Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

[Ovedya]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Global Ice Sheets are falling and it's the Hobbits fault.

Peace,

Dave

[georgesbluegirl]

Ethical scientists conduct research, and publish their findings in journals of science where their peers review their findings. That is modern science works. Unethical scientists get on the payroll of one industry or special interest group or another, don't conduct any research, don

[TheoMike]

But, you pay attention to the paid hacks over at the UN?? Who are politically motivated? What is wrong with being paid? Truth is truth, wherever it comes from.

Your debating is somewhat circular. And if I may observe, typically liberal. You attack the person and not his facts. It is difficult if not impossible to discuss anything when you do that.

I have presented the scientific basis for Anthropogenic Global Warming on here at least a dozen times and have tried to address every scientific question on the issue to the best of my knowledge.

As it is , I think you are misinformed. The scientists working in the IPCC do not work for the U.N. The IPCC review scientists are 2500 of the world top scientists that represent every industrialized nation on earth. No industrialized nation has anything to gain from carbon emission caps, thus the IPCC assessments have been notoriously conservative assessments of the current science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Ethical scientists are not paid to promote an agenda like some lobbyists. That is what is wrong with being paid to author articles in support of an industry or lobbying organizations position. For example, it was unethical for scientists working for the tobacco industry to claim that there was no evidence that cigarettes were bad for your health. If those scientists actually had issues with the studies that showed a link between tobacco use and cancer, they should have taken the ethical route that every other scientist took and submit their findings to a medical or scientific journal for peer review.

Similarly, it is unethical for a handful of scientists working being paid by the Fossil Fuels industry to claim that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming, and then to receive compensation for making those specific claims. If those scientists have an issue with the studies and multiple lines of empirical evidence behind Anthropogenic Global Warming, then they submit their finds to a scientific journal for peer review. That is not what they are doing though. Instead, they choose to be paid propagandists for the Fossil Fuels industry.

Otherwise, it is one thing to receive a research grant from Exxon Mobile or AEI to research the science behind this issue and then to publish their findings. However, Exxon and AEI are not providing research grants, they are paying for propaganda, and scientists who engage in such tactics are unethical.

Every time you post you prove my point!

[Ovedya]

Forrest,

You keep claiming that there are only a "handful" of scientists who are against Climate Change (It's not "Global Warming" anymore, BTW) that are basically shills for the "Big Oil." Yet recently I have heard that there is a scientist that basically wrote the book on Climate Change claiming that there's a lot of hype about the issue, and that it's not as big as everyone claims it is.

Is it your position that every scientist who questions the dominant paradigm of "human-effective global warming" is in the pocket of some big oil company? I thought sience was all about asking questions and challenging positions in order to come to the root truth?

[nebula]

Secondly, most scientists are apolitical they could less about politics either way except for when politicians try to influence or restrict science.

Are you sure?

Yes I am.

How do you know? Have you hung out with scientists and research facilities?

[forrestkc]

Forrest,

You keep claiming that there are only a "handful" of scientists who are against Climate Change (It's not "Global Warming" anymore, BTW) that are basically shills for the "Big Oil." Yet recently I have heard that there is a scientist that basically wrote the book on Climate Change claiming that there's a lot of hype about the issue, and that it's not as big as everyone claims it is.

Is it your position that every scientist who questions the dominant paradigm of "human-effective global warming" is in the pocket of some big oil company? I thought sience was all about asking questions and challenging positions in order to come to the root truth?

No, actually there is one that I know of that is not, that would be Richard Lindzen.

Science is all about questions. Ethical scientists conduct the research and publish their findings in peer reviewed journals, they do not simply get paid to write OP/Eds.

[forrestkc]

But, you pay attention to the paid hacks over at the UN?? Who are politically motivated? What is wrong with being paid? Truth is truth, wherever it comes from.

Your debating is somewhat circular. And if I may observe, typically liberal. You attack the person and not his facts. It is difficult if not impossible to discuss anything when you do that.

I have presented the scientific basis for Anthropogenic Global Warming on here at least a dozen times and have tried to address every scientific question on the issue to the best of my knowledge.

As it is , I think you are misinformed. The scientists working in the IPCC do not work for the U.N. The IPCC review scientists are 2500 of the world top scientists that represent every industrialized nation on earth. No industrialized nation has anything to gain from carbon emission caps, thus the IPCC assessments have been notoriously conservative assessments of the current science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Ethical scientists are not paid to promote an agenda like some lobbyists. That is what is wrong with being paid to author articles in support of an industry or lobbying organizations position. For example, it was unethical for scientists working for the tobacco industry to claim that there was no evidence that cigarettes were bad for your health. If those scientists actually had issues with the studies that showed a link between tobacco use and cancer, they should have taken the ethical route that every other scientist took and submit their findings to a medical or scientific journal for peer review.

Similarly, it is unethical for a handful of scientists working being paid by the Fossil Fuels industry to claim that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming, and then to receive compensation for making those specific claims. If those scientists have an issue with the studies and multiple lines of empirical evidence behind Anthropogenic Global Warming, then they submit their finds to a scientific journal for peer review. That is not what they are doing though. Instead, they choose to be paid propagandists for the Fossil Fuels industry.

Otherwise, it is one thing to receive a research grant from Exxon Mobile or AEI to research the science behind this issue and then to publish their findings. However, Exxon and AEI are not providing research grants, they are paying for propaganda, and scientists who engage in such tactics are unethical.

Every time you post you prove my point!

If you would like to discuss the science behind this issue, I would be happy to do so. I think you will find that the scientific case for Anthropogenic Global Warming is so strong that virtually anyone who looks at it would be convinced by it.

[forrestkc]

I went back and reread this guys article, he makes the following statement:

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

That alone shows him to be a liar. The IPCC releases its forth assessment on the scientific case for climate change this friday. In that assessment it states:

Mahlman, who crafted the IPCC language used to define levels of scientific certainty, says the new report will lay the blame at the feet of fossil fuels with "virtual certainty," meaning 99% sure. That's a significant jump from "likely," or 66% sure, in the group's last report in 2001, Mahlman says. His role in this year's effort involved spending two months reviewing the more than 1,600 pages of research that went into the new assessment.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/gl...cc-report_x.htm

[forrestkc]

Secondly, most scientists are apolitical they could less about politics either way except for when politicians try to influence or restrict science.

Are you sure?

Yes I am.

How do you know? Have you hung out with scientists and research facilities?

How many scientists have you ever know to run for any form of public office?