenced by a few contemporary misrepresentations of what was going on back then. The fact that you think that relying on your "memory" of "reality" from 30 years ago rather than doing some research that shows the whole "1970s cooling" was largely a creation of the present day climate denialist industry doing what they usually do, which is taking a few news articles and making them represent the state of the science. It was never the state of the science. That's called cherry picking and it neither represents the reality of the 1970s or the reality of today.
Consensus? means nothing and proves no factual truth...
I must ask, were you alive in the 70's? I was young but I know what i heard and saw...they even had products....maybe it's your recollection that needs questioning
The atmosphere is mostly transparent to the high energy solar light rays. Clouds and particulates will reflect or filter it from hitting the earth. When it reaches the earth the nature of the surface albedo will determine how much of the light gets absorbed. Dark surfaces will absorb much more then light colored surfaces while white or silver objects will reflect the light.
The surfaces that absorb the sunlight will reradiate the energy as long wave, infrared energy. It is in that spectrum range that green house gases, such as CO2 and H2O, will absorb the energy and inhibit it's radiation up into space. You need to look up a solar radiation absorption chart that can be found at Wikipedia or other sites.
I have read of 3 articles that state CO2 has a decreasing logarithmic function on it's ability to absorb the radiated IR as CO2 increases, that is- to double the absorption you have to again double the CO2 (2 x 285ppm=570ppm ), it's not a straight line relationship. H2O is the predominate GHG by over 50x that of CO2 and will mask out the CO2.
Here's an experiment. Go out to some desert away from any bodies of water. See how fast it cools at night. Then go near some body of water where the humidity is high. How fast does it cool there. If you have ever visited Phoenix, AZ you will find it sweltering their due to the irrigation canals that pervade the main part of the city but go beyond the city limits and you will find it much cooler in the shade. Testimony of the power of water vapor.
And you also misstated that the CO2 increase was exclusively due to humans. Well the Oceans absorb and emit CO2. Some scientists show that the oceans outgas like open soda drinks when heated by an active sun emitting more solar radiation. The ice cores show that but there is room for interpretation with much of the proxie data that gets more unreliable as you go back further on past 500,000 years. And the suns radiation has been increasing on average between min cycles as it ages. And right now the oceans are beginning to cool off which has a big influence on climate and weather.
There is much hyped science out there due to grant chasers and rouge scientists like Hansen who tends to hide the truth with pseudo science babble and contrived data. Most of the projection of GW is done by hyped up climate models that can't mirror each others results. They have not mirrored the data which is what real science is based on. Your just on the hype wagon for the feelgood green mantra. Been there, down that road before.
Hey David, don't try your psychobabble on me, it won't even go one minuet. icecap is a very credible organization with credible scientist and professionals. It links to many credible external articles.
Here's what really goes on in the IPCC:
Although the media often reports that the IPCC conclusion is based on the “consensus of 2,500 world experts,” there are perhaps not more than a few hundred genuine climatologists in the world. A large number of the participating IPCC scientists are basically meteorologists, whose study areas are physical processes of weather phenomena, not necessarily weather forecasting. There is also a large group of scientists in the IPCC study group whose primary expertise is in computer modeling.
The IPCC is a political organization. Consensus is not important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2,500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1,900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than 3 chapters and only 5 reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument the work of the 1900 is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.
The Technical Reports of the 3 Working Groups are set aside and another group prepares the SPM. A few scientists prepare a first draft, which is then reviewed by governments and a second draft is produced. Then a final report is hammered out as a compromise between the scientists and the individual government representatives. It is claimed the scientists set the final summary content, but in reality governments set the form. The SPM is then released at least 3 months before the science report. Most of the scientists involved in the technical or science report see the Summary for the first time when it is released to the public. The time between its release to the public and the release of the Technical Report is taken up with making sure it aligns with what the politicians/scientists have concluded. Here is the instruction in the IPCC procedures: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter.” Yes, you read that correctly. This is like an Executive writing a summary and then having employees write a report that agrees with the summary.
An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused. According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-minded individuals. The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.
You should also read these
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66
http://www.john-daly.com/singer2.htm
It just goes to show you how flawed the peer reviewed process is for many journals, and with the IPCC, it's a joke.
It seems your comments speak for themselves, Scott. But feel free to demonstrate exactly how Icecap is a "credible organization with credible scientists and professionals." I would especially be interested in hearing your rationale for why most icecap folks are also associated with free market lobbying organizations whose mission it is deny any science that might lead to policy options they don't like.
That would be most interesting indeed.
You know lobbyists, weather for or against AGW causes will often enlist the expertise of scientists to validate their cause. So you can have private special interests who will donate money to scientists who support their interests as Goldman Sachs did John Holdren's Woods Hole Research Center? Goldman Sachs, weren't they the same company that had those hedge funds in toxic mortgage packages and oil storage facilities. Must be banking on Cap & Trade along with Algore.
http://thelibertyjournal.com/2009/07/21/science-czar-john-holdrens-goldman-sachs-connection
Just where do you get off on this big company funding skeptics hype bandwagon David? There are special interests in most any organization, the question is, how broad a spectrum of the public does it benefit? It looks to me some SP's have very narrow special interests, like their pocketbooks.
Here are some more links about the myth of the purity of scientific research:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stimulating-scientists-into-proving-global-warming/
‘Stimulating’ Scientists Into Proving Global Warming
The new bill will spend billions to adjust data to “prove” the fallacy that humans are responsible for global warming.
February 27, 2009 - by Frank J. Tipler
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html
The Trouble With Government Grants
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
A scientist who writes a grant proposal that dissents from the ruling paradigm will be left without a grant. Speaking for his fellow scientists Pollack writes, "We have evolved into a culture of obedient sycophants, bowing politely to the high priests of orthodoxy."
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/arguments-against-global-warming.htm
Global Warming Greatest Scam In History!
John Coleman argues against global warming
Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/29/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx
I have read similar things time and again on various websites.
So you haven't deterred me one bit by your psychobabble, it evident your hyping the issue. Saying there's a consensus on Global Warming is like saying theirs a consensus on Jesus Christ as the Son of God. A lot of scientists say they have proof of intelligent design but I question the intelligence. The facts just don't add up! Gee, imagine that.
The post needed to be said.
I think I got them crying on each others shoulders.
For some more hoots check these out about the great scientific peer reviewed consensus.
http://notinmygreenhouse.hypocrisy.com/category/forecast-model/
Woops, back to the computer models. This guy has excellent blogs
http://thelibertyjournal.com/2009/07/21/science-czar-john-holdrens-goldman-sachs-connection/
We don't get no stinken funding except from scientific sources.
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2088
Hey BO, we gots to get the C&P through before December or the snowmonster is out of the bag.
And more good stuff can be found at icecap, the premier scientific blog site, peer reviewed by thousands.
Now don't go flying off the handle buddy, you know what happened to the barnyard fly. ;>)
Here is another good site with many more great links for researching.
http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com
[And yes, the redundancy is intended. Don't ya think?]
Chris, Gary's statement epitomizes the reason why science isn't debated on Gather or other social networking sites or in blogs.
To Gary and others, this is a game. One that must be "won" in their own minds to protect their egos or their free market fantasies. So he, and they, do not hesitate to misinterpret, misrepresent, and often, simply fabricate from whole cloth whatever obfuscatory argument that can keep the thread going. They believe that shear volume means "winning" even though that volume is created through constantly repeating the same worn, disproven, illogical, unsupportable, and sometimes just made up comments. Even after they have been discredited they simply ignore all the previous conversation and repeat it again like it's some new revelation. The fact that they strive to "get the last word" is interpreted by them as "winning." Not suprisingly, it is a misinterpretation.
But the whole idea of "winning the debate" distracts from the actual point. What does the science say? And the science built up over more then three decades of research overwhelmingly says that climate change is occurring and that anthropogenic CO2 emission is a significant cause. And that any steps taken to significantly reduce those CO2 emissions are necessary, and soon.
The debate now is about what to do about it. What policy options would most likely result in the greatest benefit to the environment? How best can we use "the carrot and the stick" to incentivize cleaner energy development and reduced CO2 emissions? What else can be done that will help resolve the situation identified by the science? These are the real questions, and should be addressed directly, not fought against under the ruse of denying the science. The science is the science. The dislike of potential policy options does not change the science, though the science can help inform the policy option debate.
For my part, as i have stated before, Man Would I Ever Love To Be Wrong on this one. I would rejoice and buy all of Gather a free beer if that ends up the case. Why? Because that would mean that I would no longer have to worry quite as much about the short term future of the human race. We might get a massive meteor hit, but that would not be our fault after all. We might run into more starvation when human populations approach 10 billion at peak population around the year 2100. But even if a billion or two starve, god forbid, at least that would leave most of us alive. But the thought of diminishing the carrying capacity of our planet for a thousand years through willfully ignoring a process that we discovered 30 years ago, that's just really embarrassing. I don't want to think about the question do we really deserve to survive if we are this dumb. I would prefer to just focus on problem solving. But it's hard to avoid the question. And the denial crew, with their many political successes let's face it, keep making it harder to avoid that question.
That said, and no matter what Tom Gerace would like to think, Gather is pretty inconsequential when it comes to influencing societal attitudes on this (and most other) matters. People preach to the choir. "Discussion" of scientific (and many political) issues on Gather is more like a game of dodgeball than debate. I picture a football game where half the stadium yells "Tastes Great" and the other counters with "Less Filling" [or their more profane derivations]. No one really listens to the other side, they merely use the other side's comments as a cue for retort.
Returning to my statement above that the denial squad is primarily big companies, it should be noted that these companies have legitimate business concerns about internalizing these costs. Especially if their competitors (e.g., those in China) don't have to also internalize the costs. There are real issues with some of the policy solutions being offered, and those issues shouldn't be ignored. But they should be addressed honestly and not based on creating the ruse that the science is wrong. Not liking the possible remedies doesn't change the scientific consensus that remedies are needed.
But of course, you know all this. I just wish more people would know it.
I'm sure that you've noticed my posts on this subject have focused on exposing the tricks of the denialist industry. One thing that I have noticed is how such folks have no qualms about misrepresenting the science to push their ideology. Traditionally, scientists would do their science and not get involved in ensuring it was communicated accurately. I think this was, and is, a mistake and that scientists must take a more active role in clarifying the science so that the media and the public won't be so easily suckered by the manipulators. In my opinion it simply isn't acceptable to let them bastardize the facts for their own benefit and to the detriment of perhaps the entire world.
I recently read the new book "Unscientific America" by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum and found it to get at this issue very well. I'll be posting a review as soon as I find the time to do so, probably this weekend before I hit the friendly skies again.
go on tell me about CO2, and i'll tell you answer this...why were grapes grown in England and they produced wine that rivaled the French. There was no man made CO2 at this level then....so why? and now they can't grow grapes in England unless they are special hybrids...it was warmer in Roman times...so what caused that?
Nature?