seems global warming has stubbed its toe

Originally Posted by Mystic

Scientists bailing on global warming like rats leaving a sinking ship.

Combating climate change is a pro-growth, pro-economic recovery policy according to a survey of decision makers conducted by GlobeScan and released at the UN Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Poznan, Poland.

Three-quarters of the 1,000 experts from 115 countries agreed that “equitable economic growth and development and significant progress in combating climate change can be achieved at the same time," according to the survey, which was conducted over a one month period in cooperation with the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the International Development Research Center, Local Governments for Sustainability, the United Nations Environment Program and the World Bank, among others. Only 11% disagreed.

Originally Posted by Mystic

No comment about the content about the article?

Here's one of the best quotes
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities.
.
.
.
As of 2006, the League of Conservation Voters has given Inhofe the lowest possible score on environmental issues.[26]

Originally Posted by Mystic

No comment about the content about the article?

Here's one of the best quotes
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical. - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

Originally Posted by Mystic

Here's some interesting reading. Link to a skeptical scientist He doesn't think "man made" climate change is correct AND he has models showing other causes.

He is also a supporter of intelligent design[1] and is skeptical of the scientific consensus that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.

National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1]

This article documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

Joint science academies' statement 2008

In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies statement, and reaffirming that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems. Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to (t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.[10]

The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies statement 2007

In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies statement 2005

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[11], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies statement 2001

In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[12]

By Chris Dolmetsch

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Steven Chu, who runs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California, has been chosen by President-elect Barack Obama as energy secretary, CNN reported, citing three unidentified people.

Chu shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics for developing ways to “cool and trap atoms” with lasers, according to the laboratory’s Web site.

Great, another over-educated psychopath.

I’m sorry, but I don’t trust a chinese guy with our nuclear secrets. We learned this the hard way during the clinton admin...

Originally Posted by Mystic

franksargent thinks that more than 650 = 42. Nice math skills...

Originally Posted by trumptman

No 42 is probably what is left after he has dismissed all the rest due to their "intents" rather than their actual views or data.

Look who he works for...

Look who he doesn't work for...

He's white....

HATE,HATE,HATE....

He has some view I disagree with that totally invalidates his science that is not related to that view....

and finally...

HATE,HATE,HATE.....

Originally Posted by Mystic

franksargent thinks that more than 650 = 42. Nice math skills...

Originally Posted by trumptman

No 42 is probably what is left after he has dismissed all the rest due to their "intents" rather than their actual views or data.

Look who he works for...

Look who he doesn't work for...

He's white....

HATE,HATE,HATE....

He has some view I disagree with that totally invalidates his science that is not related to that view....

and finally...

HATE,HATE,HATE.....

Originally Posted by addabox

The problem with totalizing, reactive philosophies is that they oblige you to shove everything into the same sack, the vehemence of said shoving being inversely proportional to the fortunes of ones ideology. Not infrequently, that's going to result in some shoving that comes off sort of crazy.

More particularly, the idea that every "liberal" idea is invariably defended by attacking white men and throwing about various expressions of hatred is silly, as a cursory examination of the defense of liberal positions would immediately make evidence, were one less inclined to devote oneself to sack stuffing while muttering "Who's a hater now? Who's a hater now?"

Even more particularly, the idea that noticing who is being funded by the oil industry, when talking about climate science, is somehow of a piece with reflexively distrusting "white men" or represents some species of "hatred" is sufficiently ludicrous to properly be regarded as trolling.

Originally Posted by franksargent

[LEFT]franksargent provided an actual link to an actual list to actual scientists.[/LEFT]

Where's your list?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Actual being code for "scientists with whom I agree."

Fake being code for "scientist with whom I do not agree because they are paid for by evil oil companies, or some company I think is a front for an oil company, or some company that even if it isn't a front and I can't find the link because nobody who is a scientist would come to that conclusion unless they were paid for it by an oil company"

Originally Posted by Mystic

Scientists bailing on global warming like rats leaving a sinking ship.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

Originally Posted by addabox

Come now Middy. All of this insistence on "sourcing" and "peer review" and "not making stuff up" is clearly just code for "scientists I disagree with."

Originally Posted by midwinter

Well, obviously, it's because mainstream science won't let the dissenters play in their reindeer games!

Originally Posted by midwinter

I know, I know. It just drives me nuts to see people say "oooh!! oooh!! there's hardly consensus!" and then cobble together a bunch of bullshit "quotes" from blog posts and chapter titles and shit taken out of context. I'm all for a healthy discussion of the problems with climate models. I'm all for a healthy discussion of the problems with how we measure global temperature. Climate change skeptics deliver papers. They publish stuff. Why the fuck don't they use THAT?

I mean, good lord, this shit is just plain juvenile. I mean, it's embarrassing for this to be on the web site of the US senate.

_Six of the 10 warmest summers in the continental United States since 1951 occurred between 1997 and 2006.
_The largest yearly average regional temperature increases have occurred over Northern and Western North America, with up to 3.6 degrees warming in 56 years over Alaska, the Yukon Territories, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.
_No significant yearly average temperature changes have occurred in the Southern United States and Eastern Canada.
_More than half of the warming averaged over all of North America is probably the result of human activity.
_Regional temperature trends are likely to have been influenced by regional variations in sea surface temperature.
_There has not been a significant trend, either up or down, in North American precipitation since 1951, although there have been substantial changes from year to year and even decade to decade.
_It is unlikely that a fundamental change has occurred in either how often or where severe droughts have occurred over the continental United States during the past half-century.
_However, overall drought impacts over North America have become more severe in recent decades.
_It is likely that warming resulting from human activity has increased drought impacts over North America in recent decades through increased water stresses associated with warming land surface temperatures.

Originally Posted by Mystic

Here's the Senate report. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

Originally Posted by Mystic

The IPPC set up the rules. Are you saying the review process is flawed? If so, does not that invalidate their report?