An Inconvenient Scientist

Dumbass pinko-nazi-neoconservative-hippy-capitalists.
Post Reply
Trollbait

An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Trollbait »

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 38792.html

Gore gets a cold shoulder
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."


I know....another climate thread... :roll:

I just found Dr. Gray interesting and thought I would share.
User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Harlowe »

I new a negative post would show up regarding the Nobel Prize. I'm surprised it took this long though. =)
Trollbait

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Trollbait »

Actually the article has little to do with the prize that I could care less about and more to do with a well known scientist who is a leader and pioneer in his field saying that Al Gore is full of shit.
Rsak
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 5365
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Gukta

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Rsak »

The only problem I have with the Nobel Prize is how many people in this world are deluded in thinking it has anything to do with science. It is a political award and nothing more.
Trollbait

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Trollbait »

Again..........The article is not really about the Nobel Prize.

Please stay on topic.
Rsak
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 5365
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Gukta

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Rsak »

The topic is about Gore otherwise you never would have used that thread title so shove your "redirect" where it belongs.

Besides I was talking to Harlowe :P
User avatar
Garrdor
Damnit Jim!
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2002 9:02 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Garrdor »

Wheres your Nobel Prize for being a pro ranter?
Image
Didn't your mama ever tell you not to tango with a carrot?
Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Partha »

Simple question.

Can you link us a single peer reviewed sample of his argument?
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant

"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Harlowe »

So you find a guy that says he's full of shit and he's full of shit. Entirely full of shit or just a little full of shit?

I find all documentaries that try to bring attention to social or environmental issues to be a bit alarmist. I think their intention is normally to encourage action or discussion. Which he (along with the UPCC) has succeeded in doing. If he was full of shit entirely or it was strictly political, it wouldn't be part of a global dialogue. He's just not that powerful. In fact, the Republicans would have taken great joy in nailing his ass to a cross if he were utterly full of shit. I personally don’t understand the attention he gets whether negative or gushing.

With regard to global warning, I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as what any one scientists viewpoint is. I think you definitely have to take into account more than one scientific discipline to examine it, so one guy crying bullshit just isn't going to cut it, like some child pointing out the emperor has no clothes. I'm more inclined to listen to the community of scientists at large rather than cherry-picking a few to suit what I want the answer to be. Whether we can do anything or not, at least knowing or having some awareness will help us better prepare for change.

As far as the Nobel Peace Prize goes - it's an award that isn't given out by our country, so I don't really care what the criteria is. It won’t change politics here other than make the other Dem’s running a bit nervous that Gore might toss his hat in. But it's not a joke (as Rush states) nor is it some sacred honor, I'm more "that's nice, whatever" about it. It's a Swede/Norwegian award and those guys have been trying to bring attention to climate for at least 15 years (I remember Climate-Our Future by Ulrich Schotterer as far back as High School), so I'm really not surprised he & the UPCC won.

Seems like this award goes by with hardly a mention or it's soooooo controversial. It’s just an award that gives you a nice intro – Nobel Prize Winner yada yada.

/twirls finger
Lurker
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 6233
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 12:14 pm

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Lurker »

Yeah, what Harlowe said.
Jecks wrote:Actually the article has little to do with the prize that I could care less about and more to do with a well known scientist who is a leader and pioneer in his field saying that Al Gore is full of shit.
Actually, he accused the entire scientific community of being full of shit, and particularly the IPCC. Funny you want to frame it as 'a well known scientist who is a leader and pioneer in his field' vs. Al Gore, when it clearly isn't.
User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Harlowe »

Sorry I meant IPCC not UPCC, my head was thinking the "UN" since it's made up of two United Nation Organizations the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Lurker
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 6233
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 12:14 pm

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Lurker »

I forgive you.
Rsak
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 5365
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Gukta

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Rsak »

With regard to global warning, I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as what any one scientists viewpoint is. I think you definitely have to take into account more than one scientific discipline to examine it, so one guy crying bullshit just isn't going to cut it, like some child pointing out the emperor has no clothes. I'm more inclined to listen to the community of scientists at large rather than cherry-picking a few to suit what I want the answer to be. Whether we can do anything or not, at least knowing or having some awareness will help us better prepare for change.
I agree on the general basis of the logic used. However in the situation of global climate all we have is theories about what we think will happen, not proof that the theories are correct. In such a situation skepticism should be used when it comes to drastic measures that effect global economies and you most certainly should pay attention to scientific trends of thought whether it reaches a level of consensus of not.

The true problem is the departure from science and the politicization of this issue to the extent of communities trying to brain wash children with one sided "documentaries".
User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Harlowe »

I agree on the general basis of the logic used. However in the situation of global climate all we have is theories about what we think will happen, not proof that the theories are correct. In such a situation skepticism should be used when it comes to drastic measures that effect global economies and you most certainly should pay attention to scientific trends of thought whether it reaches a level of consensus of not.

The true problem is the departure from science and the politicization of this issue to the extent of communities trying to brain wash children with one sided "documentaries".
I was with you until you got to the brain-washing part. I think that is just alarmist silliness. There is always some civic and environmental cheer-leading going on with children. Using the earth, the environment or other people as the focus is a good way to develop a sense of care and respect for things outside of themself. That's one of the reasons why I think religion isn't all bad either, especially with regard to teaching children.

I wouldn't let it cause you any concern. We will never have a shortage of conservatives, in spite of our very liberal beginnings in grade school.
Lurker
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 6233
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 12:14 pm

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Lurker »

Dr. Gray does not represent a 'scientific trend of thought'.

You sum up Dr. Gray almost perfectly when you said 'the true problem is the departure from science and the politicization of this issue. He's someone that has departed from science, and he's certainly politicized the issue by accusing every scientist involved of committing fraud to get grant money. His theory for Global Warming that is absurd. As a matter of fact, when the key component of his theory was proven false, he simply came up with a new theory that reached the same conclusions as the first.

As for the documentary being one sided, it's not Gore's job to give equal time to absurd bullshit from the other side, and bringing attention to the overwhelming consensus of the worlds scientists is not what I'd consider brainwashing.
Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Embar Angylwrath »

Lurker -

I think the main issue isn't that of global warming. Most scientists agree (I do as well), that the atmosphere is in a warming stage. If your assertion is that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on that small point, then I am in agreement with you.

However, what causes the lines to blur in this debate, is the discussion of what is causing the warming. There isn't widespread agreement among scientists, climatologists in particular, over what is causing the warming. To be more specific, what combination of factors, and to what extent each factor has on the climate, is still a largely unanswered question within the scientific community. However, Gore tries to paint human activity as THE most significant factor causing the warming we see. And that simply hasn't been investigated enough by the scientific community to make that kind of blanket statement.

Its the causality link that most scientists have an issue with. Yet Gore blithely stands up in front of a camera presenting distortions of science, and outright falsehoodds (google hockey-stick climate report). When he starts insinuating that Katrina was a result of global warming, well, thats just pandering to the fear of the ignorant populace, and is unforgivable, when he knows better.

The crockumentary was a slickly packaged manifestation of a political agenda. Nothing more.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius
Lurker
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 6233
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 12:14 pm

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Lurker »

Embar, you have zero credibility on this topic. You were caught spouting fasle denier talking points in the last thread and immediately dropped out of the conversation. You aren't a skeptic; you are a denier. I'll do you the courtesy of responding anyways.
Embar wrote:However, what causes the lines to blur in this debate, is the discussion of what is causing the warming. There isn't widespread agreement among scientists, climatologists in particular, over what is causing the warming.
Bullshit. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that the current warming is caused by human activity.
Embar wrote:To be more specific, what combination of factors, and to what extent each factor has on the climate, is still a largely unanswered question within the scientific community. However, Gore tries to paint human activity as THE most significant factor causing the warming we see. And that simply hasn't been investigated enough by the scientific community to make that kind of blanket statement.
Again, it isn't Gore trying to paint anything. The consensus of an overwhelming majority of climate scientists is that human activity is the main driver in current warming. What all the factors are and what extent each factor plays is debatable. The main point is not.
Embar wrote:Yet Gore blithely stands up in front of a camera presenting distortions of science, and outright falsehoodds (google hockey-stick climate report).
The hockey-stick data is not widely in dispute. You made this same false claim in the other thread.

Do we really need another go around on your bullshit, Embar?
Rsak
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 5365
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Gukta

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Rsak »

I was with you until you got to the brain-washing part.
Brain washing is probably too strong of the word, but it is the one used in the lawsuit stopping the forced viewing of Gore's movie in Britain.
Dr. Gray does not represent a 'scientific trend of thought'.
I didn't claim he did, but the larger problem is you and others are fostering an argumentative dialogue rather then a constructive one because one side is always political and the other is always scientific.
As for the documentary being one sided, it's not Gore's job to give equal time to absurd bullshit from the other side, and bringing attention to the overwhelming consensus of the worlds scientists is not what I'd consider brainwashing.


Equal time is not deserved, but attention most definitely is if it can ever be factually described as a scientific documentary rather then a political propaganda piece. If the points are bullshit then prove them wrong. Even if you accept that human produced CO2 is the cause of global warming you haven't truly proven that 1) its a bad thing due to global temperature cycles, 2) human beings can stop the looming catastrophe, and 3) what kind of human civilization we will have with the expected population numbers by the time we fix it (dark ages, 21th century America, ?).

Sadly very little proving is occurring when it comes to Global Climate which really speaks volumes about the complexity of the issue.

And the judge in England found enough fault in the movie that is should not be forced on children by itself. That is as close to "brain-washing" as you can get these days.
Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Embar Angylwrath »

I'll get more into this later, but one quick reply... the hockey-stick data presented by Gore has largely been discredited by the scientfic community. Even the people who agree with Gore admit it. The data used to create that graph was misinterpreted, leading to a mathematical artifact that mispresented the true picture.

How you can deny that is imcomprehensible to me.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius
Trollbait

Re: An Inconvenient Scientist

Post by Trollbait »

Harlowe wrote:I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as what any one scientists viewpoint is. I think you definitely have to take into account more than one scientific discipline to examine it

How about more than one scientist from more than one scientific discipline?

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view"

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content."

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."

Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."

Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports (answering to "If global temperatures are increasing, to what extent is the increase attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity as opposed to natural variability or other causes?"): "No one knows. Estimates today are given by climate model simulations made against a backdrop of uncertain natural variability, assumptions about how greenhouse gases affect the climate, and model shortcomings in general. The evidence from our work (and others) is that the way the observed temperatures are changing in many important aspects is not consistent with model simulations."

William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."

Note that these scientists do not say that there is no climate change. They just say exactly what I say....you cannot verify the cause at this time or even if this is a cycle that will continue.
Post Reply