What I find the most interesting about the pro-global warming crowd is that they are unwilling to look at other sources for climate change.
Um, wrong. There is a difference between "haven't looked at" and "have looked at and ruled out". Guess which is actually applicable here.
If people really, truly, cared about the climate change they wouldn't stop at CO2 and would welcome the possibility that it could be the entity that brings this planet heat to begin with. Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a set static variable that determines how hot the sun burns, so why is it out of the realm of possibility? Why are pro-global warming crowds so fast to hush anything that isn't relative to green house gases? I think the answer is obvious.
Yes, the answer is obvious:
in 40 years of direct satellite observation, the sun's energy output has not increased.
You're article does not 100% denounce the Sun as being the culprit.
Um, yes, it does. Read it again, particularly the second one. How can the sun be the source of warming when it hasn't changed output in 40 years (while temps have continued to increase)?
Define reputable climatologists for me
Not funded by oil companies or political groups.
Have they successfully predicted a Global Warming in the past?
Actually, not only have they done so, they've done so on computers less powerful than my iPod. The initial Global Warming climate models were run in the early 80's, and the temperature trends of the past 20 years are within the estimates of those models. Think about how models have been improved since then, and how much more computational power is behind them.
Are any of these reputable climatologists the same climatologists who predicted Global Cooling?
You mean the prediction which never enjoyed any consensus support?
Read this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/#more-536
To summarize, in the time of 1965-1979, there only 7 scientific articles that predicted cooling while there were 44 that predicted warming.
The "Global Cooling Craze" is a myth created by the media and right-wing think-tanks which never actually existed. Global warming has been suggested since an article by Ahrenius in 1904, and has been steadily gaining support since then.
We have 144,000 years of temperature recordings? That's news to me. So how warm was the Antarctic ocean 144,000 years ago? I would like to also know what tool was used to read this information, the date, the time and who did it. This is a perfect example of how unscientific the Global warming theory truly is.
Ice cores, which not only record temperatures, but gas concentrations.
But I did mis-state, and should correct myself - it's not 144,000 years of data. It's 400,000 years of data.
Here's a graph:
Yeah, mighty unscientific, taking direct measurements like that!
I have a problem with people who try to dictate what is a universal indisputable truths with a grain of salt.
Nobody is saying that. What is being said is that we have a mountain of data, all pointing to the same thing, and no data which contradicts it. Come up with data, real data, that supports your POV, and it'll be fairly considered. But don't just toss out incorrect ideas (sunspots and Global Cooling) and expect to be taken seriously.
Both side's experts have come up with data that contradicts the other side's data.
That's because one side's 'experts' are being paid vast sums of money by the oil company to say things which sound good on Faux News, but fall apart upon close examination.
CO2 composes an infinitesimal percentage of the gas that makes up the atmosphere and 90-95% of it that enters the atmosphere every year is created by nature itself. From what I've read, WATER VAPOR is a much bigger factor in the warming effect of the planet. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
Yes, 95%+ of CO2 is natural. But imagine a bucket with a value that lets out 99 drops of water an hour, and I start adding 100. What happens to the bucket's volume?
Water vapor does warm Earth, but not in a simple fashion; it's more like an amp in a stereo system. More CO2, more warmth, more evaporation, more water vapor, more heat, more evaporation again, etc. The reverse is also true.
Global warming or "climate change" as it is often now called is one of those feel good things that some people latch onto for whatever reason. The fact that of the top 10 hottest days in U.S. history, 6 occurred on or before 1953. 5 of them were in 1939 or before. That says something to me.
That your data analysis is sloppy and poorly performed? Maxima are of trivial importance, what matters are general trends.
Furthermore, Global warming has been happening since the 1850's. If you showed me that all the hottest days were in the 1700's, you might have something, but all your current (inferior) data does is support GW.
Finch, my point is that an expert on climate forcing is an expert on that and, quite often, that alone. Experts have to be part of the solution, but society has to decide on the solution. Global warming is a scientific, social, economic, etc. problem. Involving essentially everything, it becomes a political problem. So scientists who want to be part of the solution have to act in part as a politician and at least pretend to listen, no matter how irritated they might get. Where did we get the word gadfly, after all?
I disagree - one of the greatest flaws of our society is that we do not teach people that their opinions can be flat-out wrong.
The best possible thing climate scientists can do is call these claims out as bull, publicly exposing the claimants as corporate or political hacks. You cannot make good decisions on false information, and as long as people's misconceptions are handled with kid gloves, we will continue wasting time on non-existent debates.
Should biologists pretend to listen and care what creationists have to say? No. They should call a spade a spade and tell people they're just plain wrong.
The reason I mentioned roads, by the way, is that they're a terrific example of professional hubris, since the experts (highway departments and engineers) made decisions for years without enough participation by people who didn't know how to design or build a road.
A cute, but irrelevant story. This isn't about a group saying "I don't want them to bulldoze this old, pretty building". This isn't about conflicting values or interests. It's about basic facts.
You want a better example, there's a reason I keep bringing up creationism (other than that it represents the peak of willful ignorance of science). The success of creationism in at least preventing any meaningful incorporation of evolutionary biology into the high-school classroom is
entirely due to the contributions of the 'non-expert' public and people who are foolish enough to consider their opinions as somehow equally valid to those of experts.
I'm all for involving the public in decisions over how to limit CO2 emissions and the like, but I draw the line at letting the uninformed try to claim the facts are other than they are.
When it comes to establishing the factual nature of the world around us, the public needs to learn to sit down, shut up, and listen to the scientists.
Mokele
