Most scientists agree global warming ...

Most scientists agree global warming occurs, human involvement

There are 24 comments on the The HUB - Norman Campus Articles story from Mar 10, 2008, titled Most scientists agree global warming occurs, human involvement. In it, The HUB - Norman Campus Articles reports that:

Most scientists agree global warming occurs, human involvement Global warming has been occurring, will continue to occur and eventually will impact Oklahoma.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The HUB - Norman Campus Articles.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#1 Mar 13, 2008
Well, of course!
engineer

Denver, CO

#2 Mar 13, 2008
Yes, of course, when a study is initiated to find a certain answer.

Since: Jan 08

Bangkok, Thailand

#3 Mar 14, 2008
ahh, the old consensus used to avoid debate?
Bill

Harrisburg, PA

#4 Jun 4, 2008
"Most scientists agree..." BALONEY. Prove it.
ginin

Petrópolis, Brazil

#5 Jun 4, 2008
Bill wrote:
"Most scientists agree..." BALONEY. Prove it.
Easy

How many peer-reviewed studies disprove anthropogenic global warming? 100? 10? 1? How about ZERO?
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#6 Jun 4, 2008
ginin wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy
How many peer-reviewed studies disprove anthropogenic global warming? 100? 10? 1? How about ZERO?
Prove it. Like I thought just the AGW crisis peddler imagination running wild. What a dope.

"How about ZERO" What a dope!

"Global Warming Today: Peer Review Says Man Not At Fault
I hope these four climate scientists understand what they are in for. The climahysterics will assail them, calling them all sorts of bad names, demanding that their accredidations be pulled, and that they be terminated from their teaching positions (Canada Free Press and Science & Environment Policy Project)

An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said:“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

I am going to have to get a copy of the Journal to read the whole thing.

You wanted climatologists to comment on anthropogenic climate change, and there you have them. Peer reviewed."
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2007/12/11/globa...
ginin

Petrópolis, Brazil

#8 Jun 5, 2008
The conclusion “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming." is NOT in the paper. He says it because that is his personal belief, not because the analysis concludes it. Again, it is NOT in the paper, and you got fooled.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#9 Jun 5, 2008
ginin wrote:
The conclusion “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming." is NOT in the paper. He says it because that is his personal belief, not because the analysis concludes it. Again, it is NOT in the paper, and you got fooled.
Let me correct you. You seem to have inserted the words "The conclusion" after you removed the words "Lead author David Douglass said:"

It would seem to me that the AGW crisis peddlers are just going about business as usual. Make something say what they want it to say.

What it really said was:

Lead author David Douglass said:“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Since: Mar 07

Petrópolis, Brazil

#10 Jun 5, 2008
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me correct you. You seem to have inserted the words "The conclusion" after you removed the words "Lead author David Douglass said:"
It would seem to me that the AGW crisis peddlers are just going about business as usual. Make something say what they want it to say.
What it really said was:
Lead author David Douglass said:“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
You corrected nothing. Douglass said:
"...The inescapable conclusion is..." and I tell you again: That conclusion is NOT in the paper.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#11 Jun 5, 2008
ginin wrote:
<quoted text>
You corrected nothing. Douglass said:
"...The inescapable conclusion is..." and I tell you again: That conclusion is NOT in the paper.
Produce the paper or shut up.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#12 Jun 5, 2008
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Produce the paper or shut up.
http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf

Now find ANYTHING in this paper that matches the bullshit claims posted for it!!

There is NOTHING in it that says GW theory is wrong. It does question future warming forecasts but that is a feeble debate at best and does not even give 'firm support' but merely suggests more study.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#13 Jun 5, 2008
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf
Now find ANYTHING in this paper that matches the bullshit claims posted for it!!
There is NOTHING in it that says GW theory is wrong. It does question future warming forecasts but that is a feeble debate at best and does not even give 'firm support' but merely suggests more study.
The simple minded AGW crisis peddlers may find it hard to actually read for understanding. Others however do not require sentences such as what follows.
"Greenhouse models spun by AGW crisis peddlers spitting out dire doom predictions do not match the observations. Thus the models, predictions and GW theory are wrong."
That conclusion can be deduced from the following quote:
5. Summary
We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this Proposition….
The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modeling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.

Apparently the AGW crisis peddlers live by the creed 'Fake it till you make it"

They just run their mouth proclaiming what ever they want to believe figuring if they keep saying it, then it will eventually come to pass. Fake it till you make it.
"Now find ANYTHING in this paper that matches the bullshit claims posted for it!! There is NOTHING in it that says GW theory is wrong."
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#15 Jun 5, 2008
Ps (“The paper” or article presenting the quotes of people talking, is not “the paper” written by those doing the talking - clarification for those easily confused like ginin)

Lead author David Douglass said:“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said:“Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said:“The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless.– but very costly.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/...
Bill

Canada

#16 Jun 5, 2008
A lesson in how to conduct a disinformation campaign:
They wrote a paper in which they discussed inconsistencies in data. Their summary statement expressed caution regarding computer climate simulations but did not question the reality of climate change, or the reality of greenhouse gases as the cause. Any junk science that wouldn't get past the International Journal of Climatology's review panel was saved for their personal comments. That's the only way they could get published in a peer reviewed journal and give people the false impression that their claims are taken seriously enough to be published by that particular journal.

Their published work doesn't deny anthopogenic global warming. They do say "... future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high". Hardly radical stuff. Their personal comments deny agw altogether. Evidently, the published article was simply a means to a less than honest end. They want to publish garbage science in (non reviewed) articles and imply that their ideas have been peer reviewed. Equally important and equally misleading, other denialist writers can use this innocuous peer reviewed article as an authoritative reference.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#17 Jun 6, 2008
Bill wrote:
A lesson in how to conduct a disinformation campaign:
They wrote a paper in which they discussed inconsistencies in data. Their summary statement expressed caution regarding computer climate simulations but did not question the reality of climate change, or the reality of greenhouse gases as the cause. Any junk science that wouldn't get past the International Journal of Climatology's review panel was saved for their personal comments. That's the only way they could get published in a peer reviewed journal and give people the false impression that their claims are taken seriously enough to be published by that particular journal.
Their published work doesn't deny anthopogenic global warming. They do say "... future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high". Hardly radical stuff. Their personal comments deny agw altogether. Evidently, the published article was simply a means to a less than honest end. They want to publish garbage science in (non reviewed) articles and imply that their ideas have been peer reviewed. Equally important and equally misleading, other denialist writers can use this innocuous peer reviewed article as an authoritative reference.
Thus proclaims"
Bill Nanaimo, Canada. Curiously never citing the world wide "overwhelming consensus" by name.

Declaring the rejection of:(as if we didn't already know - the refuted, debunked and discrediteed)

David H. Douglass, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY

Benjamin D. Pearsona, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY

John R. Christy, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL

Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, VA, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

I sure am glad that Bill Nanaimo, Canada has set the record straight for us.
We sure would not want to be mislead by actual scientists with real names and verifiable examinable credentials.
Gee who would ever believe people who’s life’s work actually give weight to what they say.
Much better to believe Bill Nanaimo, Canada, politicians, media talking heads, movie stars and Al Gore - con man.
Doubting

United States

#18 Jun 30, 2008
1. Where are the names of these scientists who claim that global warming is real? Do they really stake their reputation in writing?
Doubting

United States

#19 Jun 30, 2008
Global Warming is definitely not a "scientific fact." A "scientific fact" is established by adherence to the "scientific method."

1. Observe a phenomena
2. Develop a hypothesis to explain the phenomena
3. Create an experiment whose outcome verifies the hypothesis
4. Repeat the experiment showing the same outcome numerous times
5. Once the experiment shows the same outcome numerous times, a scientific fact can be established.

What experiment has been repeated time and again to yield that global warming is a fact?

The answer is that Global Warming is absolutely NOT a scientific fact. Read your grammar school science books and they will bear this out. Unless someone has already burnt them.
Mini Bang

Phoenix, AZ

#20 Jun 30, 2008
Doubting wrote:
Global Warming is definitely not a "scientific fact." A "scientific fact" is established by adherence to the "scientific method."
1. Observe a phenomena
2. Develop a hypothesis to explain the phenomena
3. Create an experiment whose outcome verifies the hypothesis
4. Repeat the experiment showing the same outcome numerous times
5. Once the experiment shows the same outcome numerous times, a scientific fact can be established.
What experiment has been repeated time and again to yield that global warming is a fact?
The answer is that Global Warming is absolutely NOT a scientific fact. Read your grammar school science books and they will bear this out. Unless someone has already burnt them.
Hucare ? BA and BS ?

;-)))))))))
Mini Bang

Phoenix, AZ

#21 Jun 30, 2008
Bill wrote:
"Most scientists agree..." BALONEY. Prove it.
good ? prove it ? be proud more than prove ??

hucare right ?? only fews degree ? glaciers ? huge ice ?

;-))))))))) U wanna warm or cold or hot ??

i guessing U wanna warm ? so it's good 2 be warm!
Mini Bang

Phoenix, AZ

#22 Jun 30, 2008
Doubting wrote:
1. Where are the names of these scientists who claim that global warming is real? Do they really stake their reputation in writing?
GA ? U R wher U stand ? ;-))) gulf mexico warm h2o + north jet stream ? wow U have fun more 2 come each yrs ??

;-))))))))) check on Nasa data base ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Geology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mammoth Lakes area hit by swarm of hundreds of ... Dec 9 Sad but True 8
Black Rock Cubes - (Indian Money?) (Nov '10) Nov 22 USS LIBERTY 6
News Category 5 hurricanes hammered Florida 12,000 y... Oct '17 Cuban Coffee 1
News NC officials seek comment on fracking rules (Aug '14) Sep '17 Stickney 3
News No, the 'big one' didn't hit California Wednesday Aug '17 shakyknees 8
News Top 6 BOGUS "science-based-medicine" claims fou... Aug '17 VACCINES MAIM KILL 2
News Images show devastating aftermath of powerful e... Jul '17 History 1
More from around the web