... this makes me want to commit suicide it is so disgustingly arrogant. Global warming aside, I think sustainable development and reduced air pollution even with a high price tag is preferable in comparison to the alternative, that being continued glutinous consumption of non renewable resources and rapid contamination of the only known planet capable of supporting human and animal life as we know it.
Temp is going down,bad time for Global warming myth members, Barrack Hussien Obama of Kenya trying to milk some money by creating a team to study Global warming,People must understand that scientist of now are not intelligent but smart,they invent something which can be marketed to milk money from Government and Organization to earn there living,People must understand,this article was posted almost 9 months ago but for the past few months all countries are getting colder,think and common sense
It is funny that people actually believe this lie that Global warming is actually reality. But of course it is scientifically NOT. These pseudo unscientific fairy tellers who actually made this up in 1971 with the first agenda of "Global cooling" with their Newsweek article are the same persons who created this so called energy crises that we have today because many willfully ignorant people stayed asleep and let these un-scientist's stake the claims without facts.
That is why 8000 scientist proved that the global warming (and cooling) THEORIES are not FACTS but are fairy tales. Do not be stupid do the research and makes sure they are facts not SPECULATIONS or THEORIES because that is not SCIENCE."Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams (1735-1826), second President of the United States
According to this guy, global warming doesn't matter. So minivan driving soccer moms,Hummer and Escalade driving nouveu riche alike keep buying expensive oil to fuel your gas guzzling lives. The earth is gonna naturally burn up for the rest of our and our children's children lives. Is there hope for humanity?
Are we seriously still debating this? Anyone still claiming that there's a so-called scientific debate over this issue has a fucking agenda. And anyone who gets their information from an ex-lawyer/CPA working for a conservative think tank rather than peer-reviewed scientists is at best wilfully ignorant and at worst amoral. Wake the fuck up people.
Yep, and everybody knew, even the intellectuals knew that the earth was flat. Why were we even debating the fact that the earth was flat. Anyone claiming that the earth was round has a fucking agenda. And what about all of the peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with the man-made global warming analogy? What about all of the peer-reviewed scientists and climatologists who say that the Earth warms and cools, and this warming period is not worse than others, debunking the man-made argument?
Some people say that the scientists are just lying to get grants for researching that global warming is real for grant money,but not only could they get the same money for saying it is a fake, they would get much more money. Through this they continue to say global warming is going to hurt us. Another truth is movie makers and organizations make more money telling people what they want to hear, rather then saying the end is near
Another point of interest that proves this foundation won. The warming part of globing warming and rise of sea levels isn't really what hurts us. It's the complete destabilization of the climate. Most people will comment that the climate is never stable. WELL this kind of destabilization is different. By being stable now I mean it's cold all through winter, raining through spring, windy in fall and hot but not boiling in summer.
The destabilization is in that it all rains in spring and is a drought during super. Blizzards blow through farm lands. Trees dry up in picking season.
Also using lots of electricity drains our nations money and does economic harm. Now I've researched this before making my statements.Also these people at the Heritage foundation(Who i agree with on some subjects)Are just spoon feeding the public what they want to hear.
Another final thing is there really isn't any big support of the "global warming conspiroucy " it's just small think tanks and ordinary people who won't admit there wrong. In truth I am just a blogger don't take my word for it word, check it out take a few minutes out of your day to research if this has any steam.
Yeah also Exxon has stopped funding these types of fake global warming,they are actually saying global climate change is real. Same with USCAP(group of companies like shell and Exxon)admit this is a problem and are calling for drawbacks on themselfs.
Instead of cutting down on unnecessary waste, you mooks are looking for any reason to continue living your wasteful lifestyle. You cannot argue that pollution is detrimental to our health. Driving H2's, throwing trash out the window, not recycling, etc... just some examples of a completely wasteful lifestyle. Do us all a favor: stop putting so much effort into fighting this issue and put some of that effort into leading a less selfish life.
Sounds like your saying we should wait until a few towns are nearly flooded before we should take action.
One of the main purposes of Global Warming acts are to actually prevent damages before they happen rather than try and solve it when the damage has already been caused.
Yes we should wait until sea levels rise before we even think of changing our energy policies.
Lets keep using oil instead of renewable enegery sources. Its not like Oil would drive anyones foreign policy or the price in oil could increase due to lack of supply.
Truth is British Petroleum had cut annual carbon dioxide emissions at its plants by 10 million tonnes, saving 650 million dollars, the report points out.
Check it before you go announcing that saving the climate is all harm
Hey Heritage Foundation, I liked your article authored by James Taylor, which was put in the CST, in which he falsely quoted a scientist paper by making up the purported content.
It's unfortunate that an organization such as this one would stoop to making false citations when they know that the research doesn't support their dogma.
Finally a voice of reason! Don't listen to the liberals! I'm so happy people are finally seeing that global warming is a lie. Hey liberals! How bout doing a little thing called research before you assume something like this!?
Look mate, if I'm arrogant you must be among the most arrogant human beings that walked the planet. It is you (not me) that claims to know better than the 2500 leading climatologists, most of the world leaders, almost the entire published science on the subject, scientists as a whole and 104 of the 178 presently alive nobel prize winners!
And if all climatologists and published scientists received no funding or recognition is their respective communities would there be such an outcry of hysteria over global warming? I think not. More likely it would talked about and theorized as just another cyclical event in the Earth's environment - which is what is anyway. Saying the planet is in peril gets you more funding. As in all things suspect - follow the money.
Are you honestly claiming they are making it all up? Tin foil hat wearers of the world unite. Do you really think that scientists are free to come to any conclusion that their financial interests dictate. So if I gave a bunch of scientists $1 billion I could get them to prove gravity was a repulsive force, that the sun went around the earth or that unicorns existed? Oh, an there is the final problem that scientists have been sacked and edited for coming to just these conclusions.
Oh, and you have absolutely no proof what so ever that climatologists are lying. And finally this is an Exxon talking point. Yes you would seem happier listening to an oil company, who's explicit aim is to confuse the public into believing no consensus exists, rather than almost all the worlds scientists. How odd.
Oh, one final thing scientists are trained to attempt to disprove their own and others work. If one of them found proof of a conspiracy by finding damaging contrary proof he would be funded up to the neck (the carbon industry would gladly spend millions on this individual), he would also gain fame, and historical importance, are you sure this still sounds like a sensible proposition? No one wants this to be true, but the evidence is overwhelming!
Yeah the two most prestigous scientific groups(NAC,AAAS)say that global warming is real. Same with Shell gas and Exxon,as well as USCAP have admitted to global warming to be real
The science of global warming is an uncertain one. Just notice how many times the words 'may', 'could' and 'probably' are used. Does this sound like a certain science to you?
All science is uncertain (see contingent truths). The question is so what. They have a certainty of 90% it is real and man made. If a plane was said to be 90% likely to crash, would still get on it with the glib line 'yeah but they are not certain are they'. Didn't think so. You so obviously know nothing of the scientific method.
Well this is at least admitting reality, it just argues its not worth bothering with fixing it. But they claim carbon cuts would destroy the global economy. They lie lots of countries have cut easily (germany the UK or sweden).
Unfortunately the 'greens' are too ignorant to listen to any views.
At any time the gradients of the temperature-increase graphs will start declining, we'll then reach a peak and then we'll begin to cool again. It's the natural cycle of the earth.
Notice the way that we always hear 'this is the hottest temperature in THE LAST 100 YEARS'.
No doubt we'll start getting complaints about Global Cooling though.
I can't stand it when people refuse to take evidence at face value merely because it conflicts with their deeply held political philosophies. Reality so rarely conforms to the preconceptions that come with our specific worldviews. There are few things LAZIER than an ideologue.
what about how it is killing off the amphibians ... first see ... something was killing off the frog ... and people wondered ... what is killing off the frog ... and found global warming was killing off the frog ... check it out ... google 'global warming frog' ... and others say that it is killing off four species every hour ... and what if it is killing off the bee ... that may not scare anybody either ... you need to really see people in the streets dying to get some people scared
there is the everything is going to be ok media ... global warming is a democrat problem which needs not be fixed until 2009 ... we must win in iraq ... fox, abc and 95% of tv and radio ... and then there is the bad news media ...the bees are dying .. the frogs were killed by global warming ... high gasoline prices ... waste in iraq ... wall street journal, la times, ny times, public broadcasting, air america ... which side will win ... which side is right ... what does it matter
NEWS!!!!! Google this: "Head of NASA downplays global warming". The NASA chief says it's "rather arrogant" for people to take the position that today's climate is the optimal one.
No doubt the green movement and the libs will try and sling mud against this scientist for his opposition.
No I didn't look at all the people in the sample BUT there have been other attempts to examine the scientists and it was found that 1700 may well be rather generous. Some were made up others had either never heard of the paper or have since changed their minds. And as I said the most damming is that it represents 17000 in 10 Million and the methodology was kept secret, just why do you think that is?
the gop and the rushies will tell you that the loss of the amphibians due to global warming means nothing ... same for the polar bear and the pollinator bee ... but others will tell you that the loss of all amphibians is a significant because it shows that life can live only in an environment that cannot be changed very much ... still others will not believe that the amphibians were killed by global warming and have not googled 'global warming frog' ever .. and never want to
You alarmists are getting boring. You ignore logic, history and scientific method to "prove" an unscientific theory. Shouldn't you be moving on to the next catastrophe facing mankind? Did the "Global Cooling" of the 80's just not catch on enough?
I'd post more, but I left my Hummer and Escalade running...
"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."
Henrik Svensmark, Director for Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center
i was listening to the rushies on the radio today and they still believe that there is no such thing as global warming ... no such thing as climate change ... they live in their air conditioned cars and offices and condos and should spend more times outdoors i tell you ... anyway, they think that the democrats are riding their bicycles and walking and getting runned over by the gop's escalades and navigators because the democrats want to expand their bureaucracy
They are never going to believe in Global Warming. If the available evidence and science does not convince them, nothing will. They should be ignored, or at the most riduculed--not debated. Debate gives these reality challenged people a feeling of legitamacy. Treat them like you treat the unwashed street prophet wearing a tin foil helmet. A person to be pitied and helped, but regared with caution, not a person to be debated.
as to your incorrect post saying that there are very few scientists who oppose AGW i.e. sceptics the IPCC has around 2000 "scientists" on the panel here is a petition of 17,100 sceptics most scientists with PHDs and Perfessor ships, so thats almost 8 and a half times more scientists than the IPCC and thats JUST THE USA!!
This report is hopelessly flawed. These were not randomly sampled they basically mailed everyone in the US with an engineering/science degree. Robert Park in Nature pointed out that: 'there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.'. So thats 17000 in 10 million!!!!!! When asking for the scientists respone they also included a missleading summary of the science.
These scientists are not peer reviewed scientists publishing on climatology either unlike the paper I referenced. So to state aging there is overwhelming consensus on climate change among peer revied scientists publishing on climatology.
page 7 of IPCC AR4 (fourth assesment report)summary for policy makers. The key for the liklyhoods is on page 3 at the end in the footnotes.
The link to the paper I posted was a 20 page paper (soon to be 35 page) which is a small part of my thesus i.e. I wrote the paper, there is no propeganda as it basic climate science.
Thats as clear as mud. I have looked at page 7 of all three summary reports (I am assuming with your superior brain you knew there were 3) and I see no reference to 50%. I have never seen 50% figure anywere else except your posting I'm thinking your either confused or lieing. The latest report is even more certain than the third - not less. So I'm thinking you should get your facts straight!
No, I haven't read it. And neither have you. Give a reference to the page! I have no doubt you can't because that link you posted would have been completely dismissed by you had you read it as it is filled with lies and propaganda!
Theres no debate on whether or not the mean temp of the earth fluctuates over time...that's been proven and is a widedly accepted 'FACT'...the problem that all these economists skip over and cloud the issue with talk of temperature change is: 'THE UNPRECEDENTED RISE IN CO2 LEVELS'...Take one look at a NASA photo of earth, one other Known FACT: 'For every action, there is a reaction'...
the gop and the rushies have been told by the supreme court to cut back on the usage of gasoline ... so using their free market principles and voluntary emissions controls, the gop and the rushies raise prices so high that most people would be reducing their driving ... while the rich like paris hilton will drive even faster 12 cylinder toyotas, mercedes, and bmws, drive fewer miles, but results in a net gain in heavily subsidized gasoline usage
I don't think the UN hate capitalism and freedom I actually quite like the UN but the IPCC is now accepted by most as a political body NOT a scientific one, hundereds of submissions of scientists who opposed the AGW theroy and where on the IPCC board had there submissions removed, also contrary to the media and the IPCC conference they are NOT 90% sure humans are causing warming, if you look at the IPCC fourth assesment report they are actually only 50%
The IPCC reports are first prepared by scientists and only when they come to publish do politicians get involved.
Type 'beyond the ivory tower' into google. It is a lie that there are significant amounts of serious scientists (who actually do cimatology) who deny AGW.
They are 90% sure, where you got 50% from I dont know.
"Global warming" is completely fabricated by the U.N. and the left. They invented the concept. This was not started by any private source, or any scientist. It was started by the UN, because they hate capitalism and freedom. The IPCC is NOT a reliable source for "scientific consensus". It is state-sponsored totalitarian propoganda. Don't believe a word of it.
Have you actually looked at the vostok data? i.e. the big graph that gore goes on about, yes well he didn't mention temprature preceeds CO2 by 800 years did he?
again if the above was directed at me sorry for not posting links as it's difficult here, just check the paper on the site I gave...
I recieved my BSc from the university college dublin in Geology and I am currently doing a masters in Climatology, AIT is total rubbish! read some papers CO2 is logarithmic we where at saturation level 50 years ago how about you read some papers on the science and you will find out how wrong you are you tool!
Youre NOT BETTER then 2500 scientists. Sorry. But you aren't. If you read about this in real science magazines (I suppose you diddn't after reading youre comment) you'll find out that GW is real. I read enough papers to know that.
Youre the first not-American here who don't believe in GW. Congratulations (I thought they diddn't existed).
Read the just released Reviews and Comments section by the IPCC. There are no "2500+" scientists. The wool is being pulled over your eyes. There is so much disagreement in these scientists comments that this whole AGW thing is speculation to say the least.
In the Netherlands GW caused by greenhouse gasses is a fact, for example our best weatherman knew it for certain. It can't be denied anymore. We talk about why we act so slow.
In America however, where a dollar means more then a complete forrest, where they drive cars that are 20 times badder for the environment then in Europe, they are still 'debating'..
Sorry but you guys don't live in the past? It's 2007 right?
LMFAO!!"The United Nations panel, WHICH GROUPS 2,500 SCIENTISTS FROM MORE THAN 130 NATIONS, predicted more droughts, heatwaves and a slow gain in sea levels that could continue for more than 1,000 years EVEN IF greenhouse gas emissions were capped." I'M TIRED OF HEARING FROM ECONOMIC AND POLITICALLY INTERESTED GROUPS SPEAKING ON AN ISSUE THEY OBVIOUSLY DON'T FULLY GRASP THE MAGNITUDE OF.IF WE CONTINUE TO POLUTE THE EARTH ITS ALL OVER, EVEN UR PRECIOUS ECONOMY!!
wrong! the rise in CO2 to warming is logarithmic NOT exponential!! i.e. where already at saturation point of CO2 adding more does causes less and less warming the more you put add!
check out this paper convenient-lie[dot]com
the earth is not a fragile system it is an extremely resiliant thing and has been for 5.5 billion years the earth has countless equlibrium mechanisms which we still don't know about.... Idea read some papers!!
Idea: watch the movie "An inconvenient truth". The level of CO2 is almost doubled in the last decade and is still rising at a extremely fast rate. That's the proof that our earth can't handle it anymore. More CO2 causes a higher temperature.
2ppm per year is not a fast rate, even if it where going up faster it still wouldn't mean anything, idea: instead of beliving what gore told you read some papers. please read some papers before cominting with such stupid facts again.
P.S yes I am a climate scientist. al be it not for too long. only a few years.
@mothball667: why do you believe in websites that are funded by Exxon oil company? Good scientist. Convenient-lie[dot]com, you find that a website you can thrust? Read REAL science papers. There wasn't a single scientist in the world leading science papers that rejected the idea om manmade global warming. You'll find such theory's in glossy's.
Exxon oil sites, that sounds like conspiracy theories, and by the way Convenient-lie[dot]com is a site I founded and wrote the material for, although the site is gone now because of hosting and time issues. Also there are SEVERAL peer-reviewed papers disputing the over sensitive projections of CO2, If you want I can start naming them?
Also all the information in my paper on convenient lie was supported and fully referenced using peer-reviewed papers.
the gop and the rushies have been told by the supreme court to cut back on the usage of gasoline ... they have always said that the best way to do it would be on a voluntary basis ... but the gop and the rushies believe that even paris hilton would voluntarily cut back on her gasoline usage even though she will be going to jail because she cannot seem to stay away from being behind the wheel ... and she drives a gas guzzler too ... save the bee
The climate system is very fragile. The capacity of the forests decreases and decreases. Because of the decreasing ice caps, more sunlight will be absorbed, producing more heat > more melting > etc. Because the atmosphere consists only for 0,014% of CO2, even 4,7% extra CO2 will lead to a much bigger percentage of CO2. That's why human life can change the atmosphere so easily. In a short time earth won't have enough capacity to deal with his own system.
You complain that Ben Lieberman is just a politician and not a scientist...well what do you think Al Gore is? He is simply a politician (and not a great one at that) who made a movie about his opinion. What is so magnificent about that? What makes him better? The fact that you agree? This movie has been discredited by republicans and democrats alike, and only the extremests, or the people who refuse to look at a consensus find relevancy in it. Maybe consider that...
@Laughallnite08: youre wrong, he isn't just a politician (look at the movie please). His professor on the university was the one who discovered the relation between CO2 and temperature rise. He travelled to all kind of places and studied the climate. Maybe consider watching the movie?
Th EARTH MOTHER is wounded by our indifference. We kill animals and plants to satisfy our selfish appetites. Eat only raw plants and animals that have died a natural death. Learn to breathe properly, avoid exessive activity that causes you to exhale too much toxic CO2.
I'm refering to womans right, minorities voting, and, standing up against crap wars....too bad you had to reach back at something that I'm not sure your even blaming the right people for...not sure if you know what your talking about at all...don't get too worked up sweetie xoxo!!
I can't believe people are going after liberals so much up here....they're the new thinkers and the ones that always bring about change. Even in the past. Bushies love to put labels on liberals that overwhelmingly apply to themselves.
I am going to bed because you have no facts to back your argument and I have no patience to listen to your liberbabble. When I have time I will tear your argument to shreds. Oh wait, I've already done that. Go back to your collective and wait for instructions.
Hey if Exxon wants to fund experiments with their money and the results are negative, the results are still reported. These are not company scientists, they are independent scientists. Again, you are the one shooting off at the mouth. He works predicting hurricanes, Exxon doesn't pay his salary for that. If he does that, he is no hack. Liberal tool.
The Washington Post, Jun. 21, 1898, p. 6 (blurb only):
Only 400 Years.
Lord Kelvin, the eminent scientist, has not added to the mirthfulness of the nations by announcing that in four hundred years the oxygen now virtually free in our atmosphere will be used up, and the inhabitants of the earth will die of suffocation from carbonic acid gas.
It seems the sky has been falling for hundreds of years.
Ben lieberman is funded by ExxonMobil , everthing he says is a lie, all the things he said that were outside scientific consensus is also a lie,the opposite is the case,to understand this more watch documentary 'Climate of Fear'
LOL 'global climate change is a serious man made problem' are you kidding? Somebody drank some bad kooaid i think. CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES AND ALWAYS WILL. "man" has become so pompus to think he can conquer the age old forces that warm and cool our planet will be in for a big suprise.
Sorry guys but the EPA, MET, UNFCCC, UCS and every major scienetific group on the planet disagree. You can keep your heads in the sand if you like. But the facts, no matter how much you dislike them, will remain.
Fact: Global climate change is a serious man-made problem.
Do you Global Warming doubters love your kids? Ask yourself a question "What if Global Warming is man made" Hay, if I'm wrong and Global Warming is not man made I'll be the first to stand up and apologise. But if I'm right and Global Warming is man made don't you thing we have a duty to our kids and their kids and the other species on the planet to do something about it now. WHAT'S THE POINT IN MAKING BILLONS OF DOLLAR$ IF THERE IS NOTHING TO BUY WITH IT
it seems that recently im married to YouTube, no time for anything else.
I became popular after posting the percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere.
the funniest thing i was told by you and 2 other people, well 1 other, the third seem to want all co2 tfrom humans eliminated, including breathing, but what i am told about is the closed system we live in. Its good that human CO2 is in this closed system for plants to use, eh? wouldnt you agree?
Mmmm, yes... 3 people IS popular... no darling, I would not agree because you see,
the way you display your figures is misleading; co2 release and ABSORPTION is a natural process, the earth has systems of balancing natural atmospheric levels of co2 as it is absorbed by our forests and oceans -
- the catch is that when humans begin dredging up and burning materials that would never otherwise have the chance to enter the atmosphere, as well as clear cutting forests which absorb co2, we begin to create an imbalance in the system, an imbalance that our forests and oceans cannot keep up with :(
CO2 emission sources: Oceans-------59.5% Decaying vegitaion----17.9% Plant and animal respiration--17.9% Human made----4.7% (factories, cars, fireplaces, breathing, etc.) The human input of CO2 into the earth is insignificant compared to natural sources, i.e. 4.7% to 95.3%. Quit worrying about global warming and get some sleep
did you see Apocalypto? Theres a scene in it with a Mayan high priest using an eclipse to manipulate the people thru fear. This is the same thing al gore is doing with this little warming trend which is just part of a normal cycle. The earth is supposed to cool slightly for the next 30 years.
CO2 emission sources: Oceans-------59.5% Decaying vegitaion----17.9% Plant and animal respiration--17.9% Human made----4.7% (factories, cars, fireplaces, breathing, etc.) The human input of CO2 into the earth is insignificant compared to natural sources, i.e. 4.7% to 95.3%. Quit worrying about global warming and get some sleep.
I sure hope you realize the difference between all those other sources of CO2 and the human made CO2. If not, I suddenly understand why people deny that this is an issue - failure to do research and understand the nature of nature.
There are scientists who still say there is no connection between HIV and AIDS. There are few, if any, scientists who say that global warming isn't occurring. Some have said they don't know its cause, but few have said it's not happening. Skepticism is a important to science. But to argue that most scientists have proven global warming wrong, when the overwhelming majority say that it is a problem or that they don't know is simply intellectual dishonesty.
To be fair, you didn't say that. My point is this. There is something that psychologists refer to as confirmation bias, in which people selectively choose to look only at the evidence that supports their preconceived notions. To refer to the small minority of scientists who express doubt, base your opinion only on their doubts, and ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists who believe it is a man-made problem, that's confirmation bias, a common error in cognition.
Absolutely. However, the era was that of the counter-reformation, and to try and quell any anti-Catholic sentiment, the church cracked down on literature that conflicted with Church doctrine. However, Galileo's books flew off shelves in non-Catholic countries, and even Catholic one's outside of Italy. Everybody recognized the validity of his work, though few would publicly admit they even owned the book.
yes, there was a crackdown, free flow of ideas was oppressed. the same is true now. now there is a persecutioon of anyone who disagrees with the global warming that al gore popularized. anyone who disagrees is either deemed uneducated, or politically motivated, or the silliest of all--paid by the oil companies.
thediscrim, can you at least say the debate on human caused global warming is not over?
The Heritage Foundation has received a long and steady flow of support from nearly 100 major corporations, including Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mobil, Procter & Gamble, and GlaxoSmithKline. hmmmm. now that IS silly.
its pretty clear that scientists were not in agreement, galileo said that he had few scientists that would agree with him. there were only a few who believed him. your psychologists hypothesis would conclude that there was something wrong with galileo also.
Hmm. Read his letters. That's not true. Just few who would publicly agree with him. An interesting book on the subject is "Galileo's Daughter", which despite the name, was really about his problems with the church.
yes, but galileo existed in different times where the church saturated and controlled every aspect of life, and galileo's peers would be killed if they supported his ideas. There was no education for the masses as the church deemed it 'dangerous' and the people wallowed in ignorance and isolation. now we've got a different power to overcome with hard scientific evidence and information: the church of fossil fuels.
The CO2 emitted by every other source on that list is in equilibrium. Equilibrium is a chemistry concept that refers to situations where events occur in opposite directions at equal rates. In other words, those entities give off C02 in huge quantities, but they absorb as much as they give off, so there's no net C02 gain. Digging up and burning fossil fuels gives off CO2 that hasn't been in the atmosphere in millions of years, so it leads to a net gain.
The climate system is very fragile. The capacity of the forests decreases and decreases. Because the atmosphere consists only for 0,014% of CO2, even 4,7% extra CO2 will lead to a much bigger percentage of CO2. That's why human life can change the atmosphere so easily. In a short time earth won't have enough capacity to deal with his own system.
Remember when it was Nicolaus Copernicus Vs Thousands of scientists?
Scientific consensus is NOT how science is done. IF there are any holes in the foundation of a theory... then IT WILL NOT become scientific fact or a LAW.
So this is Ben Lieberman Vs. Thousands of scientists...
Well Heritage Foundation, thanks. I have been proven wrong. As well as the scientific community at large! Just because Lieberman opened his mouth and said we were wrong! Amazing! I want him to make terrorism go away too now, by saying it's a myth, and also make him make Guantanamo Bay disappear too, 'cause that's also bad PR = (
Why is an economic specialist commenting on a scientific subject? Where are his scientific facts? Show me the scientific concensus he is quoting. This is selling out the future of our chiuldren to make a few bucks today! Shame on you Matt Streit!
Wheelieguy, you state that GW is politically driven. In fact it has been politically stifled in the US for the past 20 years, and this very video was posted by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. Your argument is unconvincing, as you can't seem to distinguish the difference between climate and weather. Weather is a chaotic dynamic system, and climate is not. You're on the wrong side of this debate.
Climate is affected by weather, but weather is a dynamic shaped by climate as the elements of climate affect weather, hence my argument is very valid. If a volcano erupts over one climate, the weather is driven by that climate to affect all others as well. The GW issue has not been stifled in the U.S. as I hear it on the news and elsewhere everyday. If you want an argument, it's on so stay tuned.
The research I have done is not based on "pseudo-science" but rather scientific fact presented by renowned climatologists, meteorologists, and experts in tropical storm specialists. Dr. William Gray by himself has 50 years in forecasting hurricanes and tropical cyclones. All of my info I have is based on past weather data over many years, not just a cut and pasted variety used to manipulate public policy. If there is any pseudo-science being used, it is from the GW supporters.
Dr. Gray is just another hack who gets funding from Exxon. Doing work for the Heartland Instit. and Tech Central, both Exxon funded think tanks. AND Gray shots his big mouth off without ANY actual research to back up his claims.
The only one shooting off their mouth without facts and not backing up their claim is you. 50 years experience forecasting hurricanes for NOAA, being a professor of climatology at Colorado State, and being considered an expert in this field is hardly being a "hack" as you put it.
And just how do you justify the GW "scientists" using liberal funds to support GW? The funds are Exxon give are no different. How do you explain the mounting number of meteorologists that do not support GW as a manmade phenomenon?
And here is a fact that even the most staunch scientist cannot answer: How are they predicting what the weather will be in 10, 20, or even 50 years when a predictable forecast for weather cannot be accurately predicted past 2 weeks? Gimme an answer for that if you are so smart. Where are your credentials that make you an expert? Who's the hack scientist you get your info from, Al Gore? He's hardly an expert in anything.
Because, weather and climate are too different things. I can tell you it's going to snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains ten years from now, and it will. Gee, I must be a fucking genius.
Besides, I'm not talking in an area, I talking about regions, continents, hemispheres here. Global weather cannot be predicted more than 10 days out, how can your "experts" predict the weather 10 or 20 years out? You can't even argue with intelligence using curse words, so why bother? Moron.
And you cannot use the IPCC as a reference as they are clearly biased in their anti-capitalistic research and as Dr. Gray pointed out, their conclusions were written long before the research was finished. GW alamists argument for GW and CO2 as the main cause of GW is unravelling as we speak.
You obviously don't know how science works. See, if the hack Gray had any real points to make, he'd publish them in a peer reviewed journal. But he doesn't because he has no points. So, like any paid hack, you do the talk show circuit and give your OPINION which means a lot of, "In my opinion...I believe...it could be....I feel that..." Note this collection of safe words.
You have a lot of gall posting this ignorant statement as all of the posts I have from Dr. Gray here are chocked full of actual research and explanation why GCM's are barely reliable for 10 days, let alone years. He also had charts that I can't post here of his research. Don't tell me he had no actual research. You are a tool of the liberal left and need to find some intellegence b4 making inane arguments.
I am a liberal but like any self respecting liberal I CAN'T be anyones tool. We're just too independent and want to see the data. You know, like how all us liberals were right about the bullshit war Bush got us into...we told you it was lies, but did you listen?
Dr. Gray's testamony before the Senate Committee on environment&Public works on the Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making is astounding. Here is part of his opening statement: "Over the last 20 years, I have been dismayed over the bogus science and media-hype associated with the nuclear winter and the human-induced global warming hypotheses. My innate sense of how the atmosphere-ocean functions does not allow me to accept either of these scenarios."
And more: "The human-induced global warming scenarios have a major flaw in that they accept the view that an increase in the global hydrologic cycle will cause enhanced upper-tropospheric water vapor gain and a suppression of outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) to space. The opposite is true. Global Climate Models (GCMs) are also not able to realistically predict the ocean's deep water circulation which is fundamental to any understanding of global temperature change."
And more "Although initially generated by honest scientific questions, this topic has long ago advanced into the political arena and taken on a life of its own. It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gains from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject. This includes many governments of western countries, the media, and scientists who were willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research."
More Dr. Gray: "It is unfortunate that most of the resources for climate research come from the federal government. When a national government takes a political position on a scientific topic, the wise meteorologist or climatologist either joins the crowd or keeps his/her mouth shut. Scientists can be punished if they do not accept the current views of their funding agents. An honest and objective scientific debate cannot be held in such a political environment."
Dr. Gray cont. "I have closely followed the greenhouse gas warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere functions in over 50 years of study and forecasting, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and likely insignificant amounts of global warming (~ 0.2-0.3 degree C)."
Dr. Gray cont. "Skillful initial value GCM climate prediction is not possible & probably never will be. This is due to the complex nature of the atmosphere/ocean system & the inability of numerical models to realistically represent this physical complexity. Realistic features currently cannot be forecast more than a week or two into the future."
Dr Gray cont."Short-range prediction is possible up to a week or 10 days into the future because there tends to be conservatism in the initial momentum fields which can be extrapolated for short periods. But beyond about 1-2 weeks, the multiple unknown & non-linear energy-moisture exchanges within the earth system become dominant. Model results soon decay in chaos. Numerical climate models cannot now & likely never will be able to be accurately forecast more than a few weeks into the future."
Dr Gray cont."If skillful GCM climate forecasts were possible, we would be eager to follow their predictions. Currently, GCMs do not make seasonal or yearly forecasts. How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can't be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified? They know that they dare not issue shorter forecasts because they are aware that they have little or no skill."
Dr. Gray cont."The potential for climate modeling mischief and false scares from incorrect climate model scenarios is enormous. Numerical modeling output gives an air of authenticity which is not warranted by the input physics and long periods of integration. How many more climate scares are we to see from climate models which are not able to realistically predict past and future climate changes let alone future decadal or century changes?"
Dr Gray cont."Many of my older meteorological colleagues are very skeptical of these anthropogenic global warming scenarios. But we are seldom asked for any input. Despite my 50 years of meteorology experience and my many years of involvement in seasonal hurricane and climate prediction, I have never been asked for input on any of the International Panels on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. They know my views and do not wish to have to deal with them."
... this makes me want to commit suicide it is so disgustingly arrogant. Global warming aside, I think sustainable development and reduced air pollution even with a high price tag is preferable in comparison to the alternative, that being continued glutinous consumption of non renewable resources and rapid contamination of the only known planet capable of supporting human and animal life as we know it.
echewter1 8 months ago
kike face stole my name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
liebobomb 10 months ago
Temp is going down,bad time for Global warming myth members, Barrack Hussien Obama of Kenya trying to milk some money by creating a team to study Global warming,People must understand that scientist of now are not intelligent but smart,they invent something which can be marketed to milk money from Government and Organization to earn there living,People must understand,this article was posted almost 9 months ago but for the past few months all countries are getting colder,think and common sense
nirmal8800 3 years ago
It is funny that people actually believe this lie that Global warming is actually reality. But of course it is scientifically NOT. These pseudo unscientific fairy tellers who actually made this up in 1971 with the first agenda of "Global cooling" with their Newsweek article are the same persons who created this so called energy crises that we have today because many willfully ignorant people stayed asleep and let these un-scientist's stake the claims without facts.
Lions4jesus 3 years ago
That is why 8000 scientist proved that the global warming (and cooling) THEORIES are not FACTS but are fairy tales. Do not be stupid do the research and makes sure they are facts not SPECULATIONS or THEORIES because that is not SCIENCE."Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams (1735-1826), second President of the United States
Lions4jesus 3 years ago
@Lions4jesus I always find it hilarious that someone with a sign in name with Jesus in using science in an arguement!
Big121Dog 2 years ago
According to this guy, global warming doesn't matter. So minivan driving soccer moms,Hummer and Escalade driving nouveu riche alike keep buying expensive oil to fuel your gas guzzling lives. The earth is gonna naturally burn up for the rest of our and our children's children lives. Is there hope for humanity?
checkunderyourbed 3 years ago
poor nerzule has to spam here to make himself feel better.
ClingingMars 3 years ago
Are we seriously still debating this? Anyone still claiming that there's a so-called scientific debate over this issue has a fucking agenda. And anyone who gets their information from an ex-lawyer/CPA working for a conservative think tank rather than peer-reviewed scientists is at best wilfully ignorant and at worst amoral. Wake the fuck up people.
horakhti 4 years ago 7
lmao, theories aren't facts, but keep drinking that Al Gore kool-aid
ClingingMars 3 years ago
Yep, and everybody knew, even the intellectuals knew that the earth was flat. Why were we even debating the fact that the earth was flat. Anyone claiming that the earth was round has a fucking agenda. And what about all of the peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with the man-made global warming analogy? What about all of the peer-reviewed scientists and climatologists who say that the Earth warms and cools, and this warming period is not worse than others, debunking the man-made argument?
mbraase 3 years ago 2
Some people say that the scientists are just lying to get grants for researching that global warming is real for grant money,but not only could they get the same money for saying it is a fake, they would get much more money. Through this they continue to say global warming is going to hurt us. Another truth is movie makers and organizations make more money telling people what they want to hear, rather then saying the end is near
nerzule 4 years ago
Another point of interest that proves this foundation won. The warming part of globing warming and rise of sea levels isn't really what hurts us. It's the complete destabilization of the climate. Most people will comment that the climate is never stable. WELL this kind of destabilization is different. By being stable now I mean it's cold all through winter, raining through spring, windy in fall and hot but not boiling in summer.
nerzule 4 years ago
The destabilization is in that it all rains in spring and is a drought during super. Blizzards blow through farm lands. Trees dry up in picking season.
nerzule 4 years ago
Also using lots of electricity drains our nations money and does economic harm. Now I've researched this before making my statements.Also these people at the Heritage foundation(Who i agree with on some subjects)Are just spoon feeding the public what they want to hear.
nerzule 4 years ago
Another final thing is there really isn't any big support of the "global warming conspiroucy " it's just small think tanks and ordinary people who won't admit there wrong. In truth I am just a blogger don't take my word for it word, check it out take a few minutes out of your day to research if this has any steam.
nerzule 4 years ago
Yeah also Exxon has stopped funding these types of fake global warming,they are actually saying global climate change is real. Same with USCAP(group of companies like shell and Exxon)admit this is a problem and are calling for drawbacks on themselfs.
nerzule 4 years ago
Instead of cutting down on unnecessary waste, you mooks are looking for any reason to continue living your wasteful lifestyle. You cannot argue that pollution is detrimental to our health. Driving H2's, throwing trash out the window, not recycling, etc... just some examples of a completely wasteful lifestyle. Do us all a favor: stop putting so much effort into fighting this issue and put some of that effort into leading a less selfish life.
jimitee82 4 years ago 2
puretroubleman,
Sounds like your saying we should wait until a few towns are nearly flooded before we should take action.
One of the main purposes of Global Warming acts are to actually prevent damages before they happen rather than try and solve it when the damage has already been caused.
Sparteal 4 years ago 2
Yes we should wait until sea levels rise before we even think of changing our energy policies.
Lets keep using oil instead of renewable enegery sources. Its not like Oil would drive anyones foreign policy or the price in oil could increase due to lack of supply.
This is all one liberal conspiracy
puretroubleman 4 years ago
Truth is British Petroleum had cut annual carbon dioxide emissions at its plants by 10 million tonnes, saving 650 million dollars, the report points out.
Check it before you go announcing that saving the climate is all harm
nerzule 4 years ago
No, it wasn't.
BeachofDreams 4 years ago
Hey Heritage Foundation, I liked your article authored by James Taylor, which was put in the CST, in which he falsely quoted a scientist paper by making up the purported content.
It's unfortunate that an organization such as this one would stoop to making false citations when they know that the research doesn't support their dogma.
BeachofDreams 4 years ago
Finally a voice of reason! Don't listen to the liberals! I'm so happy people are finally seeing that global warming is a lie. Hey liberals! How bout doing a little thing called research before you assume something like this!?
marco1158 4 years ago
Maybe you ought to do your research before you start melding politics with a scientific issue.
BeachofDreams 4 years ago
You are a great American. Too many people are idiots about this.
teddy516 4 years ago
Look mate, if I'm arrogant you must be among the most arrogant human beings that walked the planet. It is you (not me) that claims to know better than the 2500 leading climatologists, most of the world leaders, almost the entire published science on the subject, scientists as a whole and 104 of the 178 presently alive nobel prize winners!
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
And if all climatologists and published scientists received no funding or recognition is their respective communities would there be such an outcry of hysteria over global warming? I think not. More likely it would talked about and theorized as just another cyclical event in the Earth's environment - which is what is anyway. Saying the planet is in peril gets you more funding. As in all things suspect - follow the money.
harderfasterrocks 4 years ago
Are you honestly claiming they are making it all up? Tin foil hat wearers of the world unite. Do you really think that scientists are free to come to any conclusion that their financial interests dictate. So if I gave a bunch of scientists $1 billion I could get them to prove gravity was a repulsive force, that the sun went around the earth or that unicorns existed? Oh, an there is the final problem that scientists have been sacked and edited for coming to just these conclusions.
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
Oh, and you have absolutely no proof what so ever that climatologists are lying. And finally this is an Exxon talking point. Yes you would seem happier listening to an oil company, who's explicit aim is to confuse the public into believing no consensus exists, rather than almost all the worlds scientists. How odd.
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
Oh, one final thing scientists are trained to attempt to disprove their own and others work. If one of them found proof of a conspiracy by finding damaging contrary proof he would be funded up to the neck (the carbon industry would gladly spend millions on this individual), he would also gain fame, and historical importance, are you sure this still sounds like a sensible proposition? No one wants this to be true, but the evidence is overwhelming!
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
Yeah the two most prestigous scientific groups(NAC,AAAS)say that global warming is real. Same with Shell gas and Exxon,as well as USCAP have admitted to global warming to be real
nerzule 4 years ago
Yeah in magazine not in peer reviewed scientific papers!
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
The science of global warming is an uncertain one. Just notice how many times the words 'may', 'could' and 'probably' are used. Does this sound like a certain science to you?
neocon20 4 years ago
All science is uncertain (see contingent truths). The question is so what. They have a certainty of 90% it is real and man made. If a plane was said to be 90% likely to crash, would still get on it with the glib line 'yeah but they are not certain are they'. Didn't think so. You so obviously know nothing of the scientific method.
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
Well this is at least admitting reality, it just argues its not worth bothering with fixing it. But they claim carbon cuts would destroy the global economy. They lie lots of countries have cut easily (germany the UK or sweden).
02Hurnella 4 years ago
Unfortunately the 'greens' are too ignorant to listen to any views.
At any time the gradients of the temperature-increase graphs will start declining, we'll then reach a peak and then we'll begin to cool again. It's the natural cycle of the earth.
Notice the way that we always hear 'this is the hottest temperature in THE LAST 100 YEARS'.
No doubt we'll start getting complaints about Global Cooling though.
kzearo 4 years ago
I can't stand it when people refuse to take evidence at face value merely because it conflicts with their deeply held political philosophies. Reality so rarely conforms to the preconceptions that come with our specific worldviews. There are few things LAZIER than an ideologue.
ClumsyRoot 4 years ago
what about how it is killing off the amphibians ... first see ... something was killing off the frog ... and people wondered ... what is killing off the frog ... and found global warming was killing off the frog ... check it out ... google 'global warming frog' ... and others say that it is killing off four species every hour ... and what if it is killing off the bee ... that may not scare anybody either ... you need to really see people in the streets dying to get some people scared
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 4 years ago
there is the everything is going to be ok media ... global warming is a democrat problem which needs not be fixed until 2009 ... we must win in iraq ... fox, abc and 95% of tv and radio ... and then there is the bad news media ...the bees are dying .. the frogs were killed by global warming ... high gasoline prices ... waste in iraq ... wall street journal, la times, ny times, public broadcasting, air america ... which side will win ... which side is right ... what does it matter
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 4 years ago
NEWS!!!!! Google this: "Head of NASA downplays global warming". The NASA chief says it's "rather arrogant" for people to take the position that today's climate is the optimal one.
No doubt the green movement and the libs will try and sling mud against this scientist for his opposition.
netcisco 4 years ago
No I didn't look at all the people in the sample BUT there have been other attempts to examine the scientists and it was found that 1700 may well be rather generous. Some were made up others had either never heard of the paper or have since changed their minds. And as I said the most damming is that it represents 17000 in 10 Million and the methodology was kept secret, just why do you think that is?
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
It must be very inconvenient for the multibillion oil companies to accept an obvious impact of CO2 emissions on the rise of global temperature...
Benderrr111 4 years ago
the gop and the rushies will tell you that the loss of the amphibians due to global warming means nothing ... same for the polar bear and the pollinator bee ... but others will tell you that the loss of all amphibians is a significant because it shows that life can live only in an environment that cannot be changed very much ... still others will not believe that the amphibians were killed by global warming and have not googled 'global warming frog' ever .. and never want to
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 4 years ago
You alarmists are getting boring. You ignore logic, history and scientific method to "prove" an unscientific theory. Shouldn't you be moving on to the next catastrophe facing mankind? Did the "Global Cooling" of the 80's just not catch on enough?
I'd post more, but I left my Hummer and Escalade running...
johnh926 4 years ago
"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."
Henrik Svensmark, Director for Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
I repeat myself,
"page 7 of IPCC AR4 (fourth assesment report)summary for policy makers. The key for the liklyhoods is on page 3 at the end in the footnotes."
lern to read fool! actually there where more than 4 reports but only 4 summarys and I believe you ONLY read the summaries not the whole reports! LOL!
"These scientists are not peer reviewed scientists publishing on climatology either unlike the paper I referenced"
SO you looked at them all?
mothball667 4 years ago
i was listening to the rushies on the radio today and they still believe that there is no such thing as global warming ... no such thing as climate change ... they live in their air conditioned cars and offices and condos and should spend more times outdoors i tell you ... anyway, they think that the democrats are riding their bicycles and walking and getting runned over by the gop's escalades and navigators because the democrats want to expand their bureaucracy
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 4 years ago
They are never going to believe in Global Warming. If the available evidence and science does not convince them, nothing will. They should be ignored, or at the most riduculed--not debated. Debate gives these reality challenged people a feeling of legitamacy. Treat them like you treat the unwashed street prophet wearing a tin foil helmet. A person to be pitied and helped, but regared with caution, not a person to be debated.
gallowglass1 4 years ago
man, these videos are evil....for real
scrothy 4 years ago
as to your incorrect post saying that there are very few scientists who oppose AGW i.e. sceptics the IPCC has around 2000 "scientists" on the panel here is a petition of 17,100 sceptics most scientists with PHDs and Perfessor ships, so thats almost 8 and a half times more scientists than the IPCC and thats JUST THE USA!!
oism[dot]org/pproject
mothball667 4 years ago
This report is hopelessly flawed. These were not randomly sampled they basically mailed everyone in the US with an engineering/science degree. Robert Park in Nature pointed out that: 'there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.'. So thats 17000 in 10 million!!!!!! When asking for the scientists respone they also included a missleading summary of the science.
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
These scientists are not peer reviewed scientists publishing on climatology either unlike the paper I referenced. So to state aging there is overwhelming consensus on climate change among peer revied scientists publishing on climatology.
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
page 7 of IPCC AR4 (fourth assesment report)summary for policy makers. The key for the liklyhoods is on page 3 at the end in the footnotes.
The link to the paper I posted was a 20 page paper (soon to be 35 page) which is a small part of my thesus i.e. I wrote the paper, there is no propeganda as it basic climate science.
again get your facts straight before you comment!
mothball667 4 years ago
Thats as clear as mud. I have looked at page 7 of all three summary reports (I am assuming with your superior brain you knew there were 3) and I see no reference to 50%. I have never seen 50% figure anywere else except your posting I'm thinking your either confused or lieing. The latest report is even more certain than the third - not less. So I'm thinking you should get your facts straight!
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
50%??? where I got it???
try read the report lol this is really funny supporting the IPCC but u havn't even read the report!!!
check out this paper convenient-lie[dot]com
mothball667 4 years ago
No, I haven't read it. And neither have you. Give a reference to the page! I have no doubt you can't because that link you posted would have been completely dismissed by you had you read it as it is filled with lies and propaganda!
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
Wow the video contained such an informed person - NOT!
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
Theres no debate on whether or not the mean temp of the earth fluctuates over time...that's been proven and is a widedly accepted 'FACT'...the problem that all these economists skip over and cloud the issue with talk of temperature change is: 'THE UNPRECEDENTED RISE IN CO2 LEVELS'...Take one look at a NASA photo of earth, one other Known FACT: 'For every action, there is a reaction'...
SirVertual 4 years ago
the gop and the rushies have been told by the supreme court to cut back on the usage of gasoline ... so using their free market principles and voluntary emissions controls, the gop and the rushies raise prices so high that most people would be reducing their driving ... while the rich like paris hilton will drive even faster 12 cylinder toyotas, mercedes, and bmws, drive fewer miles, but results in a net gain in heavily subsidized gasoline usage
marshalljedediah 4 years ago
continued....
sure of tyhe human factor so basically world policy is now been drawn up on a theroy which a largly political body is only 50% sure of???!?!?
mothball667 4 years ago
I don't think the UN hate capitalism and freedom I actually quite like the UN but the IPCC is now accepted by most as a political body NOT a scientific one, hundereds of submissions of scientists who opposed the AGW theroy and where on the IPCC board had there submissions removed, also contrary to the media and the IPCC conference they are NOT 90% sure humans are causing warming, if you look at the IPCC fourth assesment report they are actually only 50%
mothball667 4 years ago
The IPCC reports are first prepared by scientists and only when they come to publish do politicians get involved.
Type 'beyond the ivory tower' into google. It is a lie that there are significant amounts of serious scientists (who actually do cimatology) who deny AGW.
They are 90% sure, where you got 50% from I dont know.
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
"Global warming" is completely fabricated by the U.N. and the left. They invented the concept. This was not started by any private source, or any scientist. It was started by the UN, because they hate capitalism and freedom. The IPCC is NOT a reliable source for "scientific consensus". It is state-sponsored totalitarian propoganda. Don't believe a word of it.
volcanicexplosion 4 years ago
Thanks for that. Your post came over as so reasoned and unparanoid (not).
StunnedByStupidity 4 years ago
@ oqmotta
not too sure is that directed at me?
@ theforce119
Have you actually looked at the vostok data? i.e. the big graph that gore goes on about, yes well he didn't mention temprature preceeds CO2 by 800 years did he?
again if the above was directed at me sorry for not posting links as it's difficult here, just check the paper on the site I gave...
mothball667 4 years ago
This Analyst gives no scientific facts and makes comments with no scientific background. Viewer beware of his comments.
oqmotta 4 years ago
@ theforce119
I recieved my BSc from the university college dublin in Geology and I am currently doing a masters in Climatology, AIT is total rubbish! read some papers CO2 is logarithmic we where at saturation level 50 years ago how about you read some papers on the science and you will find out how wrong you are you tool!
mothball667 4 years ago
Youre NOT BETTER then 2500 scientists. Sorry. But you aren't. If you read about this in real science magazines (I suppose you diddn't after reading youre comment) you'll find out that GW is real. I read enough papers to know that.
Youre the first not-American here who don't believe in GW. Congratulations (I thought they diddn't existed).
theforce119 4 years ago
Btw, have you looked at the movie "An inconvenient truth"? That movie shows us the most up to date knowledge.
theforce119 4 years ago
Read the just released Reviews and Comments section by the IPCC. There are no "2500+" scientists. The wool is being pulled over your eyes. There is so much disagreement in these scientists comments that this whole AGW thing is speculation to say the least.
rakrishnan 4 years ago
In the Netherlands GW caused by greenhouse gasses is a fact, for example our best weatherman knew it for certain. It can't be denied anymore. We talk about why we act so slow.
In America however, where a dollar means more then a complete forrest, where they drive cars that are 20 times badder for the environment then in Europe, they are still 'debating'..
Sorry but you guys don't live in the past? It's 2007 right?
theforce119 4 years ago
LMFAO!!"The United Nations panel, WHICH GROUPS 2,500 SCIENTISTS FROM MORE THAN 130 NATIONS, predicted more droughts, heatwaves and a slow gain in sea levels that could continue for more than 1,000 years EVEN IF greenhouse gas emissions were capped." I'M TIRED OF HEARING FROM ECONOMIC AND POLITICALLY INTERESTED GROUPS SPEAKING ON AN ISSUE THEY OBVIOUSLY DON'T FULLY GRASP THE MAGNITUDE OF.IF WE CONTINUE TO POLUTE THE EARTH ITS ALL OVER, EVEN UR PRECIOUS ECONOMY!!
KingHigh420 4 years ago
@ theforce119
wrong! the rise in CO2 to warming is logarithmic NOT exponential!! i.e. where already at saturation point of CO2 adding more does causes less and less warming the more you put add!
check out this paper convenient-lie[dot]com
the earth is not a fragile system it is an extremely resiliant thing and has been for 5.5 billion years the earth has countless equlibrium mechanisms which we still don't know about.... Idea read some papers!!
P.S I am a climate scientist!
mothball667 4 years ago
Idea: watch the movie "An inconvenient truth". The level of CO2 is almost doubled in the last decade and is still rising at a extremely fast rate. That's the proof that our earth can't handle it anymore. More CO2 causes a higher temperature.
P.S. Youre not a climate scientist!
theforce119 4 years ago
2ppm per year is not a fast rate, even if it where going up faster it still wouldn't mean anything, idea: instead of beliving what gore told you read some papers. please read some papers before cominting with such stupid facts again.
P.S yes I am a climate scientist. al be it not for too long. only a few years.
mothball667 3 years ago
@mothball667: why do you believe in websites that are funded by Exxon oil company? Good scientist. Convenient-lie[dot]com, you find that a website you can thrust? Read REAL science papers. There wasn't a single scientist in the world leading science papers that rejected the idea om manmade global warming. You'll find such theory's in glossy's.
theforce119 3 years ago
Exxon oil sites, that sounds like conspiracy theories, and by the way Convenient-lie[dot]com is a site I founded and wrote the material for, although the site is gone now because of hosting and time issues. Also there are SEVERAL peer-reviewed papers disputing the over sensitive projections of CO2, If you want I can start naming them?
Also all the information in my paper on convenient lie was supported and fully referenced using peer-reviewed papers.
mothball667 3 years ago 2
the gop and the rushies have been told by the supreme court to cut back on the usage of gasoline ... they have always said that the best way to do it would be on a voluntary basis ... but the gop and the rushies believe that even paris hilton would voluntarily cut back on her gasoline usage even though she will be going to jail because she cannot seem to stay away from being behind the wheel ... and she drives a gas guzzler too ... save the bee
marshalljedediah 4 years ago
Manmade global warming isn't happening. Check out my video "Global Warming: An Unsettled Science" to see current scientific papers which refute AGW.
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
The climate system is very fragile. The capacity of the forests decreases and decreases. Because of the decreasing ice caps, more sunlight will be absorbed, producing more heat > more melting > etc. Because the atmosphere consists only for 0,014% of CO2, even 4,7% extra CO2 will lead to a much bigger percentage of CO2. That's why human life can change the atmosphere so easily. In a short time earth won't have enough capacity to deal with his own system.
theforce119 4 years ago
even if you somehow can not believe in global warming
why wouldn't you want the benefits of alternatives
100mpg, hell yeah
who stands to lose with alternatives to fuel and why wouldnt they pay tons of money for propaganda
why wouldn't they triple gas prices to compensate their own fears which in turn just makes people run from their over priced and super profit schemes
TheStoicAgnostic 4 years ago
This is a person who can't look further then his nose..
theforce119 4 years ago
All look to "An inconvenient truth" from Al Gore. The only argument stated here is completely demolished in that movie.
This person isn't a scientist, he's a politician who think the economy is the ONLY factor!
So everyone watch the movie "An inconvenient truth"!!!!!!
theforce119 4 years ago
theforce119--
You complain that Ben Lieberman is just a politician and not a scientist...well what do you think Al Gore is? He is simply a politician (and not a great one at that) who made a movie about his opinion. What is so magnificent about that? What makes him better? The fact that you agree? This movie has been discredited by republicans and democrats alike, and only the extremests, or the people who refuse to look at a consensus find relevancy in it. Maybe consider that...
laughallnite08 4 years ago
@Laughallnite08: youre wrong, he isn't just a politician (look at the movie please). His professor on the university was the one who discovered the relation between CO2 and temperature rise. He travelled to all kind of places and studied the climate. Maybe consider watching the movie?
theforce119 4 years ago
theforce119: you are very humorous. You sound like a religionist with blind faith in your savior Mr. Gore. Your writing reveals a lot. GL.
rakrishnan 4 years ago
Th EARTH MOTHER is wounded by our indifference. We kill animals and plants to satisfy our selfish appetites. Eat only raw plants and animals that have died a natural death. Learn to breathe properly, avoid exessive activity that causes you to exhale too much toxic CO2.
alarmedjaime 4 years ago
Here's an "environmental analyst" - Global warming isn't real.
Talk to any ACTUAL climatologist, geologist, or someone with a freaking degree, and you'll hear a subtly diffrent tale.
Bwago 4 years ago
I'm refering to womans right, minorities voting, and, standing up against crap wars....too bad you had to reach back at something that I'm not sure your even blaming the right people for...not sure if you know what your talking about at all...don't get too worked up sweetie xoxo!!
Applelev 4 years ago
Because we're the leader we need to be the example and do the innovative work.
Applelev 4 years ago
I can't believe people are going after liberals so much up here....they're the new thinkers and the ones that always bring about change. Even in the past. Bushies love to put labels on liberals that overwhelmingly apply to themselves.
Applelev 4 years ago
I am going to bed because you have no facts to back your argument and I have no patience to listen to your liberbabble. When I have time I will tear your argument to shreds. Oh wait, I've already done that. Go back to your collective and wait for instructions.
wheelieguy 4 years ago
Hey if Exxon wants to fund experiments with their money and the results are negative, the results are still reported. These are not company scientists, they are independent scientists. Again, you are the one shooting off at the mouth. He works predicting hurricanes, Exxon doesn't pay his salary for that. If he does that, he is no hack. Liberal tool.
wheelieguy 4 years ago
when all the glaciers melt away you will be singing a different tune
Ryanger91 4 years ago
The Washington Post, Jun. 21, 1898, p. 6 (blurb only):
Only 400 Years.
Lord Kelvin, the eminent scientist, has not added to the mirthfulness of the nations by announcing that in four hundred years the oxygen now virtually free in our atmosphere will be used up, and the inhabitants of the earth will die of suffocation from carbonic acid gas.
It seems the sky has been falling for hundreds of years.
clbrooks16 4 years ago
Ben lieberman is funded by ExxonMobil , everthing he says is a lie, all the things he said that were outside scientific consensus is also a lie,the opposite is the case,to understand this more watch documentary 'Climate of Fear'
HannahEmmet 4 years ago
what about the thinning of the ozone layher huh?? Has that happened before too? moron..
Of course global warming is a problem! How can we fight it if half the population won't accept that it is a problem? gr..
sheephill89 4 years ago
LOL 'global climate change is a serious man made problem' are you kidding? Somebody drank some bad kooaid i think. CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES AND ALWAYS WILL. "man" has become so pompus to think he can conquer the age old forces that warm and cool our planet will be in for a big suprise.
to learn more go to
myspace . com/globalwarmingthetruth
domndiane 4 years ago
Sorry guys but the EPA, MET, UNFCCC, UCS and every major scienetific group on the planet disagree. You can keep your heads in the sand if you like. But the facts, no matter how much you dislike them, will remain.
Fact: Global climate change is a serious man-made problem.
evilgeniusfin 4 years ago
Do you Global Warming doubters love your kids? Ask yourself a question "What if Global Warming is man made" Hay, if I'm wrong and Global Warming is not man made I'll be the first to stand up and apologise. But if I'm right and Global Warming is man made don't you thing we have a duty to our kids and their kids and the other species on the planet to do something about it now. WHAT'S THE POINT IN MAKING BILLONS OF DOLLAR$ IF THERE IS NOTHING TO BUY WITH IT
caedwards 4 years ago
Ben Lieberman has a law degree and an accounting degree. He is obviously an expert on global climate control
faker999 4 years ago
everybod, hmm... seems like you have other reasons in mind to stalk my posts.
forkeat 4 years ago
yes. I am in love with you.
everybodysayyeah 4 years ago
well thats sweet. but im not interested at this time.
forkeat 4 years ago
it seems that recently im married to YouTube, no time for anything else.
I became popular after posting the percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere.
the funniest thing i was told by you and 2 other people, well 1 other, the third seem to want all co2 tfrom humans eliminated, including breathing, but what i am told about is the closed system we live in. Its good that human CO2 is in this closed system for plants to use, eh? wouldnt you agree?
forkeat 4 years ago
Mmmm, yes... 3 people IS popular... no darling, I would not agree because you see,
the way you display your figures is misleading; co2 release and ABSORPTION is a natural process, the earth has systems of balancing natural atmospheric levels of co2 as it is absorbed by our forests and oceans -
everybodysayyeah 4 years ago
- the catch is that when humans begin dredging up and burning materials that would never otherwise have the chance to enter the atmosphere, as well as clear cutting forests which absorb co2, we begin to create an imbalance in the system, an imbalance that our forests and oceans cannot keep up with :(
everybodysayyeah 4 years ago
everybody, what will be the misinformation you will post about these percentages? what is the hysteria pathogen you want to infect minds with?
forkeat 4 years ago
forkeat 4 years ago
The debate on human caused global warming is over.
We're now onto the next phase of debate.
"Warming is happening, it is human caused, but now exactly how bad will it be, and exactly how severe will the fallout be."
greyflcn 4 years ago
did you see Apocalypto? Theres a scene in it with a Mayan high priest using an eclipse to manipulate the people thru fear. This is the same thing al gore is doing with this little warming trend which is just part of a normal cycle. The earth is supposed to cool slightly for the next 30 years.
forkeat 4 years ago
forkeat 4 years ago
I sure hope you realize the difference between all those other sources of CO2 and the human made CO2. If not, I suddenly understand why people deny that this is an issue - failure to do research and understand the nature of nature.
thediscerningreader 4 years ago
SURE I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. DO YOU?
human co2 is beneficial to the earth.
but youll say im paid by the oil companies to say that, right? or ive been reading oil company propaganda??
there are MIT, NASA, and university scientists who have already proven the global warming theories wrong.
but it will be said they were paid by oil companies, right?
forkeat 4 years ago
There are scientists who still say there is no connection between HIV and AIDS. There are few, if any, scientists who say that global warming isn't occurring. Some have said they don't know its cause, but few have said it's not happening. Skepticism is a important to science. But to argue that most scientists have proven global warming wrong, when the overwhelming majority say that it is a problem or that they don't know is simply intellectual dishonesty.
thediscerningreader 4 years ago
you misquoted me. I will believe it was done accidentally.
where did i say 'most scientists'?
forkeat 4 years ago
To be fair, you didn't say that. My point is this. There is something that psychologists refer to as confirmation bias, in which people selectively choose to look only at the evidence that supports their preconceived notions. To refer to the small minority of scientists who express doubt, base your opinion only on their doubts, and ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists who believe it is a man-made problem, that's confirmation bias, a common error in cognition.
thediscerningreader 4 years ago
well, i will keep this simple. How many scientists agreed with Galileo? most? few?
forkeat 4 years ago
Most. Just not many who would admit to it.
thediscerningreader 4 years ago
you are certain?
forkeat 4 years ago
Absolutely. However, the era was that of the counter-reformation, and to try and quell any anti-Catholic sentiment, the church cracked down on literature that conflicted with Church doctrine. However, Galileo's books flew off shelves in non-Catholic countries, and even Catholic one's outside of Italy. Everybody recognized the validity of his work, though few would publicly admit they even owned the book.
thediscerningreader 4 years ago
yes, there was a crackdown, free flow of ideas was oppressed. the same is true now. now there is a persecutioon of anyone who disagrees with the global warming that al gore popularized. anyone who disagrees is either deemed uneducated, or politically motivated, or the silliest of all--paid by the oil companies.
thediscrim, can you at least say the debate on human caused global warming is not over?
forkeat 4 years ago
The Heritage Foundation has received a long and steady flow of support from nearly 100 major corporations, including Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mobil, Procter & Gamble, and GlaxoSmithKline. hmmmm. now that IS silly.
everybodysayyeah 4 years ago
its pretty clear that scientists were not in agreement, galileo said that he had few scientists that would agree with him. there were only a few who believed him. your psychologists hypothesis would conclude that there was something wrong with galileo also.
forkeat 4 years ago
Hmm. Read his letters. That's not true. Just few who would publicly agree with him. An interesting book on the subject is "Galileo's Daughter", which despite the name, was really about his problems with the church.
thediscerningreader 4 years ago
yes, but galileo existed in different times where the church saturated and controlled every aspect of life, and galileo's peers would be killed if they supported his ideas. There was no education for the masses as the church deemed it 'dangerous' and the people wallowed in ignorance and isolation. now we've got a different power to overcome with hard scientific evidence and information: the church of fossil fuels.
everybodysayyeah 4 years ago
everybody, you have become somewhat of a stalker. do you need me to feel better about yourself?
forkeat 4 years ago
everybody, oh yes, and there is such a welcoming attitude toward those who question human made global warming today!!!!!
forkeat 4 years ago
I don't know, do the research, were they?
everybodysayyeah 4 years ago
"Human CO2 is beneficial to the earth?"??? Is there a difference between human CO2 and natural CO2 then? Wow, you must be an American ;).
theforce119 4 years ago
The CO2 emitted by every other source on that list is in equilibrium. Equilibrium is a chemistry concept that refers to situations where events occur in opposite directions at equal rates. In other words, those entities give off C02 in huge quantities, but they absorb as much as they give off, so there's no net C02 gain. Digging up and burning fossil fuels gives off CO2 that hasn't been in the atmosphere in millions of years, so it leads to a net gain.
thediscerningreader 4 years ago
The climate system is very fragile. The capacity of the forests decreases and decreases. Because the atmosphere consists only for 0,014% of CO2, even 4,7% extra CO2 will lead to a much bigger percentage of CO2. That's why human life can change the atmosphere so easily. In a short time earth won't have enough capacity to deal with his own system.
theforce119 4 years ago
Remember when it was Nicolaus Copernicus Vs Thousands of scientists?
Scientific consensus is NOT how science is done. IF there are any holes in the foundation of a theory... then IT WILL NOT become scientific fact or a LAW.
particularindividual 4 years ago
There are thousands of Scientists who believe the premise of man made global warming is wrong.
oism(dot)org/pproject/
oism(dot)org/pproject/s33p357
^^details the scientists who signed the petition
over 15,000 total.
particularindividual 4 years ago
So this is Ben Lieberman Vs. Thousands of scientists...
Well Heritage Foundation, thanks. I have been proven wrong. As well as the scientific community at large! Just because Lieberman opened his mouth and said we were wrong! Amazing! I want him to make terrorism go away too now, by saying it's a myth, and also make him make Guantanamo Bay disappear too, 'cause that's also bad PR = (
xand0r 4 years ago
Why is an economic specialist commenting on a scientific subject? Where are his scientific facts? Show me the scientific concensus he is quoting. This is selling out the future of our chiuldren to make a few bucks today! Shame on you Matt Streit!
dihicobra 4 years ago
Oil companies have rights too. Liberals are getting paid off by the solar power industry to lie to Americans! Now THATS unfair competition.
LatteLiberal 4 years ago
Haha, yes. Nothing seems wrong now, so nothing can possibly be going wrong. Is that the type of logic this "consensus" of scientists uses?
jomarris 4 years ago
Check out my video "Global Warming and Other Catastrophes"
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
Global warming isn't the first environmental scam, and it won't be the last.
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
these are the same guys that are afraid of allowing DC a voting member of congress becuase they would elect a democrat.
fgelie 4 years ago
Wheelieguy, you state that GW is politically driven. In fact it has been politically stifled in the US for the past 20 years, and this very video was posted by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. Your argument is unconvincing, as you can't seem to distinguish the difference between climate and weather. Weather is a chaotic dynamic system, and climate is not. You're on the wrong side of this debate.
dantyrant 4 years ago
Climate is affected by weather, but weather is a dynamic shaped by climate as the elements of climate affect weather, hence my argument is very valid. If a volcano erupts over one climate, the weather is driven by that climate to affect all others as well. The GW issue has not been stifled in the U.S. as I hear it on the news and elsewhere everyday. If you want an argument, it's on so stay tuned.
wheelieguy 4 years ago
The research I have done is not based on "pseudo-science" but rather scientific fact presented by renowned climatologists, meteorologists, and experts in tropical storm specialists. Dr. William Gray by himself has 50 years in forecasting hurricanes and tropical cyclones. All of my info I have is based on past weather data over many years, not just a cut and pasted variety used to manipulate public policy. If there is any pseudo-science being used, it is from the GW supporters.
wheelieguy 4 years ago
Dr. Gray is just another hack who gets funding from Exxon. Doing work for the Heartland Instit. and Tech Central, both Exxon funded think tanks. AND Gray shots his big mouth off without ANY actual research to back up his claims.
fightinLIB 4 years ago
The only one shooting off their mouth without facts and not backing up their claim is you. 50 years experience forecasting hurricanes for NOAA, being a professor of climatology at Colorado State, and being considered an expert in this field is hardly being a "hack" as you put it.
wheelieguy 4 years ago
And just how do you justify the GW "scientists" using liberal funds to support GW? The funds are Exxon give are no different. How do you explain the mounting number of meteorologists that do not support GW as a manmade phenomenon?
wheelieguy 4 years ago
And here is a fact that even the most staunch scientist cannot answer: How are they predicting what the weather will be in 10, 20, or even 50 years when a predictable forecast for weather cannot be accurately predicted past 2 weeks? Gimme an answer for that if you are so smart. Where are your credentials that make you an expert? Who's the hack scientist you get your info from, Al Gore? He's hardly an expert in anything.
wheelieguy 4 years ago
Because, weather and climate are too different things. I can tell you it's going to snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains ten years from now, and it will. Gee, I must be a fucking genius.
fightinLIB 4 years ago
Besides, I'm not talking in an area, I talking about regions, continents, hemispheres here. Global weather cannot be predicted more than 10 days out, how can your "experts" predict the weather 10 or 20 years out? You can't even argue with intelligence using curse words, so why bother? Moron.
wheelieguy 4 years ago
And you cannot use the IPCC as a reference as they are clearly biased in their anti-capitalistic research and as Dr. Gray pointed out, their conclusions were written long before the research was finished. GW alamists argument for GW and CO2 as the main cause of GW is unravelling as we speak.
wheelieguy 4 years ago
You obviously don't know how science works. See, if the hack Gray had any real points to make, he'd publish them in a peer reviewed journal. But he doesn't because he has no points. So, like any paid hack, you do the talk show circuit and give your OPINION which means a lot of, "In my opinion...I believe...it could be....I feel that..." Note this collection of safe words.
fightinLIB 4 years ago
You have a lot of gall posting this ignorant statement as all of the posts I have from Dr. Gray here are chocked full of actual research and explanation why GCM's are barely reliable for 10 days, let alone years. He also had charts that I can't post here of his research. Don't tell me he had no actual research. You are a tool of the liberal left and need to find some intellegence b4 making inane arguments.
wheelieguy 4 years ago
I am a liberal but like any self respecting liberal I CAN'T be anyones tool. We're just too independent and want to see the data. You know, like how all us liberals were right about the bullshit war Bush got us into...we told you it was lies, but did you listen?
fightinLIB 4 years ago
Dr. Gray's testamony before the Senate Committee on environment&Public works on the Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making is astounding. Here is part of his opening statement: "Over the last 20 years, I have been dismayed over the bogus science and media-hype associated with the nuclear winter and the human-induced global warming hypotheses. My innate sense of how the atmosphere-ocean functions does not allow me to accept either of these scenarios."
wheelieguy 4 years ago
And more: "The human-induced global warming scenarios have a major flaw in that they accept the view that an increase in the global hydrologic cycle will cause enhanced upper-tropospheric water vapor gain and a suppression of outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) to space. The opposite is true. Global Climate Models (GCMs) are also not able to realistically predict the ocean's deep water circulation which is fundamental to any understanding of global temperature change."
wheelieguy 4 years ago
And more "Although initially generated by honest scientific questions, this topic has long ago advanced into the political arena and taken on a life of its own. It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gains from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject. This includes many governments of western countries, the media, and scientists who were willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research."
wheelieguy 4 years ago
More Dr. Gray: "It is unfortunate that most of the resources for climate research come from the federal government. When a national government takes a political position on a scientific topic, the wise meteorologist or climatologist either joins the crowd or keeps his/her mouth shut. Scientists can be punished if they do not accept the current views of their funding agents. An honest and objective scientific debate cannot be held in such a political environment."
wheelieguy 4 years ago
Dr. Gray cont. "I have closely followed the greenhouse gas warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere functions in over 50 years of study and forecasting, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and likely insignificant amounts of global warming (~ 0.2-0.3 degree C)."
wheelieguy 4 years ago
Dr. Gray cont. "Skillful initial value GCM climate prediction is not possible & probably never will be. This is due to the complex nature of the atmosphere/ocean system & the inability of numerical models to realistically represent this physical complexity. Realistic features currently cannot be forecast more than a week or two into the future."
wheelieguy 4 years ago
Dr Gray cont."Short-range prediction is possible up to a week or 10 days into the future because there tends to be conservatism in the initial momentum fields which can be extrapolated for short periods. But beyond about 1-2 weeks, the multiple unknown & non-linear energy-moisture exchanges within the earth system become dominant. Model results soon decay in chaos. Numerical climate models cannot now & likely never will be able to be accurately forecast more than a few weeks into the future."
wheelieguy 4 years ago
Dr Gray cont."If skillful GCM climate forecasts were possible, we would be eager to follow their predictions. Currently, GCMs do not make seasonal or yearly forecasts. How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can't be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified? They know that they dare not issue shorter forecasts because they are aware that they have little or no skill."
wheelieguy 4 years ago
Dr. Gray cont."The potential for climate modeling mischief and false scares from incorrect climate model scenarios is enormous. Numerical modeling output gives an air of authenticity which is not warranted by the input physics and long periods of integration. How many more climate scares are we to see from climate models which are not able to realistically predict past and future climate changes let alone future decadal or century changes?"
wheelieguy 4 years ago
Dr Gray cont."Many of my older meteorological colleagues are very skeptical of these anthropogenic global warming scenarios. But we are seldom asked for any input. Despite my 50 years of meteorology experience and my many years of involvement in seasonal hurricane and climate prediction, I have never been asked for input on any of the International Panels on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. They know my views and do not wish to have to deal with them."
wheelieguy 4 years ago