Global warming cynicism rises in face of stronger evidence
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
A significant proportion of the population have become more sceptical about climate change and the link with man-made emissions of greenhouse gases despite the fact that the scientific evidence has become stronger.
A survey of public opinion has found that 29 per cent of people believe claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated compared with 15 per cent of respondents to a similar survey carried out in 2003.
About one in five people are uncertain about whether climate change is really happening, about the same proportion who had the same view in 2003, according to the survey carried out by Cardiff University researchers.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Mankind with a current population of over 6 billion has changed the landscape of the planet. The outer-space view of many countries clearly shows the influence of mankind (if only you could see through all the con-trails left by the regular flights). Agriculture, ground level mining, forest decimation, towns and cities.
Eitherway, time is not on our side. Change is happening - there is cyclic natural change, helped somewhat by man made impact. It is the latter which is debatable - how much impact does man add to the background change?
Then there are other cyclic changes like swapping of magntic poles, which occur every 100 million years and we are on the cusp of a change. The magnetic poles have been erratic 12 degrees one way then 8 degrees the other way over the last 200 years - scary stuff.
One of the prophecies for the arrival of the last day (for mankind) is that the sun will rise from the West instead of the East. This never made sense to me before (because it sounds impossible), until I found out about the periodic swapping of the earths magnetic poles.
There are many other signs from prophecy which are valid now. But as God tells us through His messenger, if you are planting your crop and you hear of the last day, keep planting and dont worry, everything will play out according to its place in the greater plan.
@corporeal No, some of the population of some of the countries have changed the earth etc. Or, some of the population of nearly all of the countries. There are many in the UK and more in the usa who have never had a passport, and rich people from poor countries...
Claims of "worse than thought", as for example, Rahmstorf on sea level, have been shown to be false and full of statistical fiddling. Claims about stronger hurricanes, sinking South Sea Islands, melting Ice Caps, are also shown to be false, in spite of the best efforts of the BBC's David Shukman and ITV's Lawrence McGinty.
Vast amounts of public money are being spent chasing the global warming chimera, re-named climate change because the warming wasn't happening. It could be better spent on improving old infrastructure for dealing with the real weather whne it happens to be unpleasant.
Goal posts move in science according to observed facts and evidence, with conspiracy and denialism they move according to rhetoric and cherry-picking / distortion of facts (and sometimes just plain lies).
Climate change is a very complicated subject, particularly since we hear the Earth has been cooling since that unusually hot, El-Nino-powered year 1998. The scientists predict a 2c increase in average global temperatures by 2050. They are probably wrong about the 2c, but the concensus is that the Earth is warming over the long-term, and at least partly due to increased Co2 in the atmosphere. Whether or not that is taken less seriously than what some people on the Internet say is a matter of choice for the individual really.
As for 1998 being unusually warm, if you look at temps from 1997 to 2008, both inclusive, the graph has all the hallmarks of a top in the last few years. It may only be a blip but some Scientists claimed this would happen for various reasons *Solar Activity and the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillation are two that I have read*.
You say that The Scientists have predicted but it is more complex than that because an increasing number seem to disagree with AGW in whole or part or with the accuracy of the IPCC Models.
When some actual science is presented to the public that doesn't rely on computer models and guesses and doesn't contain manipulated statistics, then maybe a few more would listen.
The planet is not warming, such warming stopped in 1998. The first decade of the 21st century has seen global cooling.
This hard data flies in the face of the climate models, the rank scaremongering of the media and the counsel of despair offered up by environmentalists and politicians.
Now cracks are appearing in the AGW hypothesis. It appears that climate modellers are having second thoughts, some are admitting for the very first time that their models are seriously wrong. Also the proxy climate science that supports the models has shown to be nothing more than just a collection of fairy stories. Worst still CRU have lost all the original unadjusted data with regard the most widely quoted data set in the Hadcrut temperature record, this data set has no provenance. The Met Office has been cowed into embarrassed silence over their barmy seasonal forecasts. Politicians are now beginning to fear the consequences of carbon taxes and cuts in emmissions in the climate change debate.
The results has been that a growing number of people have had enough of the rubbish purporting to be settled science. They are fed up with fearmongering and the eco-celebrities who castigate others. They are rightly sceptical.
A day of reckoning is coming for those scientists, politicians and environmentalists who have continually cried wolf in the climate change debate. Their reputations and their careers are now on the line.
You can't say you haven't been warned!
The follownig article nicely explains how global cooling is a myth, and that global wamring is infact continuing unabated
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20
We are now living in a live now pay later trough.
The vast majority of the world populations are not very intelligent and are not able to understand that what they do now affects the future of their children and grandchildren.
Sure they will be able to find answers, but would you want to live with the answers that they will find, many of which are with us now.
Just take a close look at Africa, America and Australia, then start thinking.
Then go back 10,000 to 12,000 years and you will see what is coming.
Man obviously alters his environment. We do not need to look at geological time to see this one. Just look around you. Looking back in time we can see from the ice cores from about 8,000 years ago you increases in atmospheric C02. There are various peaks and troughs correlating with increasing poulation, agricultre, the black death and decreasing population, volcanoes polluting the atmosphere and causing global crop failure and the industrial revolution, burning coal and then oil. CO2 levels have been on the rise since mankind started developing agriculture and this has increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution.
Let's simply accept the fact that during the Carboniferous period the CO2 rich atmosphere provided the carbon for the plants to grow and as they died and got covered and compressed and forming the basis of the material required for the production of coal gas and oil the atmospheric CO2 decreased. Think about it for a minute if you take CO2 out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis to produce lignin (wood) and this is trapped and compressed over geological time then the atmospheric level will decrease. It did.
Little oscillations can be observed during natural cycles and seen in the geological record. The more information we get the more we are getting to understand it. The conclusions become stronger when the evidence mounts up. During the Carboniferous period atmospheric CO2 was sunk into the earth. Accept it it's not controversial surely.
About 8,000 years ago when the first humans started to develop agriculture and they chopped down trees and other carbon stores the levels have increased, but only a teeny bit at a time. Over thousands of years though it's mounted up. . . . . no need to worry really . . . . maybe . . .
However since we have been digging up and burning coal and oil and gas we have been releasing the trapped stored CO2. Why does anyone have a problem with this? A hundred million years ago the CO2 didn't disappear, it was gradually trapped in trees and other plants and then turned into oil and coal . . . . and left underground. If we have dug it up and piped it back to the surface and then burned it it will return to the state it was in all those millenia ago CO2. Where the problem here guys? We are not making something disappear by magic and then come out on nowhere are we?
The CO2 was photosynthetised into plant material, buried and stored and is now being released. The mechanism is very well understood. Neither process requires the interference of a God.
When we dig up and burn coal and oil the CO2 will end up in the atmosphere. It came from there and we are sending it back. There is no politically or religiously incorrect idea here. It's just like a bank account . . . . . . save it bit by bit . .. spend it
I take it nobody disagrees at this point . . . .
So now we can move on to CO2 in the atmosphere. What is its effect? When there was a high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Carboniferous era the global temperature was higher. CO2 and methane CH4, trap heat in the atmosphere. It's a simple non religious or political fact. We are releasing the stored carbon by burning it. CO2 levels are increasing and the world is warming up, just accept it.
To make things a little less clear however there are various cycles in place over 11,000 years and others over hundreds of thousands of years. If you place all the data over these cycles you can see trends. The trends are visible over the natural cycles, the natural oscillations. To prove this sometimes during a general warming trend there will be an observable cooling.
Please, it's not very difficult to understand that if you dig up a lump of carbon called coal and burn it, you will produce some CO2 which will end up in the atmosphere. If you burn a certain quanitity of coal you will produce an exact calculable amount of CO2.
The conclusion is that the globe should be warming up. Simple
I think the problem, prof, is that we've taken carbon that was sequestered over a period of hundreds of millions of years and we're returning it to the carbon cycle in just a few decades. The expected climate change will simply happen too quickly for much of the human race to adapt.
The poles have not moved 20 degrees in the last few years. Pole changes take millions of years and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. Please cite your references
From what I have observed governments will not manage to agree on policies across the world. Mankind will survive a 5° climate change but some populations will die out. They will drown or starve as they have in the past when there has been a rapid climate change. Africa look out.
I first wrote on this subject 3 years ago. At the time the figures were that if the UK became carbon neutral, China's power station building programme would add the amount we saved . . . in just over a year. So the UK becoming carbon neutral is insignificant really. Sorry, it's a fact
Being dependent on Russia an other politically unstable regimes is a much more important reason to become energy independent and or carbon neutral. The UK will probably survive global warming better than many countries . . . . water and energy will be the key issues in the future.
I love nature and the environment, the green taxes are crap, just an excuse for govts to raise money. We need to be energy and food independent. That should be the political driver.
My conclusion is . . .. . even if you climate change cynics dispute global warming evidence now and it might be wrong (but I don't think so). . . . . it's on its way and the world govts will fail to deal with it . . . so prepare for it . .. that's all. You can't pump all this CO2 into the atmosphere and expect nothing.
I notice that there are comments about the the Arctic ice . . . err please . . it is getting thinner, just accept it. If you need references for the data please let me know
And finally stop with the prophecies, please spend some time looking at facts and discussing them scientifically or you will continue to appear ridiculous.
I think that you are being too pessimistic re the consequences of the Polity not being prepared to make the hard decisions that are needed. I agree that they probably will not but I suspect that their indecision will not be as vital as you seem to fear. The Oil and Gas Age is going to close within the next century as supplies tend to deplete and we find alternatives. I suspect that this will keep temperature rises to a manageable level, at least for the Industriialsied Countries. As long as we have a population that gradually reduces from todays unsustainable levels, we will be able to cope with climate change.
I appreciate your measured tones which are a refreshing change from the mania that this topic seems to induce, on both sides of the arguement.
There is far too much hysteria around and there is an important debate to be had. My cynicism was there as I have heard a lot of govt hot air but very little real action.
I've not heard of warmists before, that's a good one.
Here's to further non manic comment
Possibly I was too keen to comment and a very good bottle of claret is also to blame but having read the posts as they appear now I really do feel the need to comment on the style and grammar and say sorry. Other than that I have no further comment and I am sure that is best.
Sorry, you alarmist's have not got a very good track record have that have you...
Baaaa..... The sound of the alarmist flock...
Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states “Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies. If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter.”
Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.
The only plausible explanation is that today's warming is primarily due to human activities. The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account for this warming. There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming. There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed modern climate change. People that claim there is no warming or that the warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate hypotheses. Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Because I see/hear much disinformation from well-intentioned folks, I feel it is my duty to try to educate people on this very important matter. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle because most of the real science is discussed in hard-to-read scientific journals and most of the bad science is easily accessible on Web pages, blogs, and other forms of mass media. Worse, there are political organizations such as The Heartland Institute that present themselves as scientific organizations but these organizations are directly and indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry and others that stand to lose if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
A majority of Climate Scientists do seem to believe that there is some validity to AGW but a growing number of Scientists do not agree either wholly or partly. 700 plus have signed a Petition to the US Congress disagreeing in whole or part with AGW or with the IPCC Models, 13 signed a Letter to the UN disagreeing with the UN stance on AGW, 60 plus German Scientists have written to Angela Merkel complaining that the German Govt is placing too much reliance on the IPCC Models, several have written to various Media etc.
I cannot believe that you are a Scientist because, if you were, you could not possibly write your final paragraph with any conviction.
The increase in GG can easily account for this warming only if the IPCC assumption, and that is what it is, re positive feedback from such as water vapour is correct.
There are no other known sources of warming! Many Solar Scientists have stated categorically in the 90s that they were convinced that Solar was the main driver. Professor Philip Stott has stated that the IPCC Models are incorrect because they assume CO2 is the driver but ignore the Atlantic Multi Decadal Osillation which is why he thinks that temps will now fall for decades, which they may have started to do in the period 1997 to 2008.
People have offered no credible alternative. Some have as I state above but, even if they did not, in what way does that prove AGW by CO2. If I assert that the moon is made of green cheese, you do not have to disprove it by suggesting an alternative, it is up to me to PROVE IT!
I see that your final statement is to imply that anyone who disagrees is a corrupt bastard in the pay of Big Oil et al. It is you who needs to be educated if that is your idea of rhetoric.
I am educated to degree level in Physics, have done modelling of Physical and Chemical Reactions and have no connection, as I am retired, with any Industry or pressure group. I state that AGW by CO2 is possible but unproven for the reasons stated above. Now refute by showing your proof for AGW by CO2!
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp/new
Please, there are almost NO peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals that refute AGW.
The IPCC 2007 and the Copenhagen 2009 Synthesis Report show that there is a virtual certainty about AGW and the unprecedented nature of AGW. You do not need to take my word for it. These are the experts from around the world. When we stop listening to experts in any field then we might as well stop going to school, stop reading, and stay in our caves.
The denialists all differ in their finger pointing while the climate experts are all stating the same thing. Denialists will point to changes in ocean circulation, land surface changes, solar fluctuations, cloud fluctuation, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, etc. but NONE of these has been shown with any consensus to be the underlying driver of climate change. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions HAVE been shown with great consensus. The IPCC 2007 and the Copenhagen 2009 Synthesis Report show that there is a virtual certainty about AGW and the unprecedented nature of AGW.
So we are left with three possible conclusions:
1) An overwhelming majority of climate experts agree on AGW and are honest.
2) An overwhelming majority of climate experts are ignorant about their “expertise”. Basically they all have sudden and collective Alzheimer's.
3) They have all agreed to conspire to delude the billions of folks on the planet and just a very small % of them - the denialists - are trying to save us all from this mass hoax.
Common sense and a sense of probability should lead you to the likely correct choice above.
One final comment: The first person to show proof of what IS causing the unprecedented modern day global warming and that it is NOT greenhouse gas emissions by humans is the next Nobel Science winner.
I note that you refer to Sentor Inhofe as being Oil backed. This may well be true but it is, in effect, an ad hominem attack which I am not convinced is correct.
1. If the Petition had been sent to, for example, Al Gore, would he have put it into the Senate Record as I understand Senator Inhofe has done. If you dissent from a prevailing orthodoxy you have to send it to someone who will give it a whirl. I see nothing wrong or suspicious in doing this.
2. If we go with your point re Inhofe can I point out that Al Gore is involved, as I understand it, in Carbon Trading, so we should also ignore anything that he says. In that case, who is untainted. One of the main cheerleaders for AGW is James Hansen who is an Astrophysicist, and Ban Ki Moon who is the big cheerleader at the UN is, in effect, a Politican. Another one who wrote the Report criticised by the 13 who wrote to the UN was a Railway Engineer.
I read your link and the Centre for Inquiry says that it is impartial but the tone of the site makes me suspicious. It is almost impossible to find an impartial site on this topic as it seems to invite an almost religious mania on both sides of the arguement. I am very dubious about their Report and, to avoid using to much time and space, I will give just a few of my reasons why.
1. It makes a big thing of 80% of those on the Petition not being Climate Scientists *CS* who had published in the Field. I did mention that they were Scientists and did not claim that they were all CS but that still means that 20% ARE CS. Also, I think that this is not really a correct headline as I read the Report to mean that 10% are CS and 15% are CS related plus there may be some CS who have not published but they still ARE CS. Even if the others are not CS they are still Scientists and so should have a reasonable understanding of the Scientific Assumptions behind the IPCC Model. As mentioned above, many of the pro AGW are not CS and many are not even Scientists. If we listen to them, why should we not listen to anti AGW who are, at least Scientists.
2. There are several ad hominem attacks such as mentioning *implied* Scientific Credentials which is hardly an impartial point of view.
3. It states that the IPCC AR4 is based on the work of 2,000 CS. This is, at the least, a distortion of the true postion. One of the complaints of the 13 who wrote to the UN was that there are, in fact, only 51 contributing or draft contributing Authors to AR4. 3 of the Letter signatories claim to have been such Authors in the past. I presume that they left after disagreements with the IPCC. Another signatory is a Nobel Prize winner which should count for something, I suppose.
Several Scientists have published critical Reports in Journals or by writing to the Media. One, if you can access the Economist website was from Philip Stott, an Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, on 27 Sep 2008, whose position seems to be that the IPCC Models are unreliable because they do not include the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillation. He claims this has been a major Driver up in the last few decades but has now switched and will cause temps to drop for decades. He was of the opinion that the Science was NOT settled.
You keep returning to consensus but this is not a valid concept in Science. There was a consensus that the Phlogiston Theory explained combustion, that Newtonian Mechanics were valid in all circumstances, that Classical Physics explained everything but they were all wholly or partially wrong.
Can I suggest another possibility to add to your 3.
4. CS have done their best in good faith and believe that the Models are correct. However the Models are built on the assumption that AGW is CO2 driven with a positive feedback, mainly of water vapour, to produce the predicted outcomes. They have, again in good faith, been tweaked to ensure that they comply with historical data.
The problem is that I have built Models for significantly less complex systems than our climate and they seemed to work and justify my assumptions. However, I carry on running them or someone suggests a new variable or parameter and, hey presto, my Model was banjaxed unless I changed my assumptions in some way. The AMDO may well be such an input and recent temps do seem to give, at least, some credence to the views of Professor Stott.
Skeptics of the current global warming now refer to the period between 1998 and 2008 and claim that global warming has ended. Some go one step further and claim that global cooling has begun. Of course, the observed data shows that this is nonsense. GISS, HadCRU, RSS, and UAH represent the four organizations that publish online the global average temperature estimates. Many experts believe that GISS data is the preferred set because it is the only set that uses all regions of the globe. HadCRU, RSS, and UAH do not include polar regions.
View the data and trends between 1998 and 2008 at:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/glo
Three of the four global average temperatures indeed are decreasing in their trends (although the actual global mean temperatures are still warmer than the previous decades).
Now view the data and trends between 1999 and present at:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/glo
Simply by shifting our starting point by one year, all four global average temperatures are increasing in their trends!
So why did the 1998 - 2008 plot show cooling? 1998 experienced an historic El Nino event which caused a large warming spike that year. 2008 experienced a La Nina which causes cooling and also an absence of sunpsots which also causes some cooling.
The point made here is that if one cherry-picks a small subset of the data, one can make just about any claim with a nice plot to back it up. The correct way to view global temperature trends is to look at ALL of the data.
View: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/glo
This plot shows the global average temperatures along with trends from 1880 to present. (Note: UAH and RSS data does not exist before 1980)
It is quite obvious that global temperatures have been increasing since 1880 and at a faster rate in the past two decades!
Furthermore, much of the heat that is delivered by the sun is stored in the Earth's oceans while only a fraction of this heat is stored in the atmosphere. Therefore, a change in the heat stored in the ocean is a better indicator of climate change than changes in atmospheric heat. Figures 27a and 27b (Richardson et al., 2009) displayed on my Modern Day Climate Change page at http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/glo
Here is a more technical analysis of why global temperatures have not "cooled since 1998" nor "cooled since 2001" as some global warming critics claim: Embarrassing Questions from the Open Mind Blog at: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/2
If you look at the trends quoted on your links then temps in the last twelve years are within trend using, I think, 1960 to 1990 as a baseline. If, however, you use 1940 to 1970, I would argue that this is problematic, at the least.
If you plot the HADCRUT3 dataset on a graph then the temps since 1997 look to me as though they could be a top. It is too early to say but should become clear in the next 3 to 5 years. If Professor Stott is correct re the AMDO, then this could be a new trend for decades.
I note again that this does not prove that CO2 is not a driver, I suspect that it is, but some of the hysterical predictions that are made by Gore, Hansen et al are based, not on deduction from first principles, but on the Models. If the Models are wrong then so are the predictions. Best, IMHO, to carry on trying to tweak the Models for 5 years and then see what they predict.
"Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states “Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies. If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter.”"
This argument is fundamentally flawed. For as Einstein noted “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Bang goes the consensus when the hypothesis is shown to be wrong by a single ugly fact. Lots of empirical evidence that the "projections" from the GW theory are wrong, weight or numbers do not come into a scientific discussion.
Doran and Zimmerman conclude:
Debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
In another smaller survey via email, Brown, Pielke, and Anaan (2007) contacted 1807 climate scientists and received responses from 140 of those scientists. In the poll scientists were asked to discuss their opion about the role of human-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change and how climate science was represented in the IPCC's WG1 Report. The response is summarized below:
No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that "global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate" - [0%].
82% expressed the opinion that the IPCC WG1 Report was accurate [65%] or actually underestimates the consequences of anthropogenic CO2-induced AGW and the associated risks [15%].
The most often chosen response in the survey was "The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence."
If, however, the question was Do you believe CO2 is the ONLY driver or the MAIN driver I would have been much more dubious about saying YES
If it was Do you think we should now use the Models to decide Public Policy My answer would have been an emphatic NO.
The smaller survey is 140 responses. If only the CS or CS related signatories of the Senate Petition, approx 150, had been include and responded then the results would have been very different.
There is just as much evidence that global warming is a natural event caused by us moving out of a temperate interglacial period, plus the fact that temperatures have risen and fallen within much greater levels than that which we are currently experiencing. In my opinion, yes global warming is occurring but whether it is caused or contributed to by human activity is highly debateable.
Herein lies the problem. You are CORRECT if one includes mass media (TV, news, blogs, Web) but you are INCORRECT if one reviews where the real science is discussed: peer-reviewed science journals. This is the avenue for science and, although not perfect (what is?) this is the standard in science. The experts overwhelmingly agree (because of the robust data and lack of alternate credible hypotheses) that there is AGW.
I did not refute that fact that global warming is occurring. What I am challenging is the idea that global warming is the sole responsibility of man. There are just as many Scientists that are ready to dismiss man's impact upon climate but because of popular consensus and the media's finger pointing and doom mongering the evidence against human influence upon climate change is ignored. Mass media i.e 'An Inconvenient Truth' more often takes the stance that man is totally to blame for Gglobal warming. I present to you just one Scientist from an American University who questions man's role in global warming:
Prof Singer, a specialist in atmospheric physics at the University of Virginia, said: "We have a greenhouse theory with no evidence to support it, except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events.
I would also like to point out that more than 500 scientists have published evidence that questions man's role in global warming
according to analysis of peer-reviewed literature by The Hudson Institute.
The arguments against the abundance of evidence of climate change and our contributing factor to it is based merely on a myopic and childish conviction that "I want to do whatever I want and see no consequences in the grand scheme of things of my actions"...its pure hubris, and this sort of irrational and sophomoric stance is pitiful. People need to wake up and realize our impact on this planet is far from insignficant and benevolent.
A total lie. There is ZERO science behind the man-made CO2 GW argument... ZERO. Every argument 'they' use can be easily uncovered. It may seem hard to believe but every issue they use to promote this pack of nonsense IS a lie... No truth at all.
If you only read headlines, only watch the one side of this debate, then you probabloy think you have a scientific viewpoint, but if you look at both sides, check each group's claims, the global warmers have had NO success for years now. The years they were claiming had been warming, had in fact been cooling, as just one example of the incredible degree of deception.
For myself I first became suspeicious and decided to research more closely, when I noticed one tyrranical government after another and one formerly ammoral corporation after another, all joining in the same chorus about "global warming" as if such formerly vile people had suddenly become all altruistic and concerned with the health of eartjh or its inhabitants. I realised either the evidence was so undeniable, they are truly shocked into action, or once again we are being lied to and MANIPULATED.
It soon became clear which it was. Their reasons? More of the usual. Redistribution of wealth. Your wealth goes to a smaller and smaller subset of people.
I think these are real crisis, very hard to deal with, and very expensive to boot. The best way to avoid doing the right thing is to distract the majority of people with arguments about a non-issue. The notion of man made climate change is just that.
Is that ad hominem attack your idea of rhetoric? If you disagree with me, why not post some FACTS as refutation instead of abusing people who disagree with you!
that
the evidence for" increasing" proof
is Promoted by clever wording as the above story does so smoothly.
People behind media have Carbon interests!
While in fact a lot of Independant scientists, not just average Joes,
also happen to have some pretty good evidence of
not fearmongering, but Historical data that suggests differently,
and that people who do not blindly accept the Mainstream position,
and who tend to think and research, can also have a divergent view.
go look at Wattsupwiththat dot com.
Once I also thought it credible, then I researched.
now I know its hype and a money trail that reeks.
When you truly beleive that the world was created 6000 years ago, that scientists are part of a left wing socialist conspiracy, and that immigrants and muslims are trying to destroy your way of life, then you are not going to be overly concerned about global warming.
There may be some people out there who believe Relativity is true but caused by the Pixies but that does not prove that Einstein was wrong. Only facts can do that!
I do no think that you can say that because some of the sceptics are dubious, therefore all are. There is some Science out there that casts, at least, some doubt on the certainties applied by the pro AGW side in thsi debate.