Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'

[Pooeypants]

Now your talking pooey? Lets see..... if its "possible" it can happen. Now does it follow that if it's possible it "will" happen? Is there certainty that it will happen if scientists say it "might","may, "could"?

As I said before, pick up any current scientific paper NOT related to Global warming and you will see that, unless it's about pure Mathematics, those are the terms they will use. It is standard for any scientific paper to use precautionary language.

Can we then add the fact that climate has warmed and cooled many times before humans were even around to affect it? Which leads us to a valid conclusion that it may be warming as a result of other than human influences? You admit there is a possibility either way?

That's the exact baseline premise that the scientists worked on. But when they factored in all natural variabilities, they found that they couldn't explain the current warming. As I've mentioned before, now that we can conclusively state that the Sun's energy output has not risen in the past few decades; what caused the continued rise in global temperature?

Can we then go on to inject the idea of consequences to our actions by paraphrasing an analogy to Newtons Law of Motion? For every action there is a reaction. If we act from uncertainty the(reactions) consequences could be as harmnful as the current status of the problem we are trying to correct? Something has to react! It will cost us?

How exactly does becoming more energy efficient and less wasteful be harmful in any shape or form? So you're saying that based on your ill-informed guess, that we should do nothing at all but carry on the status quo?

Considering this I conclude we may be attempting to punish an elephant with a fly swatter? Thats why I say trying to limit anthropogenic C02 may be costly and futile...and even damage the growth of third world societies which need cheap energy for economic growth and health progress. Thats not scaremongering...its using a little logic That elephant may be pink?

Nope, it is scaremongering, I have already cited the Stern report which specifically states that the cost of adapting in the future is outweighed by what it would cost us now.

[xyzer]

Just one small point pooey?

Nope, it is scaremongering, I have already cited the Stern report which specifically states that the cost of adapting in the future is outweighed by what it would cost us now.

Haven't you got that backwards?...
Stern indicates that the cost today would be outweighed by the anticiapted costs of increased warming in the future! He is indicating its better(cheaper) to act now?

Besides that little error there are plenty of experts that disagree with the Stern report. It is not as you indicate the gospel?

From the referenceStern Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The conclusions of the Stern Review were directly opposed to those of the Economics Committee, both as regards the scientific basis of global warming and as regards the economics of mitigation policies. A number of participants in the Economics Committee inquiry have been prominent among critics of the Stern Review.[11]

[Pooeypants]

My apologies, I did word it incorrectly. However, I must ask, why do you oppose a change to waste less energy? In the long term, you will SAVE money...just how exactly will that put you at a disadvantage?

[xyzer]

I'm not piling on pooey. But I do want you(and others who drop by on this thread) to read this recent lecture by a noted climate SCIENTIST who has no axe to grind. He is not being paid by the oil companies either.techno?

Hillsdale College - Imprimis

I urge you to read all of it and then tell us, can you really believe that there is a need to get so excited about the current warming cycle? Do you really believe that humans can influence or overcome natural forces? Was there in fact a consensus of some 2500 scientists as pooey has repeatedly told us? Ans so on...

[xyzer]

And as a follow on to those interested in the subject..this site

Global Warming Facts
contains some interesting observations..
Check under the ...Whats new: News and commentary heading.

[Pooeypants]

I'm not piling on pooey. But I do want you(and others who drop by on this thread) to read this recent lecture by a noted climate SCIENTIST who has no axe to grind. He is not being paid by the oil companies either.techno?

Hillsdale College - Imprimis

I urge you to read all of it and then tell us, can you really believe that there is a need to get so excited about the current warming cycle? Do you really believe that humans can influence or overcome natural forces? Was there in fact a consensus of some 2500 scientists as pooey has repeatedly told us? Ans so on...

Yes, I have, without a doubt that even if you discount Global warming due to increased carbon dioxide, we have still had major influences over the Earth's climate.
For example, Mr.Vicchio had posted in a previous thread how it was the covering of carbon soot that caused increased melting of Greenland's ice (If I recall correctly). I have also cited previously about how the pollution in China has cut rainfall in some of its regions by as much as 50%.
Once again, you question the consensus so I will, once again, cite this collection of scientific institutions that have expressed their concern for human induced climate change. Can you honestly still say that there is no consensus?

[xyzer]

Here is another recent revelation that impinges on your repeated posts Pooey.
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

You have repeatedly claimed that 2500 or some other large percentage of scientists concur wuth the issue of mans contribution to warming and what is in the UN Panels conclusions...This shows you exaggerated!

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

Recent appraisal of scholarly research also shows that studies and papers on climate do not support the contention that a majority of recent scientists support the man made climate theory.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus

Its also interesting that most scientists seem to reject the catastrophic effects alarmism of the climate demagogues. These are the ones that make the headlines..... which are the favorites when it comes to press coverage

[Pooeypants]

Here is another recent revelation that impinges on your repeated posts Pooey.
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

You have repeatedly claimed that 2500 or some other large percentage of scientists concur wuth the issue of mans contribution to warming and what is in the UN Panels conclusions...This shows you exaggerated!

Recent appraisal of scholarly research also shows that studies and papers on climate do not support the contention that a majority of recent scientists support the man made climate theory.

Seeing as you refuse to read my source, I will post extracts and info from it.
The following organisations are in agree with the IPCC's assessment and/or has concluded that climate change must be tackled;

• 1. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
  3. Royal Society, United Kingdom
  4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
  5. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
  6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
  7. Academié des Sciences, France
  8. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
  9. Indian National Science Academy, India
  10. Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
  11. Science Council of Japan, Japan
• Union of Concerned Scientists
• Woods Hole Research Center
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Meteorological Society
• National Research Council
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Federal Climate Change Science Program
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• American Geophysical Union
• Geological Society of America
• American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
• Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
• Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London
• Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
• American Association of State Climatologists
• US Geological Survey (USGS)
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• World Meteorological Organization

Source
There's a few more but finger is getting tired. Can you stop living in denial now? Or does God himself need to come down and have a few words with you?

Its also interesting that most scientists seem to reject the catastrophic effects alarmism of the climate demagogues. These are the ones that make the headlines..... which are the favorites when it comes to press coverage

Now, given if the survey was true, even it states this

However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

Now, if I recall correctly, when someone is sitting on the fence, it is not considered as rejecting an idea/issue/plan, but undecided. Furthermore, I do not recall the IPCC issuing a certain statement for catastrophic change but just includes projections. In addition, I can't comment further as the apparent cited paper has not been published yet.

[xyzer]

Pooey? There you go

Seeing as you refuse to read my source

again...

How can you make such an unproven assertion? I have read many of your sources and I still remain a skeptic? That means I either don't place complete faith in your sources, and/or have placed my belief in those scientists who don't believe that human actions can change the current warming cycle?(which has slowed measurably in the last 5 or 6 years) I'm not convinced that human actions which depend on C02 reduction are effective enough to have any significat change?

I'm convinced even if we could it would take many centuries and much sacrifice.How do we know whether the much more influential natural forces will change the cycle to one of global cooling?.Experience and history tell us it was happening way before humans were even around?Yet there isn't any certainty that that type attempt has any real chance of success. Natuiral influences are much more likely to have the major impact on climate. Logic also convinces me of that!

[Pooeypants]

Pooey? There you go again...

How can you make such an unproven assertion? I have read many of your sources and I still remain a skeptic? That means I either don't place complete faith in your sources, and/or have placed my belief in those scientists who don't believe that human actions can change the current warming cycle?(which has slowed measurably in the last 5 or 6 years) I'm not convinced that human actions which depend on C02 reduction are effective enough to have any significat change?

That is irrelevant, you refuse to believe about the consensus and my source clearly lists out that you're wrong. The statements made by the scientific institutions are very clear, they are in agreement with the conclusions of the IPCC reports. Whether you agree with these reports is irrelevant, but the fact of the matter is, these institutions do and they represent thousands of scientists. Therefore, you are in denial when you say there is no consensus, because there clearly is.

I'm convinced even if we could it would take many centuries and much sacrifice.How do we know whether the much more influential natural forces will change the cycle to one of global cooling?.Experience and history tell us it was happening way before humans were even around?Yet there isn't any certainty that that type attempt has any real chance of success. Natuiral influences are much more likely to have the major impact on climate. Logic also convinces me of that!

What kind of sacrifices? I have already stated that I think that we should move towards better energy efficiency, this would not hinder us in the long term and is our eventual goal.

[Century 25]

Besides the overwhelming concurrence of earth's scientists.. you may also note that Russia recently sent a party to the north pole, claiming "rights" to that area of earth. (It's always about the oil.. stupidsky..!!) - and Mr Bush proclaimed that the Canadian NW passage is.. "open" for.. (you fill in..) - duh..

By the by.. it was 111F today here in the Valley of the SUN.., following the 113F of yesterday.. today made 31 days 110F or higher, and so far (Summer is not over for us) - we have had our.. warmest recorded.. since records were kept.. (not that long, really) - but still.. :eek:

Yes, I believe it's hot air all right. And it is goosed along via humans eager to cash-in, regardless of the consequences for our future & following generations. Piss on a buncha greedy ninny's..

[xyzer]

You ask what kind of sacrifices, pooey.
Here is one estimate..http://downloads.heartland.org/11133.pdf

This appraisal shows what it would cost to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions 7% below 1990 levels:
Gas prices would increase by $.65 per gallon
Electric bills would double
2.4 million jobs would be lost
The effort would cost state governments 116 billion $ in revenue.

That would require sacrifice and is in fact a staggering blow to the economy! Just add in the rest of the world(which would obviously have to participate)in the global effort and the figures are significant.

Facing such costs I want certainty!