Global Warming

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Case in point sonart? Who measured (and where) the temps used in your last graph? Mongo the cave man? Dino the reptile? Who determined the mean(blue line) in the graph used as a basis for the changing temps(climate)?

{{YAWN}} I dunno, Xyzer... why don't you ask the people who did the research and published the peer reviewed results.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine


.

[Foxfyre]

Sonart, if you think posting a list of organizations supporting global warming is 'proof' or 'evidence' of anything, especially when almost all are dependent on funding from pro-AGW advocates, then you have to allow lists and lists and lists of organizations and publications that include the skeptics including numerous universities where many on that list of bonafide environmental scientists that have recently joined the AGW skeptic camp are based.

Just a few located in a 20-second cursory search:

Global Climate Coalition
George Marshall Institute
Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine
Union of Concerned Scientists
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Greening Earth Society
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change
Climate Audit
World Climate Report
Competitive Enterprise Instititue
Global Warming Petition Project
Friends of Science
The Global Warming Information Center
Wharton School
Heartland Institute
ACCF
Scientific American

Again this doesn't include numerous universities where environmental experts are based.

So again, the list of scientists that I posted previously can all be googled complete with their affiliations, biographies, credentials, and funding sources.

You have provided no similar panel of experts and I doubt that you can because there are relatively few bonafide climate experts that are convinced of the IPPC global warming crisis if they even lean that way.

Global warming appears to be primarily driven by political ambition and protection of funding sources at this time. If that proves not to be the case, I will post acknowledgement that I am wrong about that. But so far, there sure seems to be overwhelming data being produced to dispute the most emphasied "evidence" of runaway and dangerous global warming.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre Sonart, if you think posting a list of organizations supporting global warming is 'proof' or 'evidence' of anything, especially when almost all are dependent on funding from pro-AGW advocates, then you have to allow lists and lists and lists of organizations and publications that include the skeptics including numerous universities where many on that list of bonafide environmental scientists that have recently joined the AGW skeptic camp are based. Just a few located in a 20-second cursory search: Global Climate Coalition George Marshall Institute Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine Union of Concerned Scientists Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Greening Earth Society Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change Climate Audit World Climate Report Competitive Enterprise Instititue Global Warming Petition Project Friends of Science The Global Warming Information Center Wharton School Heartland Institute ACCF Scientific American Again this doesn't include numerous universities where environmental experts are based. So again, the list of scientists that I posted previously can all be googled complete with their affiliations, biographies, credentials, and funding sources.

There's a rather large difference between legitimate scientific organizations and right wing think tanks founded with the explicit purpose of creating doubt about global warming. Global Climate Coalition? Friends of Science? World Climate Report? Surely you jest. And you aren't really saying that NASA, AGU, NOAA, National Geographic, Science, and Nature are dependent on pro-AGW funding, do you? These are some of the most distinguished scientific organizations and publications in the world. The notion that they're all engaging in fraud for political and monetary gain seems a little far fetched, don't you think?

Also, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Scientific American both accept GW theory. And Climate Audit is a Blog, not a scientific organization. You should have checked your list more carefully.

You have provided no similar panel of experts and I doubt that you can because there are relatively few bonafide climate experts that are convinced of the IPPC global warming crisis if they even lean that way.

I think you've got that bassakwards. I think you'd actually be hard pressed to find many scientists who don't accept the IPCC's conclusions. Have a look see at the peer reviewed publications. If scientists really don't accept the theory, it should be reflected in the scientific literature. (Or there could be a massive conspiracy among the majority of the world's scientists to silence dissent. But really, must we go there?)

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre Just a few located in a 20-second cursory search:

Perhaps you should take longer than 20 seconds. How many times do I have to tell you... those are NOT scientific organizations. That are either mostly Libertarian and/or conservative think-tanks supporting Free Market Economic Interests or Energy Industry Interests that feel threatened by the potention of government regulation in the face of Global Warming. And none of them comes even CLOSE to the legitimate Scientific institutions I listed.

Global Climate Coalition -- "The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was one of the most outspoken and confrontational industry groups in the United States battling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Prior to its disbanding in early 2002, it collaborated extensively with a network that included industry trade associations, "property rights" groups affiliated with the anti-environmental Wise Use movement, and fringe groups such as Sovereignty International, which believes that global warming is a plot to enslave the world under a United Nations-led "world government."

George Marshall Institute -- "According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."

Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine -- "...describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."

Union of Concerned Scientists -- LOLOL!!! Exactly which Union of Concerned Scientists were you referring to? Here's from their website.

"Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal."

From the UCS website... ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Science and Environmental Policy Project -- "The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is an Arlington, Virginia, United States-based advocacy group founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer [1]. The group disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke[1]"

In other words, any science that my imply government regulation.

Greening Earth Society -- 'funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association, an association of coal-burning utility companies — claims that greenhouse gas emissions are a good thing because they will lead to greater plant growth and a greener environment. It claims that this viewpoint constitutes a "scientifically-sound perspective on the increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.'

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change -- "In October 1999 Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso mentioned that they had "recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled "Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration," which we presented at the Second Annual Dixy Lee Ray Memorial Symposium held in Washington, DC on 31 August - 2 September 1999." [1] The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.

On its website it states that it "accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations" but does not disclose who funds it. [2]

ExxonMobil's 2001 list of groups it funded listed a $10,000 contribution to the CSCDGC in 2001. Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Center for the study of carbon dioxide and global change", Integrity in Science, undated, accessed March 2004. [3]

StopExxon.org reports CSCDGC has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005 comprising: [4]

* 1998: $10,000
* 2000: $15,000
* 2003: $40,000
* 2005: $25,000

Climate Audit -- "Climate Audit is a blog run by Stephen McIntyre devoted to auditing the statistical methods and data used in historical reconstructions of past climate, especially multiproxy reconstructions such as the 1998 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes ("MBH98"), which was prominently featured in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report."

World Climate Report -- "Patrick J. Michaels (±1942- ), also known as Pat Michaels, is a "global warming skeptic" who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.

Michaels, who has completed a Ph.D. in Ecological Climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979) is Editor of the World Climate Report. He is also associated with two think tanks: a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute."

Competitive Enterprise Instititue -- "(CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC. It calls itself "a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace."[1]

Until August 2007 CEI's website CEI stated that it served "as both a think tank—creating intellectual ammunition to support free markets—and an advocacy organization—putting that ammunition to use in persuasive ways."[2]"

Global Warming Petition Project -- "Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16]"

Friends of Science -- "To encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol by engaging in a national public debate on the scientific merit of Kyoto and the Global Warming issue, and to educate the public through dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective technical information on this subject."

The Global Warming Information Center -- Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research; fact sheets, media kits, research, and links critical of the manmade climate change orthodoxy.

"The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century."

blah, blah, blah

Scientific American -- How could you possibly include Scientific American in your list. After all, it's devoted to actual science.

"Many people don't realize we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise because of the greenhouse gases we have already put into the atmosphere," says study author Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. "The longer we wait, the more climate change we are committed to in the future."

.

[Sonart]

.

You have provided no similar panel of experts and I doubt that you can because there are relatively few bonafide climate experts that are convinced of the IPPC global warming crisis if they even lean that way.

What the hell are you talking about????? I just did -- repeatedly -- name the most legitimate climate research and related scientific organizations in the U.S., and no where have I referred to the IPCC since you all seem so apoplectic about the UN being involved.

Even if you don't recognize most of these organizations -- which you should -- surely you know who NASA is, and know that none of your listed lobbying groups comes anywhere near NASA's scientific legitimacy and scope.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences -- "Mar. 11, 2008: Though the impacts of climate change will vary by region, it is certain they will be widespread and costly in human and economic terms, and will require significant changes in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems."


American Geophysical Union -- "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

American Meteorological Society -- "Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change."

National Weather Association -- "Skeptics and believers alike affirm that the earth has been gradually warming and cooling and has been hotter than it is now. However, there are two elements that distinguish the current warming trend: First, it now seems evident that the most recent warming is caused by human activity, rather than by geological processes that were occurring before. Second, the current warming is happening much faster than it ever has."


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- "Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years."

NASA -- "Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases."

etc. etc.

American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine



Oh yeah, and let's add YOUR source to the list of scientific organizations the support the consensus of anthropogenic global warming.

the Union of Concerned Scientists.

.

[Foxfyre]

Oh gosh you're right. I forgot I had entered information on Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) on the wrong list and it should not be included on a list of AGW skeptics. Sorry about that.

It should however be included among the mostly non-scientific groups catering to the leftwing wacko fringe:

That UCS is a highly partisan operation -- well funded by left-leaning foundations and Hollywood celebrities and happy to ignore established scientific methodologies for its own purposes—is apparently not newsworthy. The group has a long history of being just plain wrong on many scientific issues, and its current agenda conforms to the extremes of environmentalist ideology. Moreover, UCS is neither representative of the scientific community at large nor is it a gathering of top scientists. Instead, a cadre of senior staff whose credentials are steeped more in Washington policy-making than in scientific research rides herd over a grassroots membership from all walks of life. You too can be a Concerned Scientist for a new member fee of $35! Liberal ‘Scientists’ Lead Jihad Against Global-Warming Skeptics - HUMAN EVENTS

[xyzer]

So now we are down to the idiocy of suggesting that all science not funded by any entity but government is biased? Is that the gist of what you sheep like climate followers suggest? there are no honest scientists? Just those who are influenced by the grants they receive? Is that what you suggest Sonart and Parrot?

Get real! There are many environmental groups investing in scientific research in an effort to fill their coffers. They subsidize research right along with energy companies. National Geo and other media sources can also be blamed for sensationalizing environmental news in an effort to sell more mags and advertising? It's insulting to science in general and scientists in particular to claim they reach scientific conclusions with consideration towards their donors?

Which leads me back to the logic of the earlier findings and models versus recent available data? You don't answer the logical questions to the dogma. You obviously dwell in the pre 2000 era? New data has trumped the IPCCs report and Gores frenetic ramblings.

I and other skeptics have posed questions which have been raised repeatedly, and ignored repeatedly?,
Whats with current temperature measurements showing a cooling while CO2 is increasing? Could it be that CO2 is not a major influencer of climate? Other factors are recently observed overthrowing the anthropogenic influences scare?

That global temperature measurement techniques and locations have been shown to be flawed and yet they were used in predictive climate models?

That global temps have only recently been considered accurate?

That Hockey Stick" graphs are misleading and not statistically sound? They distort time!

That most climate models have been based on proxies which don't and can't define temperature within a matter of a few degrees in past centuries? Please furnish me with temperatures within a few degrees of accuracy from an ice core or tree ring or layer of sediment!?

That predictions of global catastrophe are merely guesses inflated by press reports. Who counted the Polar Bears, and where?

That climate is variable and influenced by a number of natural factors which humans have no control over? And such variability occured well before humans even existed?

That cutting human energy use can have more than the slightest effect on the massive inputs into the earths climate machine?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre It should however be included among the mostly non-scientific groups catering to the leftwing wacko fringe:

That's nice. But like I said, I don't include or source groups like that... no Greenpeace, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Earth First. etc. etc.

Just straight up INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, and the most legitimate and prestigious ones at that.

Fair enough? Here, I'm particularly fond of this one, in my hometown of San Diego.

"Scripps Institution of Oceanography is one of the oldest, largest, and most important centers for marine science research, graduate training, and public service in the world. Research at Scripps Institution of Oceanography encompasses physical, chemical, biological, geological, and geophysical studies of the oceans."

"Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming.

In a new study conducted with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI),Tim Barnett and David Pierce of Scripps Institution used a combination of computer models and real-world "observed" data to capture signals of the penetration of greenhouse gas-influenced warming in the oceans. The authors make the case that their results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically, or by human activities."

Quote by: Xyzer So now we are down to the idiocy of suggesting that all science not funded by any entity but government is biased?

If it's funded by the Oil, Gas or Coal industries, or by conservative/libertarian anti-government "Free Market" think-tanks, then yes, beyond doubt, they are biased.

Can you produce any legitimate, significant scientific research centers arguing against global warming that DON'T fit into one of those two categories???

Quote by: Xyzer Get real! There are many environmental groups investing in scientific research in an effort to fill their coffers.

That may be, but I haven't quoted from any of them, and you can't show where I have.

Quote by: Xyzer I and other skeptics have posed questions which have been raised repeatedly, and ignored repeatedly?,

Really? And for how long have you ignored my list of top scientific institutions?

No, to the contrary, you have had your questions answered and your falsehoods rebuffed repeatedly, only to come full circle and bring them up again 6 months later (like the Wegman/Mann hockeystick nonsense) as if it were a new argument that had been rebutted a dozen times.

Or asking nonsense questions like, "how could they measure temperatures from a million years ago when we weren't there to measure it". Just because the answers don't make sense to YOU doesn't mean it can't be done.

But like I say... you aren't the least bit interested in answers, are you? All you care about is that is that if you can manage to ignore points you can't respond to, while constantly keep asking, why, why, why, why, why, and ask inane questions about methods that only trained researchers can answer, until we throw up our hands and give up.

.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer So now we are down to the idiocy of suggesting that all science not funded by any entity but government is biased? Is that the gist of what you sheep like climate followers suggest? there are no honest scientists? Just those who are influenced by the grants they receive? Is that what you suggest Sonart and Parrot?

Of course I don't suggest that, Xyzer. I suggest (rather, I state emphatically) that what's coming out of the Heartland Institute is not science. It is misinformation spread with the intention of deceit.

There are a great many honest scientists in the world. None of them work for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

That global temperature measurement techniques and locations have been shown to be flawed and yet they were used in predictive climate models?

Nope! They're neither flawed nor used in predictive models. Wrong on both counts!

That Hockey Stick" graphs are misleading and not statistically sound? They distort time!

Nope! The hockey stick graph is both accurate and statistically sound, dozens of model and proxy-based reconstructions done since MBH98 have confirmed this.

That most climate models have been based on proxies which don't and can't define temperature within a matter of a few degrees in past centuries? Please furnish me with temperatures within a few degrees of accuracy from an ice core or tree ring or layer of sediment!?

Wrong again! Climate models are not based on proxy measurements. They're based on... the laws of physics!

That climate is variable and influenced by a number of natural factors which humans have no control over? And such variability occured well before humans even existed?

Right you are, Xyzer m'lad. And no one has ever said anything different. The Earth's climate is a complex system governed by a multitude of internal and external factors; human activities now being one of those factors. And, in relation to the current global warming, the most important factor.

[xyzer]

Come on Sonart..

That may be, but I haven't quoted from any of them, and you can't show where I have

Why haven't you? Are you biased? Do you only base your decisions on admittedly biased sources, or sources that fit your beliefs? You not only dont quote from them you refuse to recognize their validity?

I have thrown the question of the logic of the matter at you and Parrot and I don't get any answers except . "Its not true"?e.g. You suggest the Hockey stick type graph does not distort time?(1degree of global temp is equated to thousands or hundreds of years of proxy temps to show an abrupt rise in temperatures) Its obviously a distortion. Besides, displayed temp averages are proxy guesses based on ice core and dendrological sources. Mongo the caveman sure didn't leave us any accurate measurments? Hell we have only recently been able to get approximations of temps over most of the globe?

My contention is and has been, we just don't know enough about climate influence to make any valid decisions on whether we humans can influence change.

In this example the European Union is dictating the use of bio fuels

Top scientists warn against rush to biofuel | Environment | The Guardian

And yet????

But scientists have increasingly questioned the sustainability of biofuels, warning that by increasing deforestation the energy source may be contributing to global warming

And of course there is still the dilemma of why the earth gets cooler even when anthropogenic energy use is increasing? Could there just be a more influentual source that determines the changes? Could that culprit be of variable influence? The Sun does not burn with a steady flame? Its output varies as does its magnetism? Since it has been the source of all the earths energy and it varies in intensity did the predictive models allow for this? If so how? Were there not some unpredictible forces included in the models? How does that apply to the certainty of the outcomes?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Why haven't you? Are you biased? Do you only base your decisions on admittedly biased sources, or sources that fit your beliefs? You not only dont quote from them you refuse to recognize their validity?

ROFLAO!!

Gawd love ya, Xyzer. I don't quote from biased sources, therefore, I must be biased, because only someone really biased would be sneaky enough to source only legitimate scientific institutions. And my bias is only confirmed since I refuse to accept your clearly agenda driven oil industry and anti-government regulation, free-market advocacy sources.

Quote by: Xyzer My contention is and has been, we just don't know enough about climate influence to make any valid decisions on whether we humans can influence change.

Alas, your contention is misinformed.

Quote by: Xyzer And of course there is still the dilemma of why the earth gets cooler even when anthropogenic energy use is increasing?

{{YAWN}} I've given you a crystal clear answer to that, and I'm only a layman. It's because there are multiple underlying micro and macro warming and cooling cycles affecting the larger trends. None of the trends, however, explain the dramatic rise in temperture these last two hundred years except man-made industrial pollution.

Quote by: Xyzer Top scientists warn against rush to biofuel | Environment | The Guardian

This has to do with creating solutions to global warming, not the question of whether it's happening. It's happening.

Coming up with solution will be... as science often is... a trial and error process, where solutions are tried, tested, researched and then often discarded.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -- Thomas Edison

.

[xyzer]

Brilliant deduction!

This has to do with creating solutions to global warming, not the question of whether it's happening. It's happening.

Doesn't one have to define the cause of the problem before creating a solution? I thought you were sanctioning drastic cuts in human energy consnumption as the solution to the warming over the past century? There is evidence of that warming, but there is no consensus that humans are causing it? There is a correlation but science tells us that correlation is not alway causation? There is plenty of evidence of climate/temperature cycles but no conclusive evidence that humans can affect them?
Remember my reference to your sheep like adherence to the current dogma? Don't follow Gore over the cliff. Don't invest in Carbon Offsets?

[Sonart]

.

INSULT ALERT: Matt, I'm about to say something to Xyzer that will be very insulting. It's not meant to be an insult because based on his last response, it's simply a statement of fact.

Quote by: Xyzer Doesn't one have to define the cause of the problem before creating a solution?

The problem of contemporary global warming, or climate change if you prefer, is caused by man-made greenhouse gases, mostly CO2. The fact that, after the years of debate on the subject, both on and off this forum, you don't seem to understand this seems to suggest that you're some sort of idiot.

Quote by: Xyzer I thought you were sanctioning drastic cuts in human energy consumption as the solution to the warming over the past century?

Only energy consumption that produces greenhouse gases. Solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, electric, etc. don't and should be pursued as alternatives. And once again, the fact that, after the years of discussion, you don't seem to understand this doesn't speak well of your intelligence.

Quote by: Xyzer There is evidence of that warming, but there is no consensus that humans are causing it?

There's an overwhelming consensus. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Quote by: Xyzer There is plenty of evidence of climate/temperature cycles but no conclusive evidence that humans can affect them?

There is massive evidence of human involvement, which we've presented again and again and again.

Quote by: Xyzer Remember my reference to your sheep like adherence to the current dogma?

{{YAWN}} Current dogma holds that the earth is spheroid in shape and orbits the sun. Am I a sheep for not believing that the earth is flat and the sun orbits it?

.

[Morality Games]

I want to join the fight against people who say Global Warming is not in large part human-caused, that the institutions that say it is not are predominantly libertarian-conservative think tanks panicking at the thought of government regulation, and that virtually all qualified-respected scientists take a human-caused view of the matter (with a mind to other factors of course), but with all the information that has been put out there and my long tried experience that anyone who at this point thinks man is not at the wheel of Global Warming are very unlikely to budge on their position (just as they were not too long ago unlikely to budge on the position that Global Warming exists, even when it was obvious to scientists and not to the public).

To get commonsensical about the whole affair, if you don't think CO2 is being produced in large amounts by humans, look at the statistics on the types of energy we use (or the energy usuage around you -- cars and the like), and if you don't think CO2 contributes to the warmth of planets, look at Venus (which is hotter than Mercury, planet closest to the sun, just because of heat trapped by carbon dioxide), and if you don't think the planet is getting warming, make note of the fact spring came about three or four weeks earlier this year than would have been the case several decades ago and that this trend is likely to continue (or the arctic ... whatever)

Destroying the rain forests hands over fist doesn't help either -- replacing them with cows, who produce obnoxious amounts of methane (another greenhouse gas) is also pretty much a kick in our planet's balls.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Foxfyre Sonart, if you think posting a list of organizations supporting global warming is 'proof' or 'evidence' of anything, especially when almost all are dependent on funding from pro-AGW advocates, then you have to allow lists and lists and lists of organizations and publications that include the skeptics including numerous universities where many on that list of bonafide environmental scientists that have recently joined the AGW skeptic camp are based. Just a few located in a 20-second cursory search: Global Climate Coalition George Marshall Institute Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine Union of Concerned Scientists Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Greening Earth Society Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change Climate Audit World Climate Report Competitive Enterprise Instititue Global Warming Petition Project Friends of Science The Global Warming Information Center Wharton School Heartland Institute ACCF Scientific American Again this doesn't include numerous universities where environmental experts are based. So again, the list of scientists that I posted previously can all be googled complete with their affiliations, biographies, credentials, and funding sources. You have provided no similar panel of experts and I doubt that you can because there are relatively few bonafide climate experts that are convinced of the IPPC global warming crisis if they even lean that way. Global warming appears to be primarily driven by political ambition and protection of funding sources at this time. If that proves not to be the case, I will post acknowledgement that I am wrong about that. But so far, there sure seems to be overwhelming data being produced to dispute the most emphasied "evidence" of runaway and dangerous global warming.

My deconstruction of your arguments;

"especially when almost all are dependent on funding from pro-AGW advocates"

Unsupported accusation. You lose a point for relying on supposed facts not in evidence.

"You have provided no similar panel of experts"

Falsehood about your debate opponent, who provided just such a list as yours. Lose another point for personal and intellectual dishonesty.

"there are relatively few bonafide climate experts that are convinced of the IPPC global warming crisis if they even lean that way."

Weasling, three times. You have put "IPPC" in there so that when challenged on a statement that is false, you can claim you meant that few experts share ~exactly~ the same predictions as the IPCC. You also included "relatively" as a weasle word, as well as "bonafide". These allow you to claim that any sources which disprove your claim are not "bonafide climate experts", and the "relatively few" allows you to claim you meant few in relation to something else (you can pretty much take your pick).
Lose three points for not having conviction.

"Global warming appears to be primarily driven by political ambition and protection of funding sources at this time. If that proves not to be the case, I will post acknowledgement that I am wrong about that. But so far, there sure seems to be overwhelming data being produced to dispute the most emphasied "evidence" of runaway and dangerous global warming."

Admission that you could be wrong, that what appears to be overwhelming data and evidence of some sort of climate crisis conspiracy to you may not in fact be such. Gain one point for intellectual honesty.

Use of "appears" and "seems" to indicate subjective interpretation. Gain one point for intellectual honesty.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Foxfyre Oh gosh you're right. I forgot I had entered information on Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) on the wrong list and it should not be included on a list of AGW skeptics. Sorry about that. It should however be included among the mostly non-scientific groups catering to the leftwing wacko fringe:

I had to laugh at the irony of you using a right-wing whacko blog to try to establish that any group are left-wing whackos.
You don't see a problem there?

This thread is a hoot.