Bush admits the global warming results from fossil fuels....
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Great numbers of scientists agree that we do not know if humans contribute to global warming and if they do to what extent. My point is the data does not support the claim.
I can post links to long term temp trends that show there is little data to support or refute the case for human caused global warming.
Do you think we should spend trillions reducing emmissions to possibly no avail?
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)
Dr. Gray is considered the leading expert on tropical storms.
"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald
And finally,
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
Singer has some impressive credentials:
Research physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Johns Hopkins University; director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics and professor of physics, University of Maryland; (first) director, National Weather Satellite Center, U.S. Department of Commerce.
I think you see my point on "experts" who support the theory of human caused global warming may have other motives, much like
its opponents have theirs. It should be the science that prevails overwhelmingly and to me that has not happened. Let's see long term charts that show it/
DS
Sorry, I misread the graph. It shows the West Point station declining while the Cenrtral Park increases:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/WestPoint-NY.gif
this is the graph that I believe the CP data are corrected for urban heat effect:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/cent_park_3_1.gif
Central Park raw data are available at:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp019/state/NY/NY94mea.html#305801
The term "Central Park" refers to location not the actual park that the data predate as you point out.
DS
"Do you think we should spend trillions reducing emmissions to possibly no avail?"
Cleaner air is hardly "no avail."
The majority of scientists do agree that we need to pay attention.
Yes, you will find the scientists who don't agree, but they are in the minority.
Cleaner air is hardly "no avail."
The majority of scientists do agree that we need to pay attention.
Yes, you will find the scientists who don't agree, but they are in the minority.
The charge that scientists who profess belief that the burning of fossil fuels contributres to global warming are doing so just to gain research money is rather lame and facetious.
On the contrary, the scientists who deny a
connection between climate change, global warming, and the burning of fossil fuels are almost exclusively in the employ
of corporations which have an interest in fossil fuels or their use.
On the contrary, the scientists who deny a
connection between climate change, global warming, and the burning of fossil fuels are almost exclusively in the employ
of corporations which have an interest in fossil fuels or their use.
I don't have strong opinions either way on global warming, but out of curiosity, how do they know what temperatures existed 600 years ago, when the thermometer wasn't invented until 1592?
Quote from yabz:
The overall trend since the start of the industrial era is clear
I'd go long here.
Are you claiming and are you able to substantiate Professor Chylek is both lame and facetious?
Certainly there are some scientists who oppose GW to please their employer as there are certainly some who support it to get their name known and access to research funds. Data will show the answer. Do you have any that shows GW exists other than the normal climatic change in a post ice age.
See:
How about this group of scientists? Are they employed by someone opposed to GW? It looks like they are part of the Russian Academy of Sciences so I would think they are interested in the science not the politics.
"
Russian scientists said they still considered the Kyoto protocol was scientifically ungrounded, and would be an ineffective way to try to achieve the aim of the UN convention on climate change. They also said it was harmful for the Russian economy.
"
issued: July 1, 2005
full: http://en.rian.ru/science/20050701/40831419.html
Also, do you have charts that show over long time periods there is global warming? I've looked and really can't find any except one that are doctored up some.
DS
We are able to measure the temperature of many things in the past. For example, we have a pretty good idea of the temperature of the Universe 1/100000000 of a second after the Big Bang.
As far as climatology goes, a thousand years is trivial. It is measuring temperatures in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago that is challenging. For example, here are some techniques:
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/J_B_Bennington/137notes/paleoclimatology.html
The important areas of the Earth's climate is how the Earth's oceans are affected by different effects, as they are the mediator of temperature differences on the planet (outside of some catastrophic event to the rotaion of the Earth.)
For example, it is hypothized that the melting of the ice caps (north and south poles) will affect the salinity of the oceans. This melting, caused by global warming, can actually cause an ice age.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
http://www.terracycles.com/elninolanina.htm
nitro