chignutsak

Source? Or is that just your opinion?

stratoduck

your source for this statistic?

DYNASTY HVY

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Here you go.


Fred

Kasserine06

You have got to be kidding me! I thought this was a joke until your later posts. First, we did not “evolve from apes” as you think. The fact that you use evolve as a verb proves you don’t understand the subject. These are not the same scientists who came up with evolution. Evolution has been proposed and accepted by the scientific community for over a century. The recent climategate scientists are from the modern era and specialize on the climate, not biology.

This is what I was afraid of. Because these scientists really messed up, now the general public thinks all scientists make up data and conclusions. So now when faced with a scientific conclusion, instead of coming up with alternative evidence to disprove, people will criticize the conclusion without evidence. One of the biggest arguments against evolution is it is too complicated. That is an opinion, and you must support that with evidence, and not evidence proving it’s complex, but evidence proving something that is complex can’t work. If you don’t believe a scientific theory, then get off your couch, and do some scientific research yourself. I am not saying that you have to believe the entire theory, but to say that natural selection has no effect on life or doesn’t exist has no evidence to back it up. And if anyone says, well it’s only a “theory”, please note the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Now back on topic. The only silver lining is the debate on climate change is on again and we may be able to get more conclusive data and accurate depictions on what is happening. But inside that silver lining is the rest of the population outside the scientific community that no longer believes or trusts scientific research and we will enter an embarrassing age of de-lightenment.

To get this thing going, I will start. The moon landings were faked, there are only three dimensions, the universe is filled with aether, you can make gold out of wind and fire, the world is flat, humans used to ride unicorns to escape from dinosaurs, and the sun is powered by ferries and pixies.

stratoduck

fred, have you read the report from James inhofe? Only a handfull of climatologists were listed in his report, and only a fraction of the 700 scientists were listed at all. the references were mostly from right wing organizations, bloggers, and the report itself.

i was unable to locate the list of 700. And nowhere in the report did it list how many climatologists believe that human intervention is warming the planet versus those who don't.

still looking for that statistic of 2/3s of scientists don't believe in global warming.

chignutsak

But the world is flat. I can only see to the edge, so it must be flat. I don't care what you pointy-headed scientists say.

rickair7777

Disclaimer: I don't have a firm opinion either way on global warming due to lack of information.

I have a very close relative who is a well-known professor in a technical field. The general consensus in technical academia is that there is no RELIABLE data to prove global warming. There is a high level of concern that we are going off half-cocked. There several reasons for this...

1. A tremendous amount of politically tainted money is being thrown at this problem. People in the fields who benefit from this windfall don't have much incentive to disprove climate change. If they can't prove it outright, they can at least drag things out to keep the grant money rolling.

2. The technical aspects of this issue are monumentally complex...there are no guarantees that we are even aware of all the major factors yet, much less how they all inter-react. You can make a career out of muddling around in climate science, and many do.

3. There are naturally occurring global climate cycles, even really bad ones (ice age). If things are in fact changing, what role do natural cycles play?

Certain political factions have already formally declared global warming as truth, since it is anathema to everything they hate...oil, military, aviation, industry, population growth, etc. It's basically a cure-all political lever.

Like I said, I think the juries still out. Don't rush to buy into this just yet...follow the money and power trails, and retain a healthy skepticism.

ryan1234

serious question here

How do they determine a 'global average temperature' from 1880, 1900, or 1920?

I've just always wondered that.

alarkyokie

And another take...
The complex psychology of climate denial | COSMOS magazine

Winged Wheeler

past temperatures are calculated from several sources:

--actual records (naval ship logs, weather stations, etc). Obviously, actual records are sparse.

--current temperatures and trends can be extrapolated backwards with some confidence

--temperature proxies like ice cores, tree rings, etc. can give a reasonable estimate of what the temperature may have been

Combining all of these, or what is available, allows scientists to make a statement, with some uncertainty, about temperature conditions in the past.

One of the complaints of the skeptics is that the calculators are very reluctant to share their raw data so that their results might be verified.

WW