As an environmental scientist, I will say there is no credible evidence whatsoever that man is the driving force behind climate change.
Keep 'em coming!
Is there anything published on how the high focus on CAGW has biased the research?
I don’t have it at my fingertips, but I have been given to understand, that the average global temperature has not varied up or down by a full degree since 1998. If I’m reading the second chart correctly it shows a skyrocketing temp for the last 17 years that just has not happened.
Using climate change as a policy driver is causing near catastrophic damage to the economy. Tax money is being squandered to install "renewable energy ie. wind turbines and solar panels and has driven the cost of domestic energy through the roof, and wasted acre upon acre of valuable farmland. The use of food products for such things as ethanol is outrageously driving up food prices. Ethanol drives up grain prices which in turn drives up meat prices, especially beef, and all to appease the econuts who latch onto a farce like this issue and try to solve it with other peoples money.
That’s because AGW accepters accept what the top climate scientists say, while the skeptics have to go to great lengths to refute the very well established science. To do that they have to learn more about AGW, in order to find some angles and twisted ways to refute it.
That’s why they call it GLOBAL (not local, not regional) warming.
The top scientists. Sez who? The top scientists haven’t been heard from yet.
Why then are we being told that the Antarctic ice is melting?
If one were to study blackbody radiation, they would realize that incoming solar radiation peaks at 500nm, while Earth’s outgoing thermal radiation peaks at 10um. And, coincidentally, the 10um band is where the CO2 absorption window is.
No, the real reason was that Irena Sendler did not match the stereotype of Polish Anti-Semite which is being propagated by certain groups.
I think Retread Mick’s point was not to challenge whether Antarctic ice is melting, but to challenge the use of this one (local) fact about Antarctica to prove global warming. And of course no one local fact proves global warming. But when all the local factors are taken together and combined then you have support for the theory.
That depends on what you mean by “heard from”. You don’t have to wait for the mainstream media to decide which research to pass along to us. This research is available directly in the form of academic papers. You can look it up for yourself and bypass the popular media entirely.
There is no need for name-calling here. If you think GW proponents claim that only CO2 affects climate, you don’t understand what GW claims. Just like when you tried to criticize the greenhouse effect by citing conservation of energy. No one is claiming the CO2 “amplifies” the thermal energy, any more than mittens “amplify” the heat of your hands. All it does it contain what is there so it doesn’t escape.
The best financial planners cannot predict the stock market three days in advance. But they can say with much more certainty what the stock market will do over a 100-year period.
If you don’t know what you are looking at, then can that really be called “looking at the data”?
Great news, SuperLuigi! Next time I post something you don’t like, you won’t go after me personally? Woohoo!Please discuss issues, not other users. The word “you” should never appear in a post on the News Forums unless it’s a quote.
Also, the proper course of action is suggest a merge of threads, not to berate another user because the news post doesn’t add up with one’s ideology.
:yawn:
I’ll admit that I didn’t believe these dire predictions from Day One. Even Al Gore has bought ocean-front property I’ve heard, so even HE doesn’t believe. it. But tell me, given the exposed hoaxes, why do you choose to believe those alarmists and bureaucrats who stand to gain billions from further fleecing of taxpayers?
That does not follow. What is the elevation of his ocean-front property? Unless it is all within a few feet of sea level, it can remain quite enjoyable throughout all of Al Gore’s lifetime and that of his children.
I do not concede that there have been any significant and pivotal hoaxes.
I don’t listen to them. I listen to scientists who have little to gain from predicting global warming if it is not true. But tell me, why do you choose to believe those funded by the oil companies who have a lot more to gain from suppressing the acceptance of an understanding of global warming?
Oil companies have become the bogey man. But, they provide us with products which heat our homes and allow us freedom of transport. I am glad they exist, aren’t you? The REAL bogey man is Big Government, which is quenching our freedoms and raiding and crushing our private sector to buy votes for the purpose of maintaining and increasing their power and subsidizing their royal lifestyles. :sad_yes:
I didn’t say that the oil companies were bad or good. I just pointed out that they have at least as much incentive to sway the science as government bureaucrats have to sway it in the other direction. Yes, I’m glad oil companies exist, and I don’t consider them to be particularly evil. But my appreciation of the oil companies does cause me to turn a blind eye to the possibility of biased science from those in their employ.