Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Flying Crane]

Yep as well as mine

understood

 

[ballen0351]

i'm showing you that the wide scientific community doesn't agree.

yep again this is the opposition

 

[Flying Crane]

yep again this is the opposition

yes, it is.

so let me ask you this: is it simply the fact that there IS an opposition, and that their position is the position that you wish to embrace, that encourages you to side with them?

Or do you actually research their position, ponder whether it makes sense to you, consider their standing and reputation within the larger scientific community, before you make a decision?

 

[ballen0351]

yes, it is.

so let me ask you this: is it simply the fact that there IS an opposition, and that their position is the position that you wish to embrace, that encourages you to side with them?

Or do you actually research their position, ponder whether it makes sense to you, consider their standing and reputation within the larger scientific community, before you make a decision?

Ive already explained how I reached my position a few pages back. You are the one that asked for "professional" opposition so I posted it for you

 

[Makalakumu]

:rofl:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/17/the...er/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Kahan conducted some ingenious experiments about the impact of political passion on people’s ability to think clearly. His conclusion, in Mooney’s words: partisanship “can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills…. [People] who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.”

I'm going to make a thread for this article, but it seems to fit here. LOL! We're so ****ed.

 

[billc]

Obviously you don't read the papers or watch the world news. Climatic disasters are occurring at an increasing rate world wide. The debate isn't that climate change and global warming is occurring. The only wriggle room it how much of it can be attributed to man-made polution and can we do anything to reverse it.

Actually, they aren't getting worse...you need to broaden your information base....

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10...ad-weather-events-at-historically-low-levels/

There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.
To begin with, the number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. The table below lists the number of tornadoes in the US for this year (through 10/17) and also for each year going back to 2000.
(Source: NOAA, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html)

Finally, as far as hurricanes are concerned, there have been only two hurricanes so far this season in the Atlantic Basin (Humberto and Ingrid) and they were both short-lived and weak category 1 storms. Also, the first forming hurricane this year occurred at the second latest date going back to the mid 1940’s when hurricane hunters began to fly. Overall, the tropical season in the Atlantic Basin has been generally characterized by short-lived and weak systems.
In addition, this suppressed tropical activity has not been confined to just the Atlantic Ocean. The eastern Pacific Ocean has had no major hurricanes this season meaning there has been no major hurricane in either the Atlantic or eastern Pacific which only occurred one other year in recorded history – 1968. This is actually quite extraordinary since the two basins are generally out of phase with each other i.e. when one is inactive the other is active.

 

[billc]

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/hurricane-season-2013-numbers-20131025

The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season ended with something that hasn't happened in 45 years.


No hurricanes were rated Category 2 or greater in the Atlantic, Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico, the first year without a Category 2 or stronger hurricane in the Atlantic basin since 1968.


The season's lone two hurricanes, Humberto and Ingrid, only reached Category 1 strength.

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/hurricane-season-2013-numbers-20131025?pageno=2

 

[billc]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...eme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/

Droughts, Wildfires, Etc.


Pretty much all other extreme weather events are becoming less frequent and less severe, also. Soil moisture is in long-term improvement at nearly all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank. Droughts are less frequent and less severe than in prior, colder centuries. The number of wildfires is in long-term decline despite a recent change in wildfire policy that no longer actively suppresses wildfires. Just about any way you measure it, extreme weather events are becoming quite rare.

PAGE 2 OF 2


Despite all this good news, a growing number of people believe global warming is causing an increase in extreme weather events. This is no accident. Fully aware of the objective facts, global warming activists are doing everything they can to distract people from the truth. Although extreme weather events are becoming less frequent, the Earth is a big place with a dynamic climate. There will always be some extreme weather events, even as they become less frequent and less severe. Global warming activists can always highlight some extreme weather event occurring somewhere on the planet and paint a false narrative that global warming must be to blame, even though extreme weather events are becoming rarer as the planet gradually warms and returns to pre-Little Ice Age norms.

Major hurricanes struck the U.S. Northeast on a fairly regular basis during the first half of the 20th century when temperatures were cooler. Now, as our planet warms, hurricanes of any sort almost never strike the U.S. Northeast. As a result, when even a minor hurricane like Sandy strikes the Northeast, it is a seemingly unheard of weather event. We can thank global warming for the fact that even a small hurricane like Sandy is a rare event in the U.S. Northeast. The same applies for tornadoes, droughts, etc.

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/experts-explore-whether-climate-change-causing-extreme-weather

Pielke recently testified to the U.S. House Science Committee on Environment and argued that little evidence exists in the most recent IPCC report linking climate change to extreme weather events.

Pielke disagreed, arguing current data from the IPCC shows no increase in flooding and there is also no certainty that flooding will increase in the future.

- See more at: http://www.cpr.org/news/story/exper...-causing-extreme-weather#sthash.CjClAlBr.dpuf

 

[K-man]

Actually, they aren't getting worse...you need to broaden your information base....

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10...ad-weather-events-at-historically-low-levels/

With thousands of real scientists to quote you keep going back to a handful of charlatans and a denier website like Climate Depot.

Marc Morano, the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, is one of climate denial's most prolific media-heads. In 2012, Morano was named the Climate Change Misinformer of the Year by conservative watchdog group Media Matters for America.


ClimateDepot, who's sole purpose is to spread misinformation about climate change, is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think tank which has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, and foundations which challenge climate science.


Morano is considered a central player in orchestrating the Climategate scandal. Weeks before the 2009 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, a hacker stole a large amount of files, including private data and emails, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The data was then shared with climate skeptics, including Morano. These skeptics went on to cherry-pick information and sound bites from the emails in an effort to indict climate scientists for deliberately manipulating data and misleading the public.
http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_marc_morano

So what is actually happening ...

More people worldwide are now displaced by natural disasters than by conflict. In the 1990s, natural catastrophes like hurricanes, floods, and fires affected more than two billion people and caused in excess of $608 billion in economic losses worldwide-a loss greater than during the previous four decades combined. But more and more of the devastation wrought by such natural disasters is "unnatural" in origin, caused by ecologically destructive practices and an increasing number of people living in harm's way, finds a new study by the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington D.C.-based environmental research organization.
http://www.worldwatch.org/human-actions-worsen-natural-disasters

 

[billc]

citing Media Matters to discredit Climatedepot is pretty funny...you do realize that media matters is funded by Bond villian George Soros...and is staffed by the rogues gallery of crooks and nuts from the democrat party...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

MMfA started with the help of $2 million in donations from liberal philanthropists connected to the Democratic party. According to Byron York, additional funding came from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network.[SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][18][/SUP]
In 2004 MMfA received the endorsement of the Democracy Alliance, a partnership of wealthy and politically active donors. The Alliance itself does not fund any of its endorsees, but many wealthy Alliance members acted on the endorsement and donated directly to MMfA.[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP][SUP][21][/SUP] Media Matters as a matter of course has a policy of not comprehensively listing donors. Six years after the Alliance endorsed MMfA, financier George Soros—a founding and continuing member of the Alliance—announced in 2010 that he was donating $1 million to MMfA. Soros said: "Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by various Fox News commentators, I have not to date been a funder of Media Matters." Soros said concern over "recent evidence suggesting that the incendiary rhetoric of Fox News hosts may incite violence" had moved him to donate to MMfA, which thanked Soros for announcing his donation "quickly and transparently".[SUP][22][/SUP]
Former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton John Podesta provided office space for Media Matters early in its formation at theCenter for American Progress, a Democratic think tank that he had created in 2002.[SUP][23][/SUP] Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals.[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP]
Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and for other progressive groups.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] In 2004 article on Media Matters the National Review referred to MMfA staffers who had recently worked on the presidential campaigns of John Edwards and Wesley Clark, for Congressman Barney Frank, and for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[SUP][18][/SUP]

Why do these lefties always go back to the world having too many people...

an increasing number of people living in harm's way,

There was a recent article that there aren't more natural disasters, just more people affected by the usual number of disasters...thanks for bringing up that point...

Ah yes...John Podesta...good friend to bill "the serial sexual predator" clinton and his wife hillary "protector of the serial sexual predator" clinton...yeah, media matters...that's pretty funny...

 

[billc]

World watch...an environmental extremist group...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...rmer-greenpeace-academic-slams-radical-greens

Debunking deforestation
Lomborg also takes environmental activists to task for spreading false propaganda about global deforestation.
In its 1998 "State of the World" report, for example, the Worldwatch Institute claims "The world's forest estate has declined significantly in both area and quality in recent decades." Lomborg documents, however, that U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization figures show global forest cover has actually increased from 30.04 percent in 1950 to 30.89 percent in 1994.
Lomborg further notes Worldwatch claimed "Canada is losing some 200,000 hectares of forest a year" due to soaring demand for paper. In fact, Lomborg shows, "Canada grew 174,600 more hectares of forest each year."
The Worldwatch Institute's inaccurate claims do not end with deforestation, notes Lomborg. In its 2000 report, Worldwatch reports "record rates of population growth, soaring oil prices, debilitating levels of international debt and extensive damage to forests from . . . acid rain."
Lomborg cites figures from the Census Bureau, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and European Environment Agency to show that world population growth has sharply slowed since 1964; international debt has declined since 1984; the inflation-adjusted price of oil is half what it was 20 years ago; and sulfur emissions and resulting acid rain are down substantially since 1984.
In short, The Skeptical Environmentalist affirms and adds weight to the scientific refutation of contemporary environmental activist claims. In the past, such activists could at least plausibly refute the evidence by attacking the messengers as having a right-wing axe to grind. Such can not be said about The Skeptical Environmentalist.
"I'm a left-wing guy," says Lomborg, "and a vegetarian because I don't want to kill animals--you can't play the 'He's right-wing so he's wrong' argument" with me.

 

[billc]

Besides, climate depot just links to news articles from other sources...it is a collection site...

Here is a look at hurricanes and the U.S....from NOAA

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

 

[ballen0351]

With thousands of real scientists to quote you keep going back to a handful of charlatans and a denier website like Climate Depot. ..

Is what they are saying on climate depot wrong? Not their opinion but the data they post

 

[K-man]

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[SUP][16][/SUP]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [SUP][17][/SUP]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[SUP][21][/SUP]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[SUP][22][/SUP]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[SUP][23][/SUP]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[SUP][24][/SUP]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [SUP][25][/SUP]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[SUP][26][/SUP]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[SUP][27][/SUP]


Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[SUP][28][/SUP]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]
• Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[SUP][31][/SUP]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[SUP][32][/SUP]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][33][/SUP]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[SUP][34][/SUP]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[SUP][35][/SUP]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[SUP][36][/SUP]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[SUP][37][/SUP]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[SUP][38][/SUP]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[SUP][39][/SUP]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[SUP][40][/SUP]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[SUP][41][/SUP]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[SUP][42][/SUP]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][43][/SUP]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[SUP][44][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[SUP][46][/SUP]
• Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[SUP][47][/SUP]
• Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[SUP][48][/SUP]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP]
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[SUP][51][/SUP]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][55][/SUP]
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[SUP][56][/SUP]
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[SUP][57][/SUP]
• George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[SUP][58][/SUP]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[SUP][59][/SUP]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[SUP][60][/SUP]
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[SUP][61][/SUP]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[SUP][62][/SUP]
• 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.[SUP][63][/SUP][SUP][64][/SUP]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[SUP][65][/SUP]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[SUP][66][/SUP]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[SUP][67][/SUP]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[SUP][68][/SUP]
• Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[SUP][69][/SUP]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[SUP][70][/SUP]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [SUP][71][/SUP]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[SUP][72][/SUP]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[SUP][73][/SUP]

So how many Wiki pages come with this warning?

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2014)

So we might be wise to take the content with a little caution.

Listing criteria: The notable scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement.

To be in the list they need to have posted a peer reviewed article. So by publishing an article on the DNA of meal worms it qualifies them to provide expert commentary on climatology.
:hmm:

As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

You are kidding me. Here are all these dissenting statements, mostly disagreeing with one statement in a huge report and less than 10 of these statements are peer reviewed. So less than 10 ... how many exactly is "less than 10"? Perhaps one or two?

In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"[14] A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.[15] (see also Scientific opinion on climate change and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change).

Now if my maths are right we have 3868 peer reviewed articles supporting AGW. That leaves 116 articles over 20 years that disagreed to some extent. That is six articles per year saying that man is not the major cause of global warming. One hundred and eighty peer reviewed articles disagree.

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Hang about. All these guys are doing is saying that the models aren't good enough to predict exactly what will happen in the next hundred years. I would suggest that there wouldn't be one reputable scientist in the world who would predict a figure with 100% accuracy 100 years out.

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Mmm! Nothing ground breaking here. It is in my opinion an area that is not 100% black or white. The important thing is that they agree that there is observed warming. I doubt any scientist in the world is saying that all the warming is caused by human activity.

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

I do have trouble aligning with this group but perhaps they have no direct knowledge of climatology. That wasn't a prerequisite to being included on the list. I reckon I could walk down the street and ask 100 people what is causing global warming and get that same response. I would expect better from a scientist with an interest in climatology.

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

And these guys are the real worry. They are happy that the climate is changing and confident that all is well despite what is happening around the world.

Who are these guys?
Craig Idso

Idso is a lead author of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a project sponsored by the Heartland Institute. An unauthorized release of documents indicate Idso received $11,600 per month in 2012 from the Heartland Institute.

OK, that explains his position.

Sherwood Idso

Dr. Idso is the author or co-author of over 500 publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served on the editorial board of the international journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology from 1973 to 1993 and since 1993 has served on the editorial board of Environmental and Experimental Botany. Over the course of his career, he has been an invited reviewer of manuscripts for 56 different scientific journals and 17 different funding agencies, representing an unusually large array of disciplines. He is an ISI highly cited researcher.

At last. Someone who seems to be the real deal. Cool. The only point I would question is that his paper on the effects of CO2 on global warming was published 15 years ago in 1998 and his links to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which has been supported by Exxon Mobil.

Patrick Michaels

Patrick J. ("Pat") Michaels (born February 15, 1950) is an American climatologist. Michaels is a senior research fellow for Research and Economic Development at George Mason University, and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. Until 2007 he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980.

OK, another with credentials but, hang about ...

On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000. An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had "told Western business leaders ... that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research" and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.


Patrick Michaels acknowledged on CNN that 40 per cent of his funding came from the oil industry.[39] According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.[40]


A 2005 article in the Seattle Times reported that Michaels had received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal.

Yep, another compromised position.

To be honest, it is hard to find any scientist with a decent reputation saying that global warming and climate change is a myth.
:asian:

 

[Flying Crane]

World watch...an environmental extremist group...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...rmer-greenpeace-academic-slams-radical-greens

still quoting heartland? funny stuff!!

 

[ballen0351]

So how many Wiki pages come with this warning?

So we might be wise to take the content with a little caution.


To be in the list they need to have posted a peer reviewed article. So by publishing an article on the DNA of meal worms it qualifies them to provide expert commentary on climatology.
:hmm:


You are kidding me. Here are all these dissenting statements, mostly disagreeing with one statement in a huge report and less than 10 of these statements are peer reviewed. So less than 10 ... how many exactly is "less than 10"? Perhaps one or two?



Now if my maths are right we have 3868 peer reviewed articles supporting AGW. That leaves 116 articles over 20 years that disagreed to some extent. That is six articles per year saying that man is not the major cause of global warming. One hundred and eighty peer reviewed articles disagree.


Hang about. All these guys are doing is saying that the models aren't good enough to predict exactly what will happen in the next hundred years. I would suggest that there wouldn't be one reputable scientist in the world who would predict a figure with 100% accuracy 100 years out.

Mmm! Nothing ground breaking here. It is in my opinion an area that is not 100% black or white. The important thing is that they agree that there is observed warming. I doubt any scientist in the world is saying that all the warming is caused by human activity.



I do have trouble aligning with this group but perhaps they have no direct knowledge of climatology. That wasn't a prerequisite to being included on the list. I reckon I could walk down the street and ask 100 people what is causing global warming and get that same response. I would expect better from a scientist with an interest in climatology.



And these guys are the real worry. They are happy that the climate is changing and confident that all is well despite what is happening around the world.

Who are these guys?
Craig Idso
OK, that explains his position.

Sherwood Idso
At last. Someone who seems to be the real deal. Cool. The only point I would question is that his paper on the effects of CO2 on global warming was published 15 years ago in 1998 and his links to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which has been supported by Exxon Mobil.

Patrick Michaels
OK, another with credentials but, hang about ...



Yep, another compromised position.

To be honest, it is hard to find any scientist with a decent reputation saying that global warming and climate change is a myth.
:asian:

So you can't PROVE then wrong so you hunt down their source of income. Lol. How many of the green weenies are funded by green energy companies. Lol. You guys are pathetic

 

[elder999]

So you can't PROVE then wrong so you hunt down their source of income. Lol. How many of the green weenies are funded by green energy companies. Lol. You guys are pathetic

"Green energy companies?"

As someone who works at solar power plant, and who has spent half of his career in the utility industry, I can tell you that the largest of your so-called "green energy companies," are, in fact, mostly the selfsame utilities that burn coal, oil and nuclear, among them companies like Xcel Energy, which probably owns the most wind-farms and wind generation assets in the country, in addition to its coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear holdings, as well as some PV solar.When it comes to the financial motices for that (and they are numerous, like the wind blows for free and sunlight just falls out of the sky :lfao: ) you have to look a little deeper than "green energy companies."

 

[ballen0351]

"Green energy companies?"

As someone who works at solar power plant, and who has spent half of his career in the utility industry, I can tell you that the largest of your so-called "green energy companies," are, in fact, mostly the selfsame utilities that burn coal, oil and nuclear, among them companies like Xcel Energy, which probably owns the most wind-farms and wind generation assets in the country, in addition to its coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear holdings, as well as some PV solar.When it comes to the financial motices for that (and they are numerous, like the wind blows for free and sunlight just falls out of the sky :lfao: ) you have to look a little deeper than "green energy companies."

Funny people like Al Gore had no problen making millions on green energy. However the point was debate the facts not who signs the paycheck. If you think the people on that list were wrong show me why. I don't care where they earn their money if the data the use is true. If the data is wrong prove it. People are more worried about the messenger then the message

 

[billc]

17 years 8months...no warming...of course this info. Is posted at climate depot...so if you doubt it you need to go to their sources for the data...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04...-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-8-months/

Global warming? What global warming? According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for March 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 8 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents just over half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979.

Dataset of datasets. The mean of the GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere temperature anomalies shows no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero over the 18 full years from March 1996 to February 2014. The 0.14 Cº trend over the 18-year period is within the ±0.15 Cº combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties in the datasets. There may have been no global warming at all during the entire lifetimes of all students now in high school. Not that their teachers will have told them that.

For where the info came from...

Technical note
Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 212 months August 1996 to March 2014 – just over half the 423-months satellite record.
Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the websites maintained by the keepers of the datasets. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

Wow, one of the climategate wizards also uses these info streams...

. Interestingly, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails.

 

[elder999]

Funny people like Al Gore had no problen making millions on green energy.

That isn't exactly true any longer, if it ever was, about Al Gore:

Gore's company files a quarterly report with the SEC that tells a different story about the 30stocks in its portfolio. His company's public investments in wind, solar, biomass and other alternative energy to combat climate change are practically non-existent.

As I said, the "people" making millions off green-energy aren't "green energy companies." They are, quite simply, energy companies.

However the point was debate the facts not who signs the paycheck.

You made your point very poorly, I think. More to the point, we have a decades long legacy of cigarette companies paying "experts" to obfuscate the truth about their products-a truth they knew all along, and feared would someday cut into their profits-to demonstrate exactly how badly so-called "scientific opinion" with biased corporate sponsorship can muddy the issue with spurious claims.

If you think the people on that list were wrong show me why. I don't care where they earn their money if the data the use is true. If the data is wrong prove it. People are more worried about the messenger then the message

I don't "think the people on that list were wrong." I think their opinions and findings, such as they are, are completely suspect given the provenance of their funding and questionable associations.