Government scientists report political interference in their work

Reliable in some areas, perhaps. But his global warming ideas are just speculation, that is true. You seem to place a lot of stock in those with whom you agree, but not to listen to any opposing opinions (e.g. your appeals to the authority of Glenn Beck, Dr. Gray).

No, you are making that up. Show me where I suggested such a thing. You can't.

I have listened to Dr. Gray here in Colorado, and in person. His opinion remains just his opinion. He has no way of knowing the warming will naturally reverse. Other credible scientists disagree. What if he is wrong?

 

I listen to opposing opinions on this all the time. History defeats the idea of man made GW in two ways. First we have the history of natural climate change. The changes we see now have happened more than once long before man interjected petroleum emissions. I watched a program on NBC I believe it was on GW. It was presented as a threat. They showed scientists taking core samples from the ice, and made all the common arguments found on that side of the issue. But just as the program was about to close the narrator said one thing that negated the whole program. "There have been 8 known ice ages in past history". So long as it is known that the earth warms and cools through natural processes it is hard to buy into a future devastation. Second, during the 70's the scientists who were consirdered to be many and reliable was crying out about a coming ice age. So why should we buy into this based on those two historical facts.

And just for the record I am for getting rid of fossil fuel 100%. But my reasons are purely based on not wanting to support terrorist nations. Why fight against those who wish to destroy us and then provide them with our money and the means to fight against us.:BangHead: But I cannot buy into hysteria that is contrary to natural processes and isn't supported by history.

As far as your assertion that I do "not listen to opposing opinions" . You cannot know that about me anymore than I know that about you just from this one thread. But if this thread is to be the standard then I would have to say that you are being hypocritical. I haven't sen anything different from you on this thread.

I didn't make anything up. Did you notice the question mark at the end of the sentence?

Who are these scientists? What do they disagree on? What is their reason?


Again he has reliable evidence that it will naturally reverse based on past history of climate change. Which seems to be ignored for the most part by those who support the opinion that a coming disaster is imminent.

 

Here is another report on c02 studies. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm




ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [email protected]
George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] January 1998
ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.





[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+1]Summary
[/SIZE][/FONT]
World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly. To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.

 

Comparison with IPCC projections

These modest increases are quite different from the results of climate models endorsed by the IPCC. Their climate models predict temperature increases from a doubling of carbon dioxide ranging from 3 to as much as 9 degrees! Which is correct?
It goes without saying that the results shown here depend on the accuracy of the original 33 degree estimate and the validity of extrapolating of the existing curve by an additional increment. However, we can check the plausibility of the IPCC's result by asking the following question: Instead of 33 degrees, what number would result if we calculated backwards from the IPCC estimates?
Using the same assumption of linearity, if a 9 degree increase resulted from the above-mentioned increase of greenhouse gas levels, the current greenhouse gas level (which is by definition 100%) would be equivalent to a greenhouse gas-induced temperature increase of at least 107 degrees C. This means the for the 9 degree figure to be correct, the current global temperature would have to be at least 255 + 107 - 273 = 89 degrees centigrade, or 192° Fahrenheit! A model that predicts a current-day temperature well above the highest-ever observed temperature is clearly in need of serious tweaking. Even a 5 degree projection predicts current-day temperatures of 41°C (106°F). These results clearly cannot be reconciled with observations.
In order for the 9 degree estimate to make sense from a physical standpoint, we are forced to draw an exponential curve through the graph above (shown in red) through the three points instead of a straight line. However, this curve creates an even worse result: it predicts a thermal runaway. A thermal runaway is a reaction that suddenly switches from a smooth curve and goes wildly out of control. For example, in an electronic circuit, if a transistor gets too hot, the chemical properties of the silicon can change and its resistance decreases, causing more and more current to flow, which causes it to burn up. Similarly, for the the nine-degree climate model to fit the observations, the curve that we must draw predicts that a 10 or 20% increase in greenhouse gases above their current levels would cause an infinite increase in temperature! Of course, some other factor (such as explosion of the Earth in a supernova-type explosion) would undoubtedly kick in to save us before an infinite temperature could be reached. But even so, it can be seen that an above-linear increase in temperature with increasing gas concentration is not only unphysical, but inconsistent with observations.
In order to prevent absurd conclusions from the IPCC projections, it is necessary to make some additional assumption -- for example, assuming that the dependence of radiative forcing on gas concentration depends critically on the exact percentage of each component of greenhouse gases as a function of altitude, or perhaps that the relationship between gas concentration and temperature is sigmoidal, and levels off at some point above the predicted increase. Yet no physical basis for such a sigmoidicity has been proposed. This means that these projections of extreme climate changes are unlikely to be accurate, or at the very least, worthy of great skepticism.
Although the estimates of global warming made by the IPCC and the predictions of "environmental catastrophe" made by environmental groups have gradually creeping back down as climate models gradually improve, environmentalists still worry that temperatures could increase by as much as 3 to 5 degrees over the next century.
However, as shown above, even a 5 degree increase in temperature would constitute a significant departure from the previous rates of increase. It is clear from Figure 3 that this too would be a marked deviation from the curve. Such strong nonlinear effects, especially when they are in the wrong direction from a physical standpoint, are difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of climate.

Conclusion

Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.






http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

 

"Government scientists report political interference in their work"

To some egomaniacal scientists, any kind of disagreement is considered "interference".

 

Clinton is coming to scold you again carpro

the above is typical [deleted -- it my be argued that calling the post "ignorance" is regarding the subject, but it gets too close to a personal attack--let's stay away from this type of statements please] and ideology (ideologue) bush culture of the attack on science that has hurt our nation for 6 years. Majority of scientist are non-political and love their work and only want to conduct
science without agenda but the bush/carpro culture of trying to stop progress and take us back wards will lose thank God.

 

Quote:by 2 Timothy 2:1-4 who quoted Dr Grey

3. Global Warming studies are funded by grants from special intrest. And those who support GW as a man made cause are beholden to those grants. GW centers all around money.

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm

 

Scientists are people with egos regardless of their politics. Once they have made up their mind, they don't like to have their opinion disputed, especially by non-scientific types.

The rest of your post deserves no comment.

 

Yea I think it is silly to assume anyone is free from an agenda or politics. We all have our moments either way. Simply because they are scientists does not exclude them from human passions. Where would such an idea come from?

 

Majority of Scientist do not want to have anything to do with the likes of you carpro

Majority of Scientist do not want to have anything to do with the likes of you carpro they will leave in droves as they did Germany before WWII and find safe haven to conduct science free of politics ...we must not lose our scientific community in this country because of the back wards ideologues embedded in the bush culture and rush limbaugh that get passed down to small fish to decimate a culture of going back wards and losing our standing and cutting edge for this nations future. Scientist only want to conduct science and want alot of feed back from their peers and not rush limbaugh and his ditto idiots that divide progress and this nation because they want to fill their pockets.

btw bill clinton is coming to tell you the truth again carpro are you ready:wavey:


to paint scientist as evil and ego manically is just totally a nazi propaganda tactic from the past ...it will not work and is not working because the American people want better and want us to be ahead in the sciences or others will soak them up and we will have to depend on rush limbaugh to tell us even more lies while China and Europe leap frog over us. imho

 

Galatian's remarks are more predictable than the weather, that's for sure. It won't be long until Galatian chimes in with the liberal company line, completely devoid of actual hard proof. It is opnion.

Galatian says, Scientists disagree with you. No kidding, Einstein. Scientists also agree with me. The question is which scientists will you believe?

The truth is that we cannot tell anythign about global warming by the statistically negligible amount of data we have. It would be like judging the success of your life by looking at the last two seconds. It is foolish to try to make dogmatic statements based on that kind of evidence. And people know it. That's why global warming proponents are scrambling to save their cause.

And their success is depedent on duping people who refuse to buy anything but the liberal line.

The truth is, for every scientist you can find supporting global warming, you can find an equal scientist denying it, or denying its long term catastrophic effects (which is usually the concern).

It is too bad that people don't konw any better.

 

Holy cow! and good grief!

 

tim you blockhead the exxon/mobil check is in the mail

Tim I want to gently admonish you not to worship cows it is against God and you could lose your salvation or at the least God would forbid you to ever have a T-bone steak ever again.:laugh:



no need to drag charlie brown into this tim but perhaps you identify with him....you block head!:smilewinkgrin: the debate is over on Global Warming it is only the oil companies swift boating politics that are left to get out of the way and their apple polishers then we can create solutions and economies and guess what progressive energy companies will be a part of that economy but not the backwards ones they should be left behind.imho

 

Studying hurricanes is not the same as studying climate change.

We're in an ice age which will eventually end, but when do you think this "natural" warming cycle will end?

Just the opposite, generally. Universities & government grants have funded the GW scientist while big energy has funded the deniers.

See http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

 

Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)

The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?"



http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm

I posted this in another thread but it fits in both situations and is quite an appropriate response.

 

Blockhead! Wow! And you feel comfortable using that attack? I am certain nothing I have said rises to that level.

 

Galatian,

You are simply toting the party water bucket. But the truth remains that the existence, cause, and effects of global warming is far from a sure thing. No amoutn of bloviating on your part will change that. You and Joe Biden are very similar in this regard. You just can't stop talking and the longer you talk, the more ridiculous it sounds.

There is evidence that as a whole, temperatures are higher across the board. But we do not have enough evidence to know whether or not it is just a normal weather cycle on our planet. We do not have any way to know what the long term affects are. The unfortunate thing is that uncritical thinkers are buying into left and right.

 

Just so happens, there is a new story out today that give some examples. The entire story is at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070201/sc_nm/globalwarming_seas_dc

but here is an excerpt:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Seas rising faster than U.N. predicts: study

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent Thu Feb 1, 2:57 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - Sea levels are rising faster than predicted amid global warming, a group of scientists said on Thursday in a challenge to the U.N.'s climate panel which is set to issue a report toning down the threat of rising oceans.

f(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['uGZ8J9GDJGw-']='&U=13benmg1u%2fN%3duGZ8J9GDJGw-%2fC%3d569357.10053155.10735394.1829771%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4099527';
The researchers -- from the United States, Germany, France, Australia and Britain -- wrote in the journal Science that seas have been edging up more rapidly since 1990 than at any time in more than a century, outpacing computer projections.