Global Warming IS human made

Post Reply New Topic

Point taken about nonlinear systems, but where are these scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming?

You could start here:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/03/glo ... c-dissent/

ruveyn

You answered this question with your own post.

I see dissent, but nothing terribly cogent. If there is reputable dissent, why does it not appear in peer reviewed journals, as >>>this<<< article found? Granted that is old, but there is a relative paucity of scholarly material that I've seen dragged up in defense of the "there's a scientific controversy" position.

*Sigh*

See this is exactly what I mean. Even when I try to keep the discussion ON TOPIC, it ALWAYS goes off topic. Guys... really, did you read the original post, and then my follow-up post? If you haven't please do, then post a comment related to it.

Thank you.

CO2 have properties. Applied in enough quantity and it will change the effect on the planet regardless. Yes, forest fires and animal explosions generate lots of CO2, but the amount of forest that can absorb all that CO2 is diminishing rapidly.




And there are many scientists around the world that are not paid by the republican party that does not agree.

Passing comment here:



from http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008 ... arwind.htm

You might find this interesting:

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/08/r ... -intl.html

ruveyn

And who are these scientists? Meterologists or "oogy-woogy i'll throw my bones up in the air"-weather predictors? What country did they come from? What corporations did they work for? What is their experience/background?

Does not say.

Same thing?

Why dont bookies take bets on weather?

For starters look at the list of names on the bottom of this:

http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenro ... man-e.html

and this:
long link


I will dig up more names of dissenting scientists. Unfortunetly I can't find a single list on the web thus far, but I shall keep looking.

and this has some more names:
long link


ruveyn

First list - is just a list of names. Not credentials.

About the second list: Sorry, but titles like "Economist", "Molecular scientist", "Electrical engineer" are pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

Why not bring in an doctor specialising in oncology, a scientist in criminal forensics or a software engineering professor too? Pathetic.

And you somehow forgot to highlight this name:
"Albert Jacobs, a geologist, worked in the oil industry in Canada"

Sorry, but that list have very few names/titles that actually matter.

Link to the Third list didnt work for me, but the word "Minority.Blogs" in the link could probably sum it up.

Actually, supercomputers simulating the weather are way more precise than throwing bones up in the air...

Go to a library and look up journal articles by these guys. That is the credential. If they are published in a refereed scientific journal it means that are qualified to publish. It does not necessarily mean they are right.

You asked for names. You got name. You want more, go to the indexes for the scientific publications and read the dissenting articles.

The fact of the matter is that qualified scientists who publish in genuine refereed journals dissent from the U.N. report. That means there is not consensus on the question.

And that is to be expected. We do not have, as yet, a solidly based science of climate. We have a lot of data gotten from various sources (such as ice core samples, for example) and we have computer models. What we don't have is a solid scientific theory (yet) such as we have in physics and chemistry. And that is why I hesitate to accept recommendations and policy initiatives grounded on such flimsy evidence. These guys are asking us to give up our industrial civilization based on a "chicken little" scenario. I am not ready to swear an oath of poverty on such a flimsy basis.

That being said, I am very much in favor of backing off from hydro-carbon energy sources and going to nuclear power. Why? Because being dependent on resources under the control of hostile nations puts us in danger. The less we have to depend on middle east source for our energy the stronger we shall be as a nation.

I am also in favor of integrating so-called renewable energy sources into the mix. The more non-hydrocarbon energy we have the safer and more prosperous we shall be.

At this moment there is only one high energy density alternative to hydrocarbons for energy and that is nuclear fission. Let us build reactors from coast to coast. The French ( can you imagine that -- The French!! !) generate 30 percent of their energy by nuclear fission. Why can't we?

We can also help ourselves economically by using the energy we currently have more efficiently. If we could reduce current inefficiency by as little as twenty five percent we would no longer need to depend on middle eastern sources of oil. We wast a great deal of energy which we are paying for dearly. That should stop.

The sooner we can generate more electricity than we currently need (or the sooner we can use our electricity more efficiently) the sooner we shall have the much hyped hydrogen economy.

So my stand is save money, be efficient and f*ck Gaia. Screw the environmentalists and treat our wallets and bank accounts with more respect. Doing that we shall have a kinder and cleaner environment. Cheaper is better, cheaper is cleaner and more efficient is the key to a better environment.

ruveyn

I agree, but i'd disagree with anyone who says human-made climate change doesn't exist. The question isn't wether it's there, the question is how much of an impact are we having. We might be having a 0.1% effect on natural changes, or a 15% change on natural changes. The time scale to change could be thousands of years, or it could be mere hundreds. We need to know.


I agree, i think the best way to achieve change is from an economical veiw. People will change when they realise they can save money.

Is not my job to argue that the scientist know what they are talking about. You are the one referring to them.




Well, you got that point right. And it does not make them the RIGHT scientists to open their mouths. "Scientist" is not a generic term.




No, i asked for credentials. And since very few of the people you refer to are actual scientist with any real insight into the matter, your argument is still weak.



We? Oh... you're American. I also live in a country where a large percentage of the energy is produced by domestic nuclear energy.




Lots of assumptions.

And No - it isnt. Cheap is capitalism. Green is not the cheapest or the most effective, but it is the greenest. I do not have a problem with capitalism as such, but it is one major contributor to environmental problems. And the major capitalistic environmental problems caused today are caused by.... (ready for it?)... China, the only "communist" country left on the planet.