Man Based Global Warming....

There are at least 40 according to wikipedia. The skeptics couldn't get a word in on the Global Warming pages so they made their own. Of course the standards for being a skeptic are much greater than a believer. To make the list you need to have published at least one peer reviewed paper on natural science.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the other hand if you're a believer then even the opinions of weather enthusiasts and city mayors are proof of "scientific" consensus.

 

Note the lack of published work to back their "beliefs".

 

It's a movie, not a scientific paper. Anything condensed into such a format for a mass audience is going to have problems.

Gore's movie didn't bring this to the forefront. It was already there in much of the world's minds. Many more inquisitive and educated Americans had discovered it at least a decade ago. The movie did serve to popularize a realization that many prior skeptics were already having. It wasn't the source, but instead something that made shared reservations and observations more coherent.

Apparently not. Until it gets dumbed down to whack some folks over the head they seem not to notice or to do their best to remain blissfully ignorant.

It takes time for science to dispel the voluminous number of BS theories and wishful thinking that denialist/convenient propaganda throw out. How many different theories can the denial folks generate in a short period of time: CO2 will be quickly taken up by terrestrial vegetation, CO2 will be sequestered by aquatic vegetation/etc., the CO2 is coming from other species/etc. not man, volcanic eruptions are the primary source of CO2 (complete falsehood), differences in solar output, cosmic rays, wator vapor the only significant greenhouse gas (one of my personal favorite's as it preys on those with no understanding of VLE with inerts), orbital shifts, the satellite data are no good (this one proved to be faulty analysis by the claimant), and of course there has been no warming, or it is cooler now. What is really funny is how many of these are mutually contradictory and used in serial fashion by the same individuals.

Here is a hint for you on how to handle the GW denialist claims. Rather than asking someone else to prove them wrong, try investigating the denial claims as skeptically as you did Al Gore's. Critically examine the denialist claims and require that they prove themselves coherent, accurate, and able to explain the mountains of evidence contrary to their claims. Wow! Whole different world isn't it?

This reminds me very much of how the CFC-ozone hole revelation developed, only this problem is far more complex and more difficult to address.

 

Very true statement. I can give one example. The medical consensus years ago was that ulcers were caused by stress. In actuality, the majority were caused by bacterial infections. It took an Australian Doctor infecting himself (and then curing himself) to break this faulty consensus.

Barry Marshall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Again your statement doesn't match reality. Each scientist has has link to his own page. The very first , Timothy Ball, has published at least 5 papers papers on climate:

• Ball, Timothy F. (1995), "Historical and instrumental evidence of climate: Western Hudson Bay, Canada, 1714–1850", in Bradley, Raymond S.; Jones, Philip D., Climate Since A.D. 1500, Routledge, ISBN 0415075939
• Ball, Timothy F.; Kingsley, Roger A. (1984), "Instrumental temperature records at two sites in Central Canada: 1768 to 1910", Climatic Change 6 (1): 39-56, doi:10.1007/BF00141667
• Ball, Timothy F. (1983), Climatic change in central Canada : a preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850, Queen Mary, University of London: Ph.D. Thesis
• Ball, Timothy F. (1983), "The migration of geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson Bay region between 1715 and 1851", Climatic Change 5 (3): 85-93, doi:10.1007/BF00144682
• Catchpole, A.J.W.; Ball, Timothy F. (1981), "Analysis of historical evidence of climate change in western and northern Canada", Syllogeus (National Museum Of Canada) (33): 48-96

This is all right from Wikipedia, no searching required.

 

IF the world's average temperature increased significantly in a short time (<500 years) that would be a bad thing, obviously. You can't see that for yourself? You need it proven to you? I don't know about "destroy civilization." I've never gone that far, personally. But I do think it would greatly disrupt agriculture, habitat, health, peace and economies a great deal. Not worth the risk, when new tech is at hand and there is so much money to be made in switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

 

Uh dude, for someone that claims to know about the hiring and firing of professors, you don't really know much about research papers. 5 papers in a career is a joke. An elderly expert on climate would have literally dozens if not hundreds of published papers.

And Timothy Ball is a known, bought and paid for, climate denier. He's made it his profession to go around giving speeches in old folks homes denying AGW. Here's the poop on Ball from Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) | DeSmogBlog

You can still try to propose weird excuses why dozens of professional organizations related to earth science just happen to support the AGW hypothesis, but the Tim Ball example didn't help your cause, I'm afraid.

 

It is not a contrarian with any reference what should be looking for. It is a contrarian with a recent published paper that backs what he is saying. As Fib explains for ball the same is true of other contrarians. Their research is unrelated if not actually incompatible with what they publicly say or blog. Again it is not what they think or believe what matters. It's what they publish.

 

You claimed the 40 scientists listed on that Wikipedia lack published work to back up their claims. I go to the first one and show 5 published papers on climate and temperature from the wikipedia's "Selected Publications". Now those papers aren't new enough or specific enough?

Admit it, you made a false claim. You claimed these people lack published work. Whether you agree with their work is not the point, you claimed it doesn't exist. Ball is just the first one one the list.

Fibb says that Ball's work is suspect because he has accepted funding from the Oil and Gas Industry. By that logic, every scientist that has taken funding from an environmental organization is also tainted. Fair is fair.

 

They are not, if they don't back up their "beliefs". Is not that you have published A paper. Your paper has to back up your claims.

Did you even read the titles of those papers?

 

Ball's published work may be fine I don't know. But it's old, unrelated to AGW and the amount is so small he clearly wasn't very good at it. As a retired professor he's was or is funded by big oil and he gave speeches/interviews denying AGW. There are a number of these guys around. Compared to the hundreds (thousands) of scientists that support the AGW hypethosis they count for nothing.

If environmental organizations raised money and funded significant amounts of climate research, I'd be surprised. And good peer-reviewed work should stand on it's own regardless of funding.

What Ball did was take money to spread propaganda not conduct research.

And lastly, environmental organizations aren't interested in making billions of dollars profit for themselves in the medium term by maintaining the status quo as long as possible. So it's not equivalent anyway.

 

There is almost an unlimited amount of money on the line in this debate. Give that, there also has been nearly an unlimited amount of propaganda regarding man-made global warming. The subject has now reached the level of religion and politics.

What do I mean by that? I mean that people have already made up their minds (based purely on propaganda), and no amount of reality is going to change it now.

If you have more money to spend on propaganda .... your side wins in the court of public opinion. Sad, but oh so true.

... Brad

 

I can see how there is money to be made by the Global warming deniers,,, big oil, big auto, "clean coal" and on and on and on.

Explain how there is big money to be made on the side of those that believe that global warming is real and is indeed a threat? Hybrid battery makers, Solar cell companies, wind farm operators?

Here is a list of how "alternative" energy companies did in the market in 2008:

Quote:
Symbol
Company Name
Performance % 2008
AKNS
Akeena Solar, Inc.
-78.4
ASTI
Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc.
-84.9
CSIQ
Canadian Solar Inc.
-77.1
CSUN
China Sunergy Company Ltd.
-76.1
DSTI
DayStar Technologies Inc.
-85.0
EMKR
EMCORE Corporation
-91.5
ENER
Energy Conversion Devices Inc
-25.1
ESLR
Evergreen Solar, Inc.
-81.5
FSLR
First Solar, Inc.
-48.4
JASO
JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd
-81.2
LDK
LDK Solar Company Ltd.
-72.1
RSOL
Real Goods Solar, Inc.
-63.5
SOL
ReneSola, Ltd. (United Kingdom) ADR
-77.5
SOLF
Solarfun Power Holdings Co.
-84.5
SPIR
Spire Corporation
-78.3
SPWR
Sunpower Corporation
-71.6
STP
Suntech Power Holdings ADR
-85.8
TSL
Trina Solar Limited
-82.7
WFR
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc.
-83.9
YGE
Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited
-84.2

2008 Average Solar Stock Decrease
-76.0%

Leading Indexes

DJIA
Dow Jones Industrials
-33.8
SPX
S&P 500 Index
-38.5
NASD
Nasdaq Composite
-40.5

Average Index 2008 Decrease
-37.60%
__________________

How did CVX or XOM, or PGE, or ConEd do?

Where is the big money on the alternative side coming from?

Icarus

 

Governments. A carbon tax has the potential to bring in massive amounts of tax revenue.

Most climate research seems to be either government or industry sponsored.

 

If a carbon tax is used to wean us from foreign oil, or fossil fuels in general or to fun R&D in RE technology, or energy conservation or mass transit or,,,, or,, or,,,? Is that a bad thing?

Has government, especially at times of economic down turn used it's size and influence to do projects for the public good? TVA, BPA, REA?

Icarus

 

Well any serious carbon tax plan that I've ever heard about is revenue neutral. "Tax what we burn, not what we earn" as the saying goes.

We should tax more (penalize) the things we don't want (pollution) and reduce taxes on things that create wealth - things like income and new technologies. All the Canadian carbon tax proposals were completely designed to be revenue neutral and the one enacted in BC is.

In Canada, the agencies that fund research grants aren't directly connected to the government so it's not like the Prime Minister can create a conspiracy to promote AGW by funding only some research/researchers.

Is that the kind of mechanism your proposing - leading to the massive, world-wide, peer-reviewed support for the AGW hypothesis? Governments wanting to raise taxes? Aren't we getting a little..... y'know....out there.!?

 

In Canada can the government increase or decrease the funds available to a agency? If the agency handing out grants is a government agency than their source of funding is the government. The Prime Minister may not hand out money directly but he has a say in how much or little money is spent.

I don't find the idea that governments want to raise taxes to be extreme at all.

No, it would be a great thing. We need to wean ourselves of fossil fuels because they are finite. We need to use energy wisely and conservation should always be the first choice. I've already said in this very thread that I support carbon trading.

 

Yes in the federal budget he certainly can increase or decrease the amount the granting agencies get, but that's a pretty blunt instrument for creating scientific consensus related to climate change.

If anything our current PM would like to maintain the status quo and keep the oil to the USA flowing no matter how dirty it was to produce.

 

That actual is the source of most all research funding of all types.

 

Especially now that the conservative idiots running the corporations have done away with private R&D. :mad2: Everything for the past decade has been about slashing long term profit makers like R&D in search of the shortest possible payout and least overhead. Looks great on paper for a few years...then you have nothing new in the pipe and are stuck in mature markets with ever shrinking margins. So you shut down facilities one by one...and buy someone else's overpriced offal assuming you can "manage it better" or will expand into a niche that others can't make money in. :doh:

And these same lemmings were all benchmarking against one another so that they all ended up doing the same things at the same time. They were going to excel by doing things the same way as everyone else... :crazy:

Huh, what do you mean there is a flaw in the plan?