The Skeptic Tank

[akgregor]

bullshit

[paidglennbecktroll]

This was very poorly made.

[NotSoOldHippy]

LOL! Stupid Republicans.

"The Skeptic Tank" is actually a real organization, not a bunch of Republican corporate traitors.

[BuBBaGump014]

"One thing you will notice is that most of the scientists here are retired. That means we are free to say what we think is true"

It also means that they are no longer out in the field doing research. And it also means that they are more likely not update on the current data and situations. I don't mean this in any derogatory sense, there is nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but it is just something to keep in mind. Just think about a retired doctor and you will get the sense of my point.

[NotThat3]

Where did you park your hybrid is a pretty funny thing to ask in a global warming skeptics convention.

[AlanTTT3]

Epic fail by the interviewer - he assumes that because they are GW sceptics they must be dumb. But any scientist is going to be smarter than a reporter and, despite some obvious editing, - it's the interviewer who ends looking like a jerk.

[billfred51]

Hybrids are a false economy.

[MilesB1975]

Am I wrong to assume that regardless of whether the warming of our environment that we see is caused by human interference or not, we are still left with the fact that conditions may become untenable for our survival as a species, and that we still need to find a solution despite it being natural or otherwise?

If you get run down by a chevy suburban, does it matter who's fault it was, given that either way you are equally dead?

[ThinDreamer30]

We have made it for at least 100,000 years as a species and it has been much warmer and much colder than this. We, as humans, cannot control ourselves as a species and equally so, we cannot control our market institutions, but somehow the environment is different. Each time we (meaning governments) try to control markets we get unintended consequences and you think trying to regulate the climate will not cause unforeseeable consequences by which will be better than the market regulations.

[Skydancer365]

ThinDreamer30:

"We have made it for at least 100,000 years as a species"?! And it's ok if we just MAKE it?! I suppose if millions and millions of people die as a result, that's just fine and dandy!?

[bangdon12]

Shouldn't we look at other planets in our solar system that are getting warmer as well, Mars polar Ice caps are melting and I know they have less jets and cars then us.

[TRUMPHENT]

No. The weather and climate on other planets have nothing to do with earth. The orbits are different. So are the atospheres, surfaces, and everything else.

Another little and easily ignored fact is that for the last 30 plus years, TSI has varied less than 0.04 per cent.

[Skydancer365]

bandon12:

This is one of the denialist talking points that's complete nonsense. You really should learn which talking points are valid and which ones aren't.

We HAVE looked at other planets (and moons) in our solar system and the causes of possible (note, we don't have sensors on them or satellites around them) warming of other planets/moons is different.

[uboat21]

Don't fool yourself it's all happend before. Just google- climate in the carboniferous... The first on the list .

[Skydancer365]

MilesB1975:

Some scientists are actually starting to talk about ways to clean the CO2 out of the atmosphere because we may have already passed a "tipping point" and it appears that, politically, we're probably not going to be able to do enough to stop it until it gets REALLY bad.

[exconguitar]

@Skydancer365 It'd be great to find out that HAARP is the method in which they use to clean it. Buuuuuut it's owned by our government, so fat chance there.

[gogoeco]

Awsome guys, keep up with the drama...

[lewisner]

I just hope we don't have to wait too long before the Earth gets cooler and we see AGW disciples trying to wriggle out of it.

[N3XUS6]

if the earth gets cooler how will we stop global cooling? OMG We're All fucked!!:0

[pumkinpi2]

The cool clear sound of reason is a comfort to my ears.

[elmoslanz]

we cant even predict the weather a month in advance.if the models are correct instead of predicting the weather in twenty years predict the weather for next year. if the models are correct we could that but there not and we cant.

proof in science is alot harder to atain than many people seem to beleive. just because you can make a powerpoint presentation you still have to test it. But alot of people want to skip that part

[whovian1971]

Clearly you don't understand the difference between weather and climate. Not the same thing at all!

[VlogOfTheMathGuy]

"Have the courage to do nothing." -- LOL! Best quote of the year.

[VlogOfTheMathGuy]

"There's no consensus on how much is occurring."

-- An increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from 280 parts-per-million (PPM) before the industrial revolution to 375 PPM today, accompanied by an increase in average global temperature of about a half a degree Celsius.

[VlogOfTheMathGuy]

"There's no consensus on what's causing it."

-- greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2).

[VlogOfTheMathGuy]

"There's no consensus on whether or not we can predict how much warmer it's going to get."

-- about one degree Celsius for every 200 ppm rise in concentration of CO2 (ignoring other gasses for the moment)

[VlogOfTheMathGuy]

"There's no consensus on what we should do about it."

-- True, but think tanks have been working on lots of different ideas. And if there's no consensus, aren't you GW skeptics partly to blame for this?

[EasyEs]

CO2 effect on atmospheric warming is a logarithmic relationship.

[EasyEs]

Riiight yet about .3 of this over the last 50 years is not measured but NOAA and GISS corrections applied using unreleased software methodology.

[VlogOfTheMathGuy]

So far I've been disappointed by what the global warming skeptics have presented. Al Gore's movie cited a great deal of research, some of which could be found in my university's library and online. But so far the best argument I've heard from the anti-global-warming camp is that out of all the problems humans face, it is not the most urgent one. I'm still waiting to hear a good refutation of the evidence that it truly exists and that humans are causing it.

[elmoslanz]

was the ice age man made? was greenland called green land for a reason? has the earth's climate continually changed? was there three hundred times the co2 in the atmosphere during the dinisour era? was the middle east once an ocean? do certain groups make millions of dollars off global warming? twent years ago did we not think the world was entering an ice age?people want to feel signifigent but the fact of the matter is the world will be here and flourishing long after we are gone.

[Jason310M]

exactly, thanks!

[addfman]

It is amazing to hear that people still believe this mess, its good to see that there are level headed people out there still. I watched the history channel the other day and they were talking about one of the periods in which dinosaurs inhabited the earth and how it was much warmer then than what it is now. I think someone made a mistake to let the secret out without all the hub-bub. Al gore needs to slow down and just take a look at the history channel it would have saved him a lot of time

[quietthomas]

It is easy to talk about how small a percentage of CO2 emissions human kind makes, but who do you think farms the cows. And a 1% increase over a year, may be TONS of CO2 gas. Have you ever seen tons of a gas in solid extraction? Do you know the massive surface area that can take up. 1% increase could be so large!

Remember at all times, even the language of "science" can be deceptive and make things seem askew.

[quietthomas]

Skeptics, even when they all seem to be agreeing - don't define truth. No matter how many you get agreeing, it still does not mean they are correct. This video, is basically an interesting ad populum argument. I believe these people to be full of [too much] doubt, and still, incorrect.

[roibasses]

I was at the conference above... It was refreshing to know there are some people left in the world capable of understanding the scientific method and adhering to it while "Gorites" play follow the leader. Thank you to all that presented marvelous work and continue to preserve science and its endeavor to find the true nature of our world.

[VlogOfTheMathGuy]

And how exactly would you define the "scientific method", Roibasses? Indiscriminate skepticism is almost as bad as indiscriminate faith. Merely questioning the prevailing view is not enough for something to be "science". You have to propose a way to test your hypothesis and provide evidence to back it up. I'm still waiting for the GW skeptics to do this.

[roibasses]

Indeed good Sir, you should head your own advice.

My assertions are not indiscriminate. They are based on data and the analysis thereof. If you have both of these then answer the following? What, according the Vostok data, is the delta T and delta CO2 range for the past 650,000 years? When you have answered me this correctly than we shall proceed to the next

question.

[EricIrl]

If nature absorbs more "carbon" then it emits, the earth should have entered a "carbon" deficit nillions of years ago - causing the end of life on the planet as the necessary CO2 greenhouse effect would have shut down, freezing the planet permanently.

Why do people keep referring to a problem with "carbon"? The gas which is causing the perceived problem is "carbon dioxide" - not carbon itself.

This just indicates the sloppy science and poor understaing of the global warming protaginists.

[jffryfnt]

Perhaps because it (CO2) is a very integral part of the CARBON cycle.

To say that there is a net sink of CO2 in the System IS inaccurate to a certain extent. The System has achieved a balance with respect to CO2 over the millenia, and it has a tendency of absorbing the 'extra' into the oceans, keeping it in 'check'. But right now, we're exceeding that capacity to keep it in 'check'. The oceans are reaching a limit. If you want to increase the carbon sink, plant a tree, grow it, then bury it.

[magnusea]

Why should carbon dioxid be bad but not than carbon? Carbon dioxid is the most important factor for al life on earth. The low carbon dioxide levels we have now isn't good. 180 million years after that the dinosaurs was extinguished it was more than 2000 ppm CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. And no Look at this chart based on a Science report:

biocab[DOT]org/Geological_Time­scale_op_927x695.jpg

[jffryfnt]

Carbon dioxide represents only a slight fraction of all the carbon on Earth; by far most of the carbon is 'locked' up in carbonates. And that is a GOOD thing because otherwise we probably wouldn't exist at all. The Permian and Cretaceous periods certainly had very high CO2 levels, and it was also a much warmer planet as well.

[greyflcn]

How about this chart based on a Science article:

sciencenow. sciencemag. org/ cgi/content/full/2008/312/3

[grooveboy73]

LOL look at this chart based in a science report. Ive made a chart that shows that the moon is made of cheese. Youd probably believe it.

Dont take any notice of what NASA says, what do they know.

WAKE UP

EXPOSE EXXON DOT COM

[magnusea]

No, groveboy73, you've got it wrong. Science with capital 'C' is a world leading scientific magazine. You can see which article it's from on the linked file. This result is in accordance to other research on this specific topic.

Exxon shouted out in capital letters will improve not on many. As educated in physics and science I've not recieved a single cent for my quest for truth on this matter.

[jffryfnt]

So how's your search going?

[magnusea]

My last sentence is about human CO2 emissions. *Fossil* CO2 concentration (measured from the carbon isotopes C13 and C12) never exceeds about 5 percent of the atmospheric CO2. Also the nature each year emits up to 30 times more CO2 than humans do. Facts my friends! ;)

[jffryfnt]

Don't know much about the carbon cycle do you?

[magnusea]

It's mentioned in nuclear chemical books at the universities that fossile carbon dioxide is a very small part of the atmospheric CO2. The carbone cycle is another thing where many meteorologists and climatologists supporting AGW has different (but wrong) views.

NOAA data which proves that Henry's law controls the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (source in the 2nd comment):

wattsupwiththat.wordpress[DOT]­com/2008/01/28/

spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiari­ties-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio

[magnusea]

It's mentioned in nuclear chemical books at the universities that fossile carbon dioxide is a very small part of the atmospheric CO2. The carbone cycle is another thing where many meteorologists and climatologists supporting AGW has different (but wrong) views. NOAA data which proves that Henry's law controls the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (data source, see 2nd comment):

wattsupwiththat.wordpress[DOT]­com/2008/01/28/

spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiari­ties-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio

[jffryfnt]

I highly encourage you to read through the discussion following that article. It might open your eyes a little.

Furthermore, qualifiers such as 'small part of the atmosphere' have no scientific meaning. It is known with a very high degree of certainty that we have contributed 30% of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, up to 390ppm from 280ppm, pre-industrial.

[magnusea]

jffryfnt: "with a very high degree of certainty"

This sentence of yours proves that you are not really in scince or that you are not a good scientist. No fact in natural science is qualified with high degrees of certainties. They are true or wrong.

No comment disproves the facts in that article, and still I see how the Nuclear Chemical book at the University in my city also shows that the fossile CO2 is only a few percent of the atmospheric CO2.

[jffryfnt]

Henry's Law is useful for predicting what the concentration of a gas will be in a liquid given a certain temperature. This works well for gases that are conserved when 'dissolved'. But CO2 dissociates in water to carbonate, bicarbonate, etc. and has much to do with pH. Cold waters indeed absorb CO2, warm waters tend to degas it. But the capacity for ocean waters to absorb CO2 is dependent on factors too complex to describe here. Perhaps a course in geochemistry would be helpful.

[magnusea]

There isn't any proof that that humans cause acid oceans. Also the best scientists in this area say there is no way to prove that the sea are saturated with CO2. (E.g. Leif Andersson, hydrosphere science professor at Gothenurg.)

But all this makes no difference. I repeat (see my sources): The sea and biosphere do annually absorb and emits about 1/4 of the CO2 contents in the atmosphere, and the fossile carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 is well below 10 percent.

Skip personal comments!

[jffryfnt]

oops. I'll try again:

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437, 681-686 (29 September 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04095.

Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change. Science 22 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5832, pp. 1735 - 1738

DOI: 10.1126/science.1136188

Let me know when you've perused these articles.

[magnusea]

I actually do. And you don't?

[jffryfnt]

Okay, if you're so versed in the carbon cycle, then surely you understand that over a few million years the carbon cycle has largely been in equilibrium, and if you think about it in large enough scale, even with respect to ice ages. Right now, clearly there is a perturbation that is not of a natural origin. This will have a tendency of affecting the System to NEW states of equilibrium. But how will the System respond in order to regain equilibrium? That's the experiment we're doing right now!

[greyflcn]

bump

[greyflcn]

re: magnusea

Well lets see.

First off Roy Spencer?

The same Roy Spencer that used to say that the Troposphere was cooling?

_

Second off, there's a guy in the comments section in your link which seems to have bested Spencer on th C13 ratio issue.

ferdinand-engelbeen. be/ klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif

[magnusea]

These scientists got it right! Fred Singer who say the debate is over is an environmentalist scinetist since (at least) the 60th, and I think has produced several hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers and everyone shall read his best seller "Unstoppable Global Warming every 15000 years". A book selling better than Gores "An Inconvenient Truth".

Finally: most chemical professors I've asked say that the CO2 levels can increase at most about 6 percent.

[greyflcn]

So then why is CO2 27% higher now than it's previous 650,000 year all-time-high.

greyfalcon. net/ carbon

And while nature does emit a lot of carbon, what you neglect to include is that it absorbs even more than it emits. That nature is a net carbon sink.

greyfalcon. net/ carbon3