jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (186 posts)

Royal Society Lecturer says CO2 not Affecting Earth Temperature

  1. sannyasinman profile image84
    sannyasinmanposted 4 years ago

    Why don't we hear of "Man Made Global Warming" anymore?
    Simple. Because global warming is not and never was caused by man and his CO2 emissions.

    Now even the Royal Society, a staunch man-made global warming proponent, is starting to discredit this lie.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/glo … .html#more

    Wake up people!. Carbon footprint offsets and carbon credits are a monumental scam, a hoax, a fraud!

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How on earth can you trust someone named Valdemort? It's character from the Harry Potter books/movies. ;-)

    2. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe* the offsets are a scam, but the pollution, compromised air quality, compromised water quality and the compromised overall quality of life are not scams.

      I grew up in L.A. during the seventies. I remember walking down the street when there was a heavy marine layer and having those tiny water droplets sting my eyes. That doesn't happen anymore even though the air quality here could still be improved.

      * Maybe means maybe, as in maybe yes, maybe no.

    3. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps they will switch back to the global cooling theory. Of course then the cooling effect must cancel out the warming effect, and those junk science theories will fall back into the natural cooling and warming cycles that have occurred on the Earth since before the human race even existed.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh man but then we couldn't tax the rich and make people buy crap cars or make them pay carbon credits......by the way exactly how was that supposed to help the environment??????????????????????

  2. WriteAngled profile image92
    WriteAngledposted 4 years ago

    I certainly agree carbon offsets are a scam! I would never, ever dream of paying these.

    I don't have the physics knowledge to follow the global warming debate. I limit my energy use as far as I can, because it saves me money.

  3. Pearldiver profile image88
    Pearldiverposted 4 years ago

    The LIE is that people believe that they are more superior than the planet we rely on for life, yet state they care for the planet! The LIE is that Fracking does not F**k the environment or earth's natural balance!  The LIE is that hundreds of thousands of people have died in wars that were created solely for the purpose of securing fossil fuel resources, yet sold to their parents as being justifiable for 'other' reasons! The LIE is that dumping our trash in the sea, does no damage!  The LIE is that people are in control of their eating habits and attitudes towards obesity, or the ever increasing negative medical effects of that obesity! sad

    The LIE is Man!  Aren't You proud to have such 'power' over other species? sad

  4. carterchas profile image79
    carterchasposted 4 years ago

    The author of the hub didn't read that the guy he's talking about is on the payroll of the energy industry.  With all the crazy weather that's been happening lately, how can anybody say that climate change isn't happening?

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Weather is not climate. The scientific argument for human caused climate change is bankrupt - you can believe it if you want, as long as you don't support rationing my energy and taxing it.

  5. Bob Zermop profile image92
    Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago

    I personally think whether the climate is affected by CO2 is irrelevant. There are clear, indisputable environmental damages like deforestation, oil spills, and air pollution. Why it's getting warmer is a good question, but whatever the answer is we should still go greener. In the long term, sustainability will be the only, um, sustainable solution. Love the world, and peace from California! big_smile

    1. August Xavier profile image59
      August Xavierposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Amen. Whether there is hard indisputable data to support either side is irrelevant to me. The bottom line is mankind does produce toxic by-products from the things that are used for modern conveniences. Deforestation just cannot be good, period. So, what can it hurt to find alternative means of energy? Go green or go home.

  6. Living Well Now profile image79
    Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago

    A contrarian opinion from a questionable source doesn't change the science. Ideologies and conspiratorial thinking don't trump science.

    Here's the science: http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/

    Bob Zermop, you make a good point and I'd like to add that we need to transition away from fossil fuels soon and we need to do it quickly or it's game over and lights out.

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh so we should really be sending Al Gore our money every time we run the air conditioner?
      I wonder how much offset he has to pay for that honkin big jet he flies to his conferences in?

    2. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My point being that the leaders of the global climate change movement lead you to wonder. Because they don't exhibit signs in their personal behavior that a problem actually exists. That tends to breed doubt.

      1. Living Well Now profile image79
        Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What does Al Gore have to do with the science? Or his position or lifestyle? Nothing. He's a popularizer, not a scientist.

        Are you telling me you can't read the body of evidence for yourself without bringing in politics and ideologies?

        I'll repeat what I just posted before: Ideologies and conspiratorial thinking don't trump the science.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why can't I bring politics and ideologies into when the leaders of the movement do just that and would be nowhere without it?
          It's cyclical. Now last year it was hotter than blazes where I am. This year it's cool and it's hot somewhere else.

          1. Living Well Now profile image79
            Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What does that have to do with the science? Nothing.

            Weather is cyclical, global warming isn't. That's why it's global. Show me evidence to the contrary that warming isn't occurring.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Because it's cooler.

              1. Living Well Now profile image79
                Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not globally. Show me the data that support your position. Otherwise, it's just an argument from incredulity.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                  1. Living Well Now profile image79
                    Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's it?

                    1. Easterbrook is a contrarian and he cooked his data:
                    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05 … -the-incl/

                    2. DuHamel is obviously a GW denier and not a scientist. He's cherry picking quotes. The article he cites doesn't say what he claims it says. The article states, "However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface." Climate scientists are familiar with forcing.

                    3. A blog post from the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee isn't science. Republicans are known to shoehorn data so it conforms with their biases. The long term trend in temps is still shows warming. That post was debunked when it was written: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/scien … wanted=all

                    And recent evidence from NASA:  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=76975 "Nine of the top ten warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. Last year was another one of them, coming in at 9th warmest since 1880."

                    Oh, and May of 2012 was the 2nd warmest ever according to the NOAA. Not evidence for warming per se, but it's following the trend: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

                2. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You were saying?

                3. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Damn it got quiet didn't it?

                  2. kerryg profile image88
                    kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    1. Watts is in the pay of the oil companies and his conclusions are fishy at best.

                    2. Taylor is a lawyer, not a scientist, and his bogus argument has been refuted on these boards before.

                    3. Samuel Todd is an economist, not a scientist. He cites a letter from 16 non-climate scientists, an article from the DailyFail (not a peer reviewed science journal), a petition signed by a bunch of geologists and other non-climate scientists, the thoroughly debunked film The Great Global Warming Swindle, and other nonsense that nobody with the slightest understanding of the science takes seriously.

                    4. This was published in 2009, so it is quite out of date, for starters, and was misleading even based on what we knew in 2009. In short, it compares the warmest year on record at that time based on that particular data set (even in 2009, other data sets suggested that 1998 had already been surpassed by 2005) with the temperature in a year with the lowest solar minimum in centuries (2008). Despite the low solar minimum, 2008 is still in the top 15 warmest years on record thanks to the effects of CO2 cancelling out some of the drop in solar energy. 2010 tied 2005 for warmest year on record, 2011 is in the top 10 warmest years on record, and 2012 is so far keeping up the trend.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +++ Thanks for posting the article.

  7. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    A small smattering of science that might give some hints as to the massive fraud that is going on pertaining to 'climate change'.


    GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE

    EARTH GETTING COOLER
    Earth is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say, W. F. Jasper, 20 May 2010, New American
    “Rather than global warming at the rate of 1 degree fahrenheit per decade, records of past natural cycle indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st Century, to about 2030.” Dr. Don Easterbrook

    SEA LEVELS NOT RISIN
    No statistically significant rise since 1930
    “Yes it might be 1.1mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more...it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend...”
    “From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but no trend whatsoever.”
    Levels in the Maldives, Tavalu Islands, Venice, Vanuatu and Tegua (which apparently had to evacuate due to sea-level rise) have shown no trend.
    ‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 1/2


    NO SIGNIFICANT ICE MELTING
    “Some Alpine glaciers are melting, others are advancing. Antarctic ice is certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion of ice. Greenland is the dark horse for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but it doesn’t matter, because it is already floating, and it has not effect. A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because of deforestation.”
    “In 5000 years, the whole of the Northern Hemisphere experienced warming, the Holocene Warm Optimum, and it was 2.5 degrees warmer than today. And still, no problem with Antarctica, or with Greenland; still, no higher sea level”
    ‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 4



    GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD

    DODGY TEMPERATURE DATA
    “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development” John Christ, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama
    World may not be warming, say scientists, Jonathon Leake, The Times

    COOKED SEA-LEVEL STATISTICS
    Selective data taking
    IPCC Using tide gauges to measure sea-level.
    “...the IPCC, choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that this is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use.”
    ‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 2
    Dodgy computer models
    IPCC using tide gauge levels in their computer models for sea-level
    “...[the IPCC’s sea-level data set] was a straight line - suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year...It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which had suddenly twisted up, because they had entered a ‘correction factor’, which they took from the tide gauge...a figure introduced from the outside
    ‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 2

    POLITICAL CENSORSHIP
    1. Banned TV programmes
    Maldives’ government banned sceptical television programme about their sea-levels.
    “Because they thought they would lose money. They accuse the West for putting out carbon-dioxide, and therefore we have to pay for our damage and the flooding. So they wanted the flooding scenario to go on.”
    ‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 3


    SCIENTIFIC BIAS
    “If you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming.”
    ‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 4


    DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE
    IPCC sea-level team pull down tree to signify that it had been destroyed by sea-level rise
    “Then the students pull down the tree by hand!”
    ‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 3/4

    HYPOCRISY
    Al Gore buys house in area threatened by ‘sea-rise’
    “In 2005, Al and Tipper Gore purchased an ocean-front penthouse at San Francisco St. Regis condo/hotel tower, one of the most expensive addresses in the world, apparently unconcerned that rising sea levels might soon deluge the hotel lobby, if not their own dining room”
    Earth is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say, W. F. Jasper, 20 May 2010, New American



    BILIOGRAPHY

    ‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner.
    Available at: [www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf]
    Accessed on 19th September 2011

    Earth is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say, W. F. Jasper, 20 May 2010, New American
    Available at: [thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3583-earth-is-cooling-sea-levels-not-rising-scientists-say]


    Accessed on 19th September 2011

    1. Jane Bovary profile image90
      Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A small smattering is right. What 'massive fraud' are you talking about? 
Once again, a  climate change sceptic chooses to highlight a minority opinion as indisputable *fact* while completely ignoring the fact that there is a consensus among the world's climate scientists that climate change is real and humans are contributing to it.

      There's nothing wrong with airing dissenting opinions but there is something wrong with presenting them as evidence that the mainstream climate science is somehow  fraudulent. Why are you so hell bent on believing the minority must be right and the majority wrong? And who is behind this supposed fraud? Every major scientific body in the US and around the world?  The IPCC? What's the motivation? Why do you assume the vast bulk of mainstream climate scientists to be fraudulent and the climate sceptics legitimate and trustworthy? It makes no sense. It's possible  the majority of climate scientists may turn out to have got it wrong..but fraudulent'? I can see no logic in that...they'd all have to be in on it and that's just not credible.

      The truth is that governments hate having to do anything about climate change - but they are being forced to by the scientific consensus. Yes there is one, despite what sceptics would have you believe. Among the world's climate scientists, there is really very little dissent.

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The truth is that there is a lot of political and corporate interest in getting everyone to buy into the idea of man-made climate change and the "need" for carbon tax, carbon offsets, carbon trading etc. etc. Governments get more control over us peasants as a result of the tax, and corporations make lots of moolah from the offsets and the trading.

        Even if such measures had any beneficial effects on climate (which I doubt), such effects would be minuscule and would cost an incredible amount of money.





        650 and counting according to this:

        http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? … 63dc2d02cb

        And that's not including the ones who secretly agree with them, but are too afraid to come out and say so.

        1. Jane Bovary profile image90
          Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So respected scientific bodies around the world are in cahoots with governments in order to *control us and steal our money*. Such paranoia. Climate change is hugely problematic for government, economically and politically. Corporate interests? The powerful fossil fuel industry has no no axe to grind I suppose?




          Afraid of what? The science establishment? As to the 650.

          Over 58% of the names listed had no climate related qualifications whatsoever and so lacked the knowledge to effectively judge the results. Less than 16% were qualified in climate science to even voice an opinion on the matter and many of those had quibbles over minor matters which did not contradict the global warming theory. At least one of these scientists publicly complained that his name was included against his knowledge and wishes and in contradiction to his own opinion

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war … acy_theory

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
            EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Not paranoia at all, just observation of the way the world works - and not just in this arena.

            Governments love us to be scared, or hadn't you noticed? It gives them the excuse to snoop and take away our rights, and a lot of people are happy to buy into it. Including you by the sounds of things.

            Corporate interests? Well, apart from carbon offset companies, the biggest one is Wall Street, the City of London etc. - anyone who can do emissions trading. Nice money earner for them. I should imagine that the companies who are selling off their "surplus" carbon credits can also make a killing if the timing is right, or take advantage of the tax breaks.

            As other people have pointed out: when it comes to any regulations (not just climate-related ones), large corporations tend to be less affected overall. They have the infrastructure, staff and financing to be able to deal with implementing the regulations. It's the small companies that find it a struggle.






            Assuming this is true, it tells us that there is intellectual dishonesty going on on both sides of the argument. We've ended up in a cul de sac.

            1. Jane Bovary profile image90
              Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well capitalism will attempt to capitalise wont it? None of this negates the science.

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
                EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, way to brush aside my point lol.




                It doesn't negate the science, but it doesn't confirm it either.

              2. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What would you think if I told you the science exists for the purpose of the other?

                Oh no that can't be because they are scientists.
                You know back a number of years some scientists came out with a paper stating they had discovered a physical difference between straight and gay people. Some difference in a lobe in the brain or other.
                Then you know what came to light. All the lead scientists were gay. Invalidated the paper.
                These folks have an agenda.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  always seeing the conspiracy...

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's because the progressive left always wants control my friend.

                  2. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And everyone on the left wants to ignore the Godfather of the climate movement who now says"Hey I guess it isn't that bad after all".
                    Can't control people if they aren't scared.

      2. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Science is not conducted by consensus - if there is proven contrary evidence to a particular hypothesis (look above), the hypothesis needs to be adjusted or thrown out. The IPCC, the UN and the majority of governments around the world seem to believe that the science is settled when that simply is not the case. What is more incredible to me is that AGW peddlers completely dismiss contrary evidence, which suggests to me that they are not interested in hearing contrary opinions. It is as if they want to believe in the catastrophic hypothesis. And with that point I can hopefully give you a hint as to the motivation behind believing in such a thing:

        What the IPCC and the UN suggest to tackle climate change is tantamount to Marxism through de-industrialisation. It is simply the anti-capitalist mentality manifested through 'science'. Leading voices on the issue already talk about this as an "opportunity", advocating heavy government control on the population to tackle "shopping culture", in tandem with "sustainability". You will simply not find a AGW advocate who is not an authoritarian by nature. Authorities with the power to control a population also have the power to give and take privileges at will. It is very profitable for Al Gore and anybody else associated with the IPCC and the UN to go along with. Big corporations, perhaps surprisingly, love authoritarian control as their incredible monetary influence can push legislation that benefits them ahead of their competitors (what is called crony capitalism). What a better way for some energy companies to get ahead of their rivals by funding ideas like this, and consequently regulating their competitors out of existence (it is these competitors that have been funding people with contrary views, as would be expected). Also, the extremely expansive government programs put forward by AGW advocates are giving business to a number of special energy, human resource and military interests. There is lots of money to be made out of this, especially when the consumers are scared for their lives.

        It's all about self-interest. The average liberal likes global warming too because it gives them a good opportunity for moral posturing - it's not about science at all.

        Science is science, and the science simply does not add up. But why do these conferences roll ahead whilst banning contrary voices? Why is it so important so as to create a kind of fascism to tackle it? These people admit that civil liberties have to take a back seat to save the planet. The fact that it rolls on, and responds aggressively to contrarians suggests to me that science is not the primary motivator.

        1. Jane Bovary profile image90
          Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ok so despite a near universal consensus on anthropomorphic climate change, you maintain it's a left-wing conspiracy?

          This is a common fantasy theme - that the traditional allies of the environmental movement (Labour parties, the Greens and in some scenarios, the UN) have concocted climate change as a means to scare the public into a mass redistribution of wealth or some such evil  thing. Climate scientists are drawn as elitist, self-serving opportunists.

          In this theme, those  actively concerned about climate change tend to be portrayed as conspirators, environmental cultists, or even 'religious fundamentalists', despite the fact that there are many on the politically right who accept the mainstream science.

          Where did this idea come from? Right-wing think tanks? Largely, yes. Sceptics seem much more concerned with turning climate change into an ideological battle than they are with the actual science.



          That is not the opinion of the vast majority of climatologists.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm saying the AGW movement is based in Marxism but is politically convenient for higher-ups on any 'wing' because it excuses greater government controls if cited in any circumstance. I don't buy the 'right/left wing' dichotomy usually. The science supporting it is very flimsy (look up), regardless of consensus. Flat-Earth was consensus, but that does not make Flat-Earth scientific.

            It is this lack of scientific evidence that leads peddlers into propagating an ideology. The latest climate change conferences focus more on ideology and censorship, and getting stuff done as fast as possible rather than debating the science, despite challenging evidence being available all the time. All the ideology is coming from the AGW proponents, even if they think they're being bi-partisan.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes.....those are exactly the people walking around telling you that you must pay carbon credits....buy insanely priced light bulbs...buy vehicles that are impractical and don't help the problem....yet they don't do these things. It's a lot like Michelle Obama telling you to eat vegetables while she dines on prime rib. Which has happened.

            2. recommend1 profile image70
              recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              WOW - I agree with something you said big_smile

              I might take issue with the origin of the Anti Global Warming stuff in that it stemmed almost entirely from the oil sector,  which by definition makes it political and right wing and ideological.

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Deleted

                1. recommend1 profile image70
                  recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Just a little joke,  the chances of agreement are very slim I would say.

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    To be honest I can't remember what we debated about before. Are you an Obama supporter, per chance?

        2. EmpressFelicity profile image85
          EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think that a lot of well-meaning (but non-authoritarian) people have been sucked in too, but yes, there is a disturbing undercurrent of authoritarianism to it all.

          Believe it or not, I used to actually be an (amateur) environmental campaigner back in the late Eighties. But even then, I was always slightly disquieted by the underlying strains of "eco fascism" implicit in the drive for more top-down control over people's behaviour.

          I've now changed my mind on a lot of issues.

    2. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ugh, sorry, dude, but this is mostly a lot of nonsense. The claims about bad temperature data have been refuted over and over, most recently by the BEST study conducted by a climate skeptic. The guy had the scientific integrity to do actual science and he discovered that scientists were not only not overestimating the temperature rise due to poorly sited temperature stations, in some cases they were actually underestimating it.

      http://berkeleyearth.org/

      Ice most definitely is melting in Greenland and the Artic, and at a much faster rate than predicted even as recently as the 2007 IPCC report. Some mountain glaciers are increasing in size due to increased snowfall from warmer air temperatures (warmer air holds more moisture, hence more snow) but the majority are declining. The Antarctic is also declining - any study claiming it's not is out of date.

      I notice you quoting Nils Axel Morner a lot - his views have been repeatedly debunked by other scientists and are pretty much completely divorced from reality. Which is maybe no surprise from somebody who claims to be a dowser.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The "Iceman" thawed out after being frozen for over 5,000 years of fluctuating climate until recently.  This indicates our planet is indeed warming at a rather speedy rate than first thought.  It amazes me how some folks can deny the obvious when it goes against their own political views.  These types usually have little in the way of scientific knowledge nor education in the field.  Usually they hail from the deep south or southwest because of the religious influence and poor science education in these areas. smile

                                          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good afternoon from South East, slightly middle-class Britain and former lefty who adjusted his views based on the evidence.

          Very few of us have the scientific qualifications to research with any great detail, so we have to make the best educated guess from the evidence available to us. There is a vast intellectual community with no political or financial agenda that does not believe in the catastrophic consequences suggested by the IPCC and others. The difference between the AGWs and sceptics in the ideological battle is that the sceptics are pegged as rednecks swayed by Big Oil, whereas AGWs lay out their political agenda as part of their plans to tackle climate change themselves. It is not about mildly inconveniencing energy companies with more regulation, it is about completely dismantling industry in the west, and preventing third-world countries from industrialising at all. Totalitarian control over the worlds resources. Do you think our liberty is a good sacrifice to make over this theory with extremely dodgy evidence to back it up?

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            See the whole thing revolves around making people change their behavior. If they can make us buy useless cars and 50 dollar light bulbs they will have turned the sociological corner so to speak and the rest of it becomes easier.

          2. kerryg profile image88
            kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Personally, I think that delaying action until the evidence is irrefutable is much more likely to result in major curtailing of liberty than taking more gradual action.

            http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12 … te-change/

            TLDR version: we have a carbon budget for the next century if we want to keep warming below 2 degrees C. If emissions peak in 2015, it's painful but doable. If we wait until 2025, we'd need something close to the K-T impact to do it:

            http://i46.tinypic.com/1ptoxd.jpg

            Of course, you can make the argument that we shouldn't even try for 2 degrees C but should aim instead for, say, 4, but that is territory uncharted since the dawn of civilization. At least at 2 degrees we have the Medieval Drought Period suggesting some places to start evacuating...

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Can you see how more sceptical people can become as soon as somebody says "there's no time, we have to act now otherwise you'll be in danger!"? Gradual curtailing of liberty is even more dangerous because the populace can not see it whilst it's happening. If we're getting to a point where we're fining people for criticising carbon taxes, we are truly living in a police state. I truly feel for Australians.

              http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/ … 6366534694
              (If they prove it? Okay and who's going to do the checking? The government that profits from the taxes? Yes, that isn't going to be biased at all)

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Isn't it interesting how taxation seem to be their only solution?

                1. kerryg profile image88
                  kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL, have fun searching for anywhere where I have ever said I support carbon taxation. big_smile

                  My solution: http://kerryg.hubpages.com/hub/Global-W … ate-Change

                  (That will probably get removed by a moderator, so if it does, just search for "global warming solutions" on my profile.)

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Apologies. Maybe not you but the truly involved acolytes really are into it.

                  2. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I have issue with the climate science, but the issue of finite resources and deforestation has some logic to it. The only issue I see is that the 'what you can do' section is not very detailed. Shouldn't that be the main section? I can not condone enforcing any program upon a populace, despite its apparently well-meaning aims - I'm a voluntarist.

                    I hope you can see the reasoning behind it too: energy companies want to make a profit from resources, correct? Well, if these resources are running out, they are running out of time in which they can make a profit from it. So, is there not an incentive to find new resources to make a profit from? (This is all assuming we have a free market however, which we do not).

                    Other problems can be solved by rolling back government too: fully legalise hemp to relieve the demand for paper, and stop charging around with drones in the middle-east so that the oil can go back to its natural price.

                2. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, they have suggested heavy regulation and expensive programs into renewable energy resources, but the point is that none of the solutions seem to be voluntary. All of the proposed solutions use taxation or control over individuals. They would never even think to leave some responsibility to the individual, we're all smelly rednecks who don't know what's good for us or our precious Earth.

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The people who advocate questioning authority never want to be questioned.

                  2. kerryg profile image88
                    kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm much more interested in getting rid of expensive programs supporting fossil fuels, which are already plenty profitable without billions of dollars a year in subsidies.

                    I also fail to understand how oil, coal, and natural gas subsidies are somehow fine with all you free market types, while renewable subsides are some sort of crime against Adam Smith, blessed be His name.

                    Here's some stats for you:

                    Average annual energy subsidies in the US (adjusted for inflation) - oil and gas (1918-2009): $4.86 billion per year; nuclear (1947-1999) - $3.50 billion per year; renewables (1994-2009) - $0.37 billion per year.

                    http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/W … ersion.pdf

                  3. Jane Bovary profile image90
                    Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe it's because they don't believe someone who claims the scientific opinion on climate change is "morally bankrupt" and a "massive fraud" is likely to be motivated to take any personal responsibility on the issue.

          3. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh and by the way I don't think most of the folk here have the qualifications either. No matter what it seems. They are just as good at Google as I am.

          4. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Besides the evidence I've personally researched I also have over a half century of observing the weather in my part of the world first hand.  I know for a fact the climate here in southern Georgia is different than when I was a child.  As a farmer, one depends on the weather more than many other occupations and record keeping of rainfall and temperatures are taken as a matter of course.

            This is the reason I mentioned the thawing of the "Iceman" as being extremely significant.  For over 5,000 years this mummified human lay frozen through many periods of warming and cooling trends without the ice ever melting over him.  In order for him to thaw out now the climate has to be averaging warmer than it has for over 50 centuries.  Not exactly just a trend, I don't believe.

            And if you don't believe removing a huge percentage of rainforests and other woodlands from the earth affects the carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere--not to mention carbon monoxide being pumped into the mix by ever increasing internal combustion engines--isn't speeding up the process, then we just have to disagree on this one.

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

  8. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Were these fellas that made the determination about CO2 sitting for a long time in a sealed, poorly ventilated room? Co2 poisoning makes you delusional.

  9. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 4 years ago
    1. August Xavier profile image59
      August Xavierposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Even if this were true isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

  10. Living Well Now profile image79
    Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago

    Couple of great blogs to read:

    1. Real Climate - written by real climate scientists. It's all about the data.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … tart-here/

    2. Skeptical Science - cheat sheet for gunning down the same tired zombie arguments GW "skeptics" make.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

  11. sannyasinman profile image84
    sannyasinmanposted 4 years ago

    A point of clarification . . .

    There is an important difference between
    1. Climate change (which is undeniably happening, always has and probably always will. Probably very little we can do about it).
    2. MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING caused by human CO2 emissions which IS A HUGE SCAM to garner billions of dollars from unwitting and gullible people and governments via carbon footprint offsets and carbon credit trading, neither of which will do nothing to halt the advance of global warming in any case.
    3. Green, ecologically sound and sustainable living practises, which are undeniably a good thing and absolutely necessary.

    By the way, when you look at the so called "concensus" amongst scientists on Man Made Global Warming (a term which I noted they don't actually use any more - I wonder why) you will see that they are all singing from the same song sheet, that is the same original data such as that fraudulently provided by Phil Jones, Mann and company of Climategate fame.

    It is the INDEPENDENT scientists who for the most part are speaking out against the global warming fraud, and the scientists who are specifically funded to try and prove that global warmimg is man-made who form the so called "consensus". The Royal Society in England is a bedrock of that "concensus" which is why it is so interesting that even they appear to be breaking ranks now.

    By the way, can anyone think of a rather large, very hot object in the vicinity of our planet, which might have something to do with the warming of our planet, and others close to it? Now what's it called again?

    1. Living Well Now profile image79
      Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago in reply to this
      1. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Actually a skeptic looks at the fact that the Earth is billions of years old and the chart only goes back to 1973. One might consider the evidence of past ice ages followed by warming periods if one were not so ideologically driven. This quaint chart, in all it's simplistically smuggish captioning, is a superb example of liberal motivated science brought to you in high definition tunnel vision.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh well yeah and they never notice how scientists who disagree are fired or have their funding removed. Good tactic for insuring compliance.

          Say why DID Al Gore buy a mansion in what is a global warming flood plain?

          1. Jane Bovary profile image90
            Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Science works by peer review not by forced consensus. Where's your evidence for that claim?

            Frankly, I couldn't give a shit about Al Gore. Continually focusing on a single identity as some sort of all-important representative *bogeyman* of climate science is just an ideological red herring.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Read the news. They have recent articles about people losing their jobs for not towing the line. I know I am not supposed to see these things and they aren't really even supposed to get reported but they do.

              My point about Al Gore being if he is to be your great champion he should at least show some leadership and act like he believes what he preaches.

            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Let me try once more to get you to pay attention to THIS:

              http://www.marketwatch.com/community/gr … owers-boom

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Once again it got real quiet.

                1. Living Well Now profile image79
                  Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You're assuming it's damning evidence and she's frozen like a deer in the headlights after reading it aren't you? She probably went to bed.

                  I read it. It's a comment in a comment section, not science. It doesn't undermine the science. Big deal.

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah so the scientist involved is irrelevant?
                    Why because he disagrees with you? Even though he is hailed as the Gaodfather of Climate Change?

                    The proof is still in the pudding.

                2. Jane Bovary profile image90
                  Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Forgive me if I don't hang on your every post and respond immediately. Lovelock changed his mind but the scientific consensus is still in place. Lovelocks views were openly published - there was no *cover-up*, he wasn't sent to Siberia.

                  I said earlier "it's possible the scientific community has got it wrong". It's not my aim to claim eternal  infallibility for science. Science can and does change and progress in accordance with  available evidence at any given time...that's how its always worked and as imperfect as that may be, it's the best we've got. What I am claiming is that there IS a scientific  consensus over climate change which has grown rather than diminished and that climatologists are not party to a left-wing conspiracy  and not acting fraudulently. That idea simply makes no sense.

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Never said he was sent to Siberia...just that he changed his mind.

                    I wonder why? Oh well we will just dismiss this since it does not follow our agenda won't we?
                    The proof is still in the pudding.

                  2. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Here's a much more in despth version of the same article. No wonder you don't care for it...

                    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

        2. Jane Bovary profile image90
          Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Liberal motivated science". Here we go again...fantasyland.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Here's some late breaking news posted just today:

            http://www.marketwatch.com/community/gr … owers-boom

          2. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh yes.....Liberal motivated. They also don't have the intelligence to behave as though there is actually a problem.

            See I believe the proof is in the pudding. If you think there is a grave danger you will alter your behavior to match. Nobody atop the green movement is doing so.
            Therefore......

        3. Living Well Now profile image79
          Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Trends are measured in 30 year increments. That's the purpose of the chart, to show the trend and the "skeptics" arguments that have been put forth for cooling during the time periods indicated in blue. It's all data and facts. Science isn't decided on personal incredulity or ideology. You can say liberal all you want, but the fact is that the facts have a liberal bias.

          Myth
          1. "Climate's changed before" discusses ice ages and warming periods and the fact that man is primarily responsible for climate forcing - global warming - today.

          Reality
          1. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

          "It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate"

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think everyone is aware of this and it is hard to disagree with such balanced stuff - however, I see much bigger overall problem in that the climate changes are of relatively small concern and long time periods and this whole argument is covering the other associated problems that are much more serious and immediate like extinction of species at a faster rate than at any time outside of the extinction of the dominant species of the times. 

            The flim-flam about climate is propogated by the same interests that are causing most of the rapid extinction of species, an effect with with the same basic causes.

        4. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And you think real scientists don't? Dude, they know how whale poop affects the climate. I think maybe just possibly they might have the brains to look at what caused previous warming cycles and try to determine if the same factors are at play now.

          The scientists did, the usual suspects aren't, and that leaves either some completely unknown factor at play (possible, but unlikely), or the rapid rise in CO2, a known greenhouse gas.

  12. crazyhorsesghost profile image86
    crazyhorsesghostposted 4 years ago

    Not sure what is doing it but I do know the earth is getting warmer. Each winter here in North Carolina is milder than the one before. And this  year we had the earliest spring ever with only one frost in spring. I know the weather is changing. I just don't know what is causing it.

  13. Jane Bovary profile image90
    Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago

    What I said was true. What is your point? That climate change is a global concoction so the Wall St. guys can make a buck? I don't think that's very likely.



    Who's the scaremonger here? If that was the plan, government would have acted a lot sooner, rather than later. Why have governments been so reticent to act on climate change if it's such a great way to snoop on us and relieve us of our rights?

    1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
      EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, you were the one who originally asked which corporate interests would benefit from climate change regulations. I told you.

      I suppose my overall point is that government and corporate interests often work together to their mutual benefit. It's known as crony capitalism. I highly doubt that a group of them got together in a darkened room and said "let's invent a thing called "global warming" and scare the sh1t out people and take away their freedoms and get all their money muhahahaha!" After all, there has been a hypothesis of man-made global warming since the 19th century. But having said that, at the top of the "power pyramid", there are interests that work together.

      Speaking of political involvement, here is this rather interesting article about how the global warming debate came to prominence in Britain:

      "Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry... Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue."

      http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

      If it's true, it will no doubt come as a bit of a shock to those who think of Margaret Thatcher as a beacon of conservatism.




      The same reason that they've been gradually rather than suddenly stripping away our rights in other arenas.

      If you stick a frog in boiling water, it jumps out again straight away. If you put it in cold water and gradually ramp up the temperature to boiling, the frog gets cooked.

      It amazes me that people can't see this.

      1. Jane Bovary profile image90
        Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        is Margaret Thatcher the British Al Gore now? Show me some quotes from 1880 predicting global warming? The author of that article has a credibility issue. Again, not a climatologist but a media mouthpiece. Richard Courtney's credentials:

        -a technical editor for CoalTrans International, a journal of the international coal trading industry
        -a spokesperson for the British Association of Colliery Management, a coal industry union in the UK.  
         -a founding member of the think tank - European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), an organisation that has not only published materials on climate denial, but studies attempting to discredit any link between second hand smoke and adverse health effects.

        No special interests there then.

        EmpressFelicity, are you debating that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change? Are you claiming it's a hoax..a conspiracy among scientists? What you have presented is politics, not science. There may be political opportunism at play here, there may be corporate interests willing to exploit the climate change debate but nothing you have presented challenges the fact that there is a scientific consensus, nor is any of it evidence of a scientific hoax.

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
          EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius




          If he has a credibility issue then you also have to accept that many people on the other "side" also have a credibility issue, for similar reasons (i.e. they derive material benefit - either in the form of increased opportunities to earn money (the City/Wall Street), increased powers (the government) or simply a greater likelihood of receiving research funding (the scientists)). Again, we've ended up down the same cul de sac as before.



          The consensus isn't a universal one and in any case, consensus doesn't automatically equate to truth, as others here have pointed out.

          Before Copernicus and Galileo came along, there was a "consensus" that the earth was flat.

          The truth is that we don't know the truth about just how much (if at all) humans contribute towards global warming. My own suspicion is that it's either (a) very little or (b) nothing. But the only thing that will confirm this is time, or an experiment or model that can actually falsify the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Do you know of such an experiment? If you do, share it here.

          1. Jane Bovary profile image90
            Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Climate scientists get funding whether climate change is man-made or not and besides, any scientist who fudged evidence to acquire funding would eventually be outed. If they weren't then the whole scientific community would fall apart.



            What does equal truth then - mouthpieces with vested interests? Non-scientific conspiracy theorists?  I already said science progresses with the available evidence. I'm not arguing that the science is infallible. Just that an overwhelming consensus exists - one that is certainly near universal among climatologists. It doesn't equal truth but it's the usual indicator of the best available scientific opinion.



            Then you are at odds with the science. Yes we might have to wait for disaster before confirmation...I agree with you there...and doesn't it make sense to risk catastrophe for lack of confirmation?  I hope the scientists ARE wrong.

            1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
              EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Speaking of fudging evidence:

              http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/d … ing-fraud/

              "Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."



              Truth is just that... truth. Reality. What actually happens in the world, regardless of who believes it or doesn't believe it.



              So do I. Even if they're not wrong, I personally think that our best hope is to adapt to changes in the climate rather than impose draconian legislation and taxes in the hope of reversing the change by 0.1% or whatever. All that will do is leave us virtually where we started but under the heel of a powerful central bureaucracy.

      2. ledefensetech profile image82
        ledefensetechposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's kind of the same thing with Reagan in this country.  Most people think of him as some sort of grand savior when all he really did was get massive taxation off our back. He could have really set us free by destroying the spending that's killing us but chose instead the international stage and increase spending in the warfare portion of the welfare-warfare state.

        I pretty much agree with the view that most people are scientifically illiterate and wouldn't know a natural law if it fell out of the sky and hit them on the head.  I did see an article recently that is both hopeful and disturbing.  Hopeful in the fact that intelligent people don't seem to by the whole "humans are responsible for global warming" nonsense but the response is more indoctrination of the ignorant masses:

        http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-more-scie … ut-climate



        So basically if you're a communal hippie, you're more likely to drink the kool-aid and if you're intelligent, you're able to discern the BS.

        1. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nope. If you're disinclined to accept the possibility that 7 billion humans dumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually could have an affect on the climate, you'll come up with better excuses not to believe it the more educated you are. Hardly surprising stuff.

  14. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago
    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Dude, are you reading your own articles?

      From the first: "In any case, the conclusion that can be taken from this discussion is that the warming since 1975 is outside the range of a purely solar effect and may safely be ascribed to a strong anthropogenic component. "

      The other two are also clearly pro-AGW.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Dude...I notice you and all the rest are ignoring or poo-pooing James Lovelock.
        Right?

        1. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A few years ago, Lovelock was predicting the complete destruction of life on earth as the result of climate change, which went way, way beyond what most actual climate scientists suggest might happen. Now, he's saying he was wrong about total climatic apocalypse but that AGW is still happening and we still need to reduce emissions.

          First of all, I don't think that's nearly as significant a reversal as you right-wingers are making it out to be. Second, impressive as he is in other fields, Lovelock is not a climate scientist, and his predictions of apocalypse were not given much attention by any scientists when he was making them, so why should they pay any more attention now that he's recanted and is saying something more in line with what they were saying to begin with? And third, his personal prejudices about different energy sources are just that, personal prejudices. If he'd talked to some Pennsylvanians or Ohioans seeing their drinking water destroyed by fracking, he might be less eager to embrace it for Britain. He's always been pro-nuclear, so that position hasn't changed a bit, and his objection to wind farms appears to be primarily aesthetic.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that as early as a month or two ago he would have been someone you held up as a visionary.

            He is very correct in saying the climate change movement borders on a religion.

            1. kerryg profile image88
              kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I still consider him a visionary. As I said earlier, his Gaia Hypothesis is brilliant. However, I do not and have not paid much attention to his statements on climate, any more than I'd ask my dentist about chest pains.

      2. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And by the way I never said NOTHING was going on. I just don't think 50 dollar light bulbs are the answer.

  15. Living Well Now profile image79
    Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago

    Lovelock no longer follows the scientific literature nor does he publish for peer review. The fact that he moderated his position at the age of 92 isn't even relevant to the debate on what to do about AGW.

    Most climate scientist didn't hold Lovelock's doomsday position and most would disagree with his comments on climate modeling and temperature data.

    Is there AGW? Yes.
    Should we do something about it? Yes.
    Is it cost effective to do something about it? Yes.

    97% of all climate scientists agree that man-made forcing is driving global warming in addition to natural forcing. Do lay conservatives really think climate scientists don't understand natural forcing?

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yep. I knew it. He's disgraced.
      You guys are very predictable.

    2. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think most Conservatives like me think about 99% of the Climate Change stuff is a scam for tax dollars. Pure and simple. Most of what Lovelock says backs that up and I think he knows what he is talking about.

  16. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

    Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

    His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.


    Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

    Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

    He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.



    Sounds to me as though this man was established pretty well and kept up with things until very and I mean very recently.  But hew no longer carries water for the movement so he is in exile.

  17. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

    As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

    (4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”


    Hmm....I believe this man knows what he's talking about.

  18. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," Lovelock told MSNBC.com in an interview.

  19. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    '[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z1yiQWPIcy

    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There's about a 20-40 year lag between when emissions are released and when they actually start affecting the climate, thanks mainly to the ocean's role in the carbon cycle. The extra carbon being released by human activities is now causing problems of a different sort in the ocean.

  20. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    In 2006 Dr Lovelock predicted the Earth “would catch a morbid fever” that would destroy six billion people - "the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable,” he predicted. In 2009, he was telling the Guardian that "we may face planet-wide devastation worse even than unrestricted nuclear war between superpowers".

    "I made a mistake," the 92-year-old scientist now says.

    “We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” Dr Lovelock reflects. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time. It [the temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.

  21. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    This puts Lovelock in the same territory as scientists such as MIT's Professor Richard Lindzen.

    "A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1°C to greenhouse warming," Prof Lindzen explained [PDF].

    Positive feedback from water vapour and clouds are posited (and programmed into climate models) to provide the "runaway" warming. But these are poorly understood, and observational evidence suggests this feedback has been wildly exaggerated. Lindzen finds around 0.8°C of warming is consistent with a doubling of CO2.

  22. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    James Lovelock was even described a an "apostate" in one article. How religious can you get?

  23. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago
    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      At this point, CO2 forcing is strong enough that we could literally have another Maunder Minimum and the temperatures would still keep rising, albeit slower.

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … d-minimum/

  24. sannyasinman profile image84
    sannyasinmanposted 4 years ago

    How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn't cooperating?

    http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/m … rming.html

    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Publication date: Dec 15 2009

      Speaking of cherry-picking data...

      1. sannyasinman profile image84
        sannyasinmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You replied so quickly you could not possible have read the document.
        http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/m … rming.html

        If you ever do, you will see that the document does indeed prove that the data is cherry-picked - the data which is falsified and misinterpreted deliberately to try to prove AGW at any cost.

        Oh, and since when does a document lose its validity because it is over 2 years old? I did not realise that truth has an expiration date.

        1. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I scanned it quickly. It doesn't contain anything I haven't already seen 100 times and is full of misleading statements and outright inaccuracies.

          As for why it is significant that it was published in 2009, the first sentence states "how do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn't cooperating?" but you might have noticed that the weather has been "cooperating" quite well for the last 2 1/2 years: record-setting heat waves, severe droughts, severe floods, massive wildfires, strange jet stream behavior, mudslides, enormous cyclones, unusually early tornadoes, and plenty more.

          1. sannyasinman profile image84
            sannyasinmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Please do not confuse Climate Change - which is happening, always has and always will, with Man Made Global Warming, and its associated carbon taxes.
            This is the issue.

            Carbon offsets and carbon credits are a SCAM, a hoax, a fraud, and will do nothing at all to help the planet.

            1. Living Well Now profile image79
              Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you think you understand natural forcing better than climate scientists understand it? A data-driven analysis is acceptable, a histrionic ideological rant isn't.

              Tax policies are used to create incentives and disincentives in the marketplace. Lowering income taxes and implementing carbon taxes would do this and help us move away from fossil fuels. Rants about Ayn Rand, socialism, marxism, liberalism, Christianity, big government and Ronald Reagan are irrelevant to the debate.

            2. Jane Bovary profile image90
              Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sure she's not confusing them sannyasinman. Why don't we, just for a moment, cut all the politics and extraneous debate about taxes etc.and get down to basics here. You, me, politicians, bloggers, conspiracy theorists, think-tanks...none of us have any credibility when it comes to what's really happening to the climate. Only the scientists have the expertise and the data to really have an authoritative say and this is what they say :

              "Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it.."

              "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion".
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific … ate_change

              The above statements are indisputable and can be checked out by anyone. So, there's one of two possibilities at play.

              a) it's likely anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is really happening
              b) the worlds climate scientists are lying

              Take your pick but remember what's at stake..

            3. kerryg profile image88
              kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So, in other words, you don't like the polices proposed to fight AGW, therefore you choose to believe that the science is wrong, too. Brilliant, dude! I can't imagine why more people haven't thought of making our problems go away just by pretending they don't exist.

              As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with you that carbon offsets and carbon credits are scams. However, all policy disputes aside, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to anthropogenic causes for the recent warming, and frankly, I find it ludicrous that anyone could believe that dumping 30 billion extra tons a year of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't have an effect on the climate. We've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas since the mid-19th century, it's not exactly new or controversial science.

              Furthermore, the exact effects of all that extra carbon are only as uncertain as they are because they're spread out over the entirety of the planet. If you concentrated all the forcing from anthropogenic CO2 in one small area, human activities are adding enough extra heat to the atmosphere to boil Sydney Harbor dry every 12 hours.

              Here's another of my favorite visualizations to help you understand the extent of humanity's impact on the planet:

              One gallon of gasoline contains the equivalent of 98 tons of ancient plant matter. That's the equivalent of stopping every 25 miles or so and shoving 40 acres worth of wheat (grain, stems, roots, and all) into your gas tank. Moreover, since the Industrial Revolution began about 260 years ago, humanity has burned the equivalent of every single scrap of plant life, from redwoods to microscopic algae, grown on this planet for the last 13,300 years.

              The most common policy solutions proposed to mitigate AGW are mostly stupid and counter-productive, but that unfortunately does not mean that the science itself is wrong.

  25. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 4 years ago

    This guy seems to be an honest skeptic in the climate change debate so his position should be respected.

    Most of the 'sun cycle not CO2' adherents have fallen away as the evidence has mounted against their case. Fritz Vahrenholt may well change his mind again.

  26. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago

    Texas seems to be burning up first--over 100 degress all week.

  27. Jane Bovary profile image90
    Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago

    It would depend on who's sounding the warning. If it's a guy in a raincoat on a street corner holding a *the end is nigh* sign then yes, I'd be sceptical but if it's a warning backed by every major scientific body in the world, I'd take it seriously. If there is really a problem you'd expect dire warning bells to sound, so the negative message is unavoidable.

  28. Disappearinghead profile image90
    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago

    The blame for all the World's hysteria about manmade global warming can be laid at the feet of one woman: Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain 1979-1990.

    She was engaged in a war with one Arthur Scargil, militant socialist leader of the National Union of Mineworkers. A previous Tory government had been brought down by the miners and now it was payback time. She set about dismantling the UK coal mining industry by closing pits whilst importing cheap Polish coal to run the coal fired power stations.

    She also had another plan: to change our energy mix away from coal to nuclear power. However this being rather unpopular in itself she sought out some "scientific" rationale. She found some Swedish scientist who had a rather obscure idea that manmade pollution could cause global warming. This was at a time where the accepted belief was we were going to have a global freezing which was based upon a shed load of scientific research from around the world. Margaret Thatcher saw the potential global warming idea as a good spin for nuclear power, and so she got the UK gov and scientific community to back the idea with nice research grants.

    When it was realised that the grant money was in global warming instead of freezing, global warming theory began to snowball. Soon governments around the world realised the tax potential behind green agendas, carbon footprints etc etc, and the rest is history.

    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Whether or not Thatcher seized on the idea in pursuit of one of her political goals (it's quite likely she did - she was certainly that kind of person), Svante Arrhenius proposed that changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere could change the climate back in 1896, and to call his idea obscure in the 1980's is misleading. You could make the case that it was still obscure among the general public, but in the scientific community, it's been discussed widely since at least the 1950's, decades before Thatcher's rise to power. Contrary to popular belief, there was no "coming ice age" scare in the scientific community during the 70's - that was almost entirely manufactured by the popular press.

  29. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson Acknowledges that CO2 is Causing Global Warming, but says it's no big deal.

    In a speech Wednesday to the Council on Foreign Relations, Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will adapt. The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. Dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.

    Tillerson blamed a public he called illiterate in science and math, a lazy press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear."

    The oil executive questioned the ability of climate models to predict the magnitude of the impact, and said that people would adapt to rising sea levels and changing climates that may force agricultural production to shift.

    "We have spent our entire existence adapting. We'll adapt," he said. "It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."

    Andrew Weaver, chairman of climate modeling at the University of Victoria in Canada, disagreed with Tillerson's characterization of climate modeling, warning that adapting to those changes will be much more difficult and disruptive than Tillerson seems to acknowledge.

    Steve Coll, author of the recent book "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power," said he was surprised Exxon would talk about ways society can adapt to climate change when there is time to try to avoid its worst effects. Coll said research suggests that adapting to climate change could be far more expensive than reducing emissions now. "Moving entire cities would be very expensive," he said.

    Jonathan Fahey, Associated Press, 6-28-12

    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The oil executive questioned the ability of climate models to predict the magnitude of the impact, and said that people would adapt to rising sea levels and changing climates that may force agricultural production to shift.

      "We have spent our entire existence adapting. We'll adapt," he said. "It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."


      Ugh... where do I even start?

      We're looking at the possibility of temperature changes unprecedented since the dawn of civilization. Biologically modern humans have been around for 200,000 years. Civilization has been around for 10,000. There is a reason for this and it's called climate. An unstable climate is not conducive to civilization. We've seen this over and over again throughout history as a result of small-scale climate changes at the local level, and now we're stupid enough to be playing with it on a global level. The survivors of past civilizations destroyed by climate changes could just move to neighboring areas - does Tillerson really believe that we can just ship off to Mars if the going gets bad here on Earth?

      Secondly, forcing "agricultural production to shift" is not as simple as this idiot's making it out to be. Temperature is not the only factor involved in making certain regions better for crops than others. Currently, the breadbaskets of the world are primarily former grasslands with deep, rich, loamy soils. If these turn to deserts or scrubland (the US Midwest, for example, is predicted to see some of the highest temperature increases in the lower 48 states - 10 degrees F or more in Kansas and Nebraska by 2100 under the business-as-usual emissions scenario, which isn't even the worst case scenario), the correct temperature zone will move north and start smacking up against the shallow, rocky, acidic soils of the taiga. Have fun trying to be a breadbasket with those...

      Thirdly, I'm sure his opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the $40+ billion in profits Exxon took in last year, or his own almost $35 million annual salary. It's not like it's in his best interest for people to keep burning fossil fuels regardless of consequences or anything.

      Fourthly, his timing is interesting considering how much fun the people of Colorado and the Gulf Coast are currently having "adapting" to climate change. I have a friend in Colorado Springs who tells me the fires there burned another 9000 acres overnight. Want to see what 1 degree C of global average temperature rise does to wildfire frequency in the Mountain West?

      http://i47.tinypic.com/10qcv2d.gif

      Sure will be fun "adapting" to a six-fold increase in wildfires! And of course, that's just for 1 degree C. We're looking at a potential rise of 6 degrees or more by 2100.

    2. Jane Bovary profile image90
      Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Right...well that's comforting. As comforting as when Big Tobacco said the effects of smoking on health were no big deal.

  30. Pearldiver profile image88
    Pearldiverposted 4 years ago

    Nice Post Ralph...

    I wonder.... Does Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson Acknowledge that within the terms of the original 1928 'marriage' that resulted in the formation and domination of the 'Seven Sisters' that the Oil Coys have no intention of relinquishing anything until the last drop of oil has been drawn and sold? sad

    Such a pity that God created Oil solely for such a corrupt and self righteous bunch of global rapists and their political/military minions! sad

    Amazing what a US$100 mil can do for a politician/or so called 'leader'... roll

 
working