Climate change gathers steam, say scientists

Climate change gathers steam, say journalists.

Reading through this article I could not help but notice many "weasel" words, such as "appears to be", "suggests that", "may be driven", "may be triggering", "oceans might rise", "would put", "I think", "Were Greenland's", "could prove", "informal consensus", "some scientists" and "could be released". It almost seems that "some scientists" are hedging their bets.

Also who wrote this?

"During the 1970s, there were on average 1.3 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas -- in the air. In the 1980s the figure was 1.6 ppm, and in the 1990s 1.5 ppm."

The previous sentence from the article is simply incorrect.

These politically motivated dispatches from Hansen, Serreze and other activist scientists should not be published by physorg, since the articles promote political, rather than, scientific debate.

again this scam agenda from the illuminati elite

watch new article of how actually glaciars starterd to grow ans snow depozits

this global warming scam is like 911

to scare the dumb sheep to give up more freedoms
rights, and they have more control

http://infowars.n...iers.htm

I am looking forward to the political dynamics that emerge with such ideas as cap and trade and other carbon reduction schemes that global warming proponents have been pushing. How will the U.S. deal with China, India and other emerging nations that will not be participating in carbon reduction? How much will these schemes increase outsourcing? Who in their right mind would manufacture anything at all in the U.S. when China can do it even cheaper and additionally not have to deal with carbon emissions reduction expenses? Are we now going to block trade? China would be smart not to budge at all. Either environmentalists or anti-free trade proponents will send the Democratic party into nonexistence.

again this scam agenda from the illuminati elite

Big oil wants you to be afraid of the illuminati elite. Be very afraid.

watch new article of how actually glaciars starterd to grow ans snow depozits

Start learning English today:

http://www.englis...g1_1.htm

this global warming scam is like 911

Global warming denialism is like young Earth creationism. At this point, both camps are equivalently ignorant and desperate to gain converts for their respective faith-based lunacies.

to scare the dumb sheep to give up more freedoms
rights, and they have more control

http://infowars.n...iers.htm

Desperate cherry-picking. Most glaciers are melting.

http://en.wikiped...nce_1850

But don't let reality get in the way of your childish wishful thinking and fairy tale delusions.

How can Noein type with his fingers in both ears,his eyes closed,stamping his little feet and shouting La La Lala La ?

Einstein says:

"Desperate cherry-picking. Most glaciers are melting."
http://en.wikiped...nce_1850

This graph is from that article:

http://en.wikiped...iers.png

It looks like we are about where we were in the 30s. Also I wonder why they stopped the graph in 2005. Perhaps they have something to hide.

Wow, so many hateful anti climate change muppets. No point arguing, it's like chatting to Christians about reality.

Wow, so many hateful anti climate change muppets. No point arguing, it's like chatting to Christians about reality.

One could say the same for a group that states there is an "overwhelming consensus," when there is not one. Let's play spot the quote:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

it's like chatting to Christians about reality.

I loved that one.

watch video that explains clearly how

the global warming scam is run by whom and why

http://www.youtub...PV01uyRs

watch video that explains clearly how

the global warming scam is run by whom and why

http://www.youtub...PV01uyRs

Conspiracy theories aside, the vast majority of people, on both sides of the debate, just want to see some honest science and less rhetoric.

Conspiracy theories aside, the vast majority of people, on both sides of the debate, just want to see some honest science and less rhetoric.

Hole-in-one!

I'm becoming more concerned with the climate change debate. Our sun has been very quite lately and the global temperature has been declining for several years now and sharply in the past year.

Google "global cooling"

The IPCC models have failed to predict temperatures for the past few years. To make policy based on these models would be irresponsible not to mention devastating if we need to prepare for global cooling.

I'm becoming more concerned with the climate change debate. Our sun has been very quite lately and the global temperature has been declining for several years now and sharply in the past year.

Google "global cooling"

The IPCC models have failed to predict temperatures for the past few years. To make policy based on these models would be irresponsible not to mention devastating if we need to prepare for global cooling.

The IPCC models have failed to predict temperatures for the last 10 years. Or from the start if you really want to look closely.

It was the consensus of scientists that the world was flat... Galileo was using black magic, according to consensus science, to make distant things look closer in his telescope. You certainly knew it was a devilish device because everything you saw through it looked upside down! :-)

The jury is still out on the seriousness of "Global Warming"... hence the subtle shift to "Climate Change"... which is sure to ALWAYS be happening.

It was the consensus of scientists that the world was flat...

Name one. An actual scientist. In an age that had only few dozen scientists you should be able to find one if such exists.

Galileo was using black magic, according to consensus science, to make distant things look closer in his telescope.

Galileo was one of the first scientists and he didn't invent the telescope. Even the Catholic inquest didn't think he was into black magic. Satire against the Pope yes, black magic no.

The jury is still out on the seriousness of "Global Warming"... hence the subtle shift to "Climate Change"... which is sure to ALWAYS be happening.

Or maybe it was the only way to get reality through Bushes obdurate head. Even Bush has noticed that the world is a bit hotter than it was when he was a little shrub. People had to pretend that Bush's friends in Oil Places weren't involved.

Ethelred,

Lack of knowledge doesn't make scientist less of scientist, the pursuit of the knowledge is what defines them, not the solutions, those are called engineers. In 500 years the "advancements" of today will likely appear no more complex than the wheel of long ago.

Personally I'm still stuned that they didn't teach Calculus in high schools when my parents were children, but that's OK since I'm sure the 14 year old that was taking Difficult Equations with me while I was in college thought I appeared awful primative.

"Climate Change" is such a vague and useless term that anything could be attributed to it, it fails to eliminate any driving factors or indicate any predictable direction.

Guess what the climate here changed this morning, there was frost on my car when I woke up, but it's gone now, but that's okay because it sleeted Monday.


"Climate Change" is a blatent dissociation from AGW in order to create a purely politically driven Money laundering scheme. Of itself I could care less since if they don't use AGW, they'll use welfare, government controled healthcare, roadways, Federal Bailouts, or show up at my front door with a tank and a bag for the loot. It's the need on their part to do something with potentially destructive consequences in order to justify their money. If the government is going to take my money and lie to me about it, great, just take it, don't do something stupid and irreversable because of it. Take the money and put it to renewable energy research, don't give it to lobbyist to fund research to scare me into sustainable solutions, just go ahead and make sustainable infrastructure changes, I'm not against that.

Of itself I could care less since if they don't use AGW, they'll use welfare, government controled healthcare, roadways, Federal Bailouts, or show up at my front door with a tank and a bag for the loot.
...
don't give it to lobbyist to fund research

Lobbyists doing research? That explains a lot. I'll take Hansen over any bag of lobbyists any day.

Of itself I could care less since if they don't use AGW, they'll use welfare, government controled healthcare, roadways, Federal Bailouts, or show up at my front door with a tank and a bag for the loot.
...
don't give it to lobbyist to fund research

Lobbyists doing research? That explains a lot. I'll take Hansen over any bag of lobbyists any day.

Hansen or lobbyists, you know the data is bogus either way.

How many lobbyists does Soros employ? Of course, Soros' foundations do throw a few crumbs Hansen's way.

http://www.freere...15/posts

The AWG theory has not followed the scientific method. This is actually what drew me into this debate. My first first exposure was media coverage and I followed along. Then I read this:

"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." (Jones" reply to Warwick Hughes, 21. February 2005; P. Jones later confirmed this to Alex von Storch.)

Note: This is the co-author the famous "hockey stick" graph which was the original graphic that caused the media sensation for global warming.

I am not a scientist but an engineer however this statement baffled me, I had to research this isse. I found two stories. One that was presented to the public and another that needed unearthing and research and reading.

I'm still not entirely sure what forcings are most important in climate change, but I have concluded that CO2 emissions are but one possibility and only rely on questionable global climate models. And the scientific method has not been followed for this hypothesis.

I have to conclude that is it much less credible than has been reported and now realize this argument has passed from scientific to emotional.

Ethelred,

Lack of knowledge doesn't make scientist less of scientist, the pursuit of the knowledge is what defines them, not the solutions, those are called engineers.

It was the lack of scientists supporting the idea of a flat world in the time of Galileo that I was pointing out. There were very few scientists at that time and I am not aware of any of them that thought the world was flat. After all Galileo was born 72 years after Columbus's first voyage and 42 years after the world had been circumnavigated. Anyone with any interest in the shape of the world new it wasn't flat. Only people with no education would have thought that. Not even the most ignorant European sailor could have still thought that way. So the claim was crap and I called CWFlink on that to support his ridiculous claim.

He hasn't done it. What a surprise.

Personally I'm still stuned that they didn't teach Calculus in high schools when my parents were children, but that's OK since I'm sure the 14 year old that was taking Difficult Equations with me while I was in college thought I appeared awful primative.

While that is a tad offtopic I don't find it stunning myself. That was the way it was when I was in high school. Even the guy I knew that got 700 on the SAT didn't take calculus in high school.

"Climate Change" is such a vague and useless term that anything could be attributed to it, it fails to eliminate any driving factors or indicate any predictable direction.

Agreed. Of course the majority argument on this thread is actually mostly about denial of global warming and the use of the term Climate change is an attempt to trivialize something several here seem to be unwilling to discuss rationally. Bogus numbers, crank sources and personal attacks abound. On top of which at least three people here give a one rating to anyone that disagrees with them no matter how well reasoned.

Guess what the climate here changed this morning, there was frost on my car when I woke up, but it's gone now, but that's okay because it sleeted Monday.

Thats not climate. Thats weather. Melting glaciers is a sign of climate change. Notice the careful selection of ONE graph from a site that disagrees with one poster in attempt to obfuscate the issue. And the graph showed him very likely wrong anyway.

"Climate Change" is a blatent dissociation from AGW in order to create a purely politically driven Money laundering scheme.

Well, thats what the deniers claim. Sorry but obfuscation doesn't make reality change. Deniers have begun to play games with Anthropomorphic Global Warming vs. Non-Anthropomorphic Global Warming only because the evidence of Global Warming is quite strong despite the obfuscation in this thread by a few that try to bully others, apparently for political reasons. Or maybe they are just Trolls.

You do know that this had little to do with my post about scientists don't you?

If the government is going to take my money and lie to me about it, great, just take it, don't do something stupid and irreversable because of it.

Well ignoring problems can lead to irreversible results. Or at least very expensive to reverse results. Dikes cost a lot of money. Dead is irreversible. Most other things can be reversed or at least mitigated if the stupidity doesn't go on too long. But it can be bloody expensive so spending money on prevention can save a lot in the long run.

If we were still hunter-gatherers global warming would be a good thing. We could just move up hill. Its hard to move a city uphill. Or downhill for that matter. Lots of ancient cities had their ports silt up. Few had them go underwater. Yet that is what can happen if the glaciers continue to retreat.

Ethelred

Agreed. Of course the majority argument on this thread is actually mostly about denial of global warming and the use of the term Climate change is an attempt to trivialize something several here seem to be unwilling to discuss rationally.

Firstly, none of us deny that the climate warmed over the past decade.

We are not convinced that the origin of the warming was man made, nor do we believe that any of the measures being taken now are being taken for the right reasons.

We "denialists" as we're called don't deny climate change. In fact we believe in climate change, and we believe that humans are too insignificant to affect it.

Velanarris,
I disagree, the climate has not warmed in the last decade according to all data sources. There is no doubt that the climate has warmed since 1900 or so.
Most of us "sceptics" doubt that hardly any change is caused by carbon dioxide and that warming will a big problem. Now, cooling, that will cause vast problems.
If you compare the graphs of CO2 rise since 1900 against the temperature graph there is no continuous fit. As the CO2 goes up the temperature goes UP and DOWN.Therefore, some other thing(s) must at least a partial cause.
Whatever the "other" cause(s) is it must be greater than the CO2 effect. It cools when either this other warming effect is removed or cools when this cooling effect is applied, or a combination of all. It is accepted by all that the CO2 forcing, however large or small, is continuous and the CO2 levels are increasing.
SO why the variations in global temperature if CO2 is the only, or main, forcing. This alone should be reason for doubt, which is what scepticism is.
Also an observation. If you "chery pick" the starting point (year) for measuring temperature change, and you know recent trends, you can make it seem hotter or colder according to the tenp in the "chosen" year. i.e. 1933 to 2008 same or cooler, 1900 to 2008 warmer (just).


If

So if your actually being reasonable why do you keep marking my and other's posts a ONE. Thats a clear attempt to deny reality.

Keep acting like a Troll and I will continue to accuse you of being one. My post was in no way pure crap. You are the only one of three or four going around pulling that crap that is even trying to pretend to be reasonable. And its pretty much pretense even in your case as long as engage in such puerile behavior.

Claiming that rising sea levels has nothing to do with Global Warming was pure nonsense.

As for insignificance. People used to claim humans couldn't stop the fruitfly invasion of California even while complaining that we had wiped out species in the state already. Increasing CO2 cannot NOT have an effect on climate. At best it can be balanced out by a cooling sun or particulates.

So why the pretense that its impossible when it is clearly possible?

Some people aren't convinced that evolution is reality. Some aren't convinced that people have walked on the Moon. Some believe in the Bavarian Illuminati. Some believe the world is going to end Real Soon Now because the Mayan Calendar is going to stop.

Evidence is that humans do effect the climate. Its not quite as clear as the evidence that cigarettes cause cancer or HIV causes AIDS but its better than the evidence for either in the beginning.

Farming effects watershed, which effects dust which effect weather. Black powder weapons caused rain. Many civilizations have destroyed their cropland for generations. Cultures that allegedly respected the land better than we do wiped out their forests. Cities raise temperature five to ten degrees over the land around them. Overgrazing causes desertification of marginal land.

Its pure ostrich to claim that we can't affect the climate.

So why do you insist that we should "Sit around and wait"?

Ethelred.

Good idea Ethel... Oh, by the way, where would you like to build the dikes and how high? It seems like a pretty good question since everyone has a different idea of how high high or low the sea level might be in 100 years. How much of the GDP should be spent for dikes that will be sitting on dry land for the foreseeable future?

Ethelred,
I do realize I digressed yesterday, i guess I was feeling talkative, that said, I do concede the point that frost in the morning is weather not climate, but for that matter so are droughts, blizzards, monsoons, and even dry years, are all weather. Ice ages, Warm ages, Those would be climates. An increase or decrease in huricanes one year or ten years indicates weather, 100 years of continuous change or Polar shifts, that is climate.

As far as my dismisal of climate change as a means of grabbing money, how much of the money going to AGW or Climate Change research is really spent on solutions. I don't think there is a rational person in the world who would be against sustainable renewable cheep energy, With the obvious exception of those making money off the current sources. I personally am a big fan of funding methane hydrate recovery research off the costal shelves, but rather than spending money on solutions the money is spent trying to convince people there is a catastrophic unavoidable problem.

I'd agree on prevention, except that to be honest i don't think everyone realizes what we are preventing. When the US settled the west and began developing it they prevented wildfires because those are bad, the result was fewer wildfires, but several orders of magnitude large than before and the frequency drives itself back to normal. The problem is that it's an irreversable result, we create more fuel by preventing the fires, we maintain the fuel by trying to control the fires, but they burn hotter for it.

Often containment acts rather like a pressure cooker. Panic is never the right path to find a solution.

You hit a point I'd agree with that dikes are expensive, but so are many of the "solutions" and the ever persistant question remains, if we are wrong and this is a temporary hot spell, but we react too extreme, what will we do with that? Again take hte money and give me an inexpensive zero emmision car and I'll be the greenest driver on the road. Take the money and pay for research to tell me I need to buy a $50K electric car that I'll need to recharge between home and work and I'll tell you that you're fear mongering and not helping. (I don't mean you personally, but rather the researchers and bureaucrats.) I don't need to be convinced to save money, or reduce smog. I do need to be convinced that my going off the grid and riding a bicycle 45 miles one way to work is going to avert the pending apocalypse before I commit to that extreme.

And technically Galileo got the grill for the preposterous notion that the Earth isn't the center of the universe around which everything rotates. Agreed that he did not get it for the earth being flat, but he posited that we move around the sun even though everyone could clearly see we weren't moving and the sun, the moon and the stars moved about the earth. Heliocentrism went against observable "facts". Facts that had been incorporated into the Catholic Church which regardless of you religious views, were the equivalent of the UN in global political influence back then.

As for insignificance. People used to claim humans couldn't stop the fruitfly invasion of California even while complaining that we had wiped out species in the state already. Increasing CO2 cannot NOT have an effect on climate. At best it can be balanced out by a cooling sun or particulates.

So why the pretense that its impossible when it is clearly possible?

Comments like the above are why you get a 1.

Insignificance and inability are two completely disparate things.

Your frames of reference are horrid and your justifications border on fringe science.

That's why you get a 1/5, because you twist and trim statements to suit your inability to provide evidence to back up your claims.

Human CO2 production compared to natural production is a wild 0.3% of total. In terms of insignificance how much is 0.3% of your paycheck? Can you live on it? Could you make any sort of significant change with it?

Although I am convinced that GW is real and is a danger, I must caution those who suggest that "millions of refugees" will result. That is highly unlikely, if only because of the time-frame likely to see significant climate changes. 100 years?? i do think populations will on their own redistrubute themselves to avoid any 'refugee' status: more likely will be peoples' simply choosing to live elsewhere, probably not even consciously aware of this ongoing drawn-out process. Of course, certain places are at substantial immediate risk, eg, where the average elevation is perhaps several feet or less.. But these are atypical and should not be referred to in the same breath as announcements describing massive continental shoreline effects.