Sceptics winning the climate change battle

[dogtowner]

so sayeth the godfather of the warmer set

Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming, the world's most celebrated important [FONT=inherit ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]scientist[/FONT][/FONT] James Hansen of NASA, said in London yesterday.
It is happening even though climate science itself is becoming ever clearer in showing that the earth is in increasing danger from rising temperatures, said Dr Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and is widely thought of as "the father of global warming" – his dramatic alert about [FONT=inherit ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]climate [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]change[/FONT][/FONT] in US Senate hearings in July 1988 put the issue on the world agenda.

Yes it is, his own agency NASA recently demonstrated that the effect CO2 has is vastly overstated.

 

[Stalin]

There is no battle.

"..Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.[3][4][5][6]. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. [7][A]...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

How do you account for the rise in carbon dioxide, water and methane in the atmosphere which is undisputed ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Do you dispute the nature of the greenhouse effect ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Climate change is a hypothesis, not a law or theory.

What is the alternative hypothesis ?

There isn't one.

There is no battle.

There is however a determined effort by contrarians and those in the service of energy companies who feel threatened to present a false controversy.

Comrade Stalin, Scientist.

 

[dogtowner]

There is no battle.

"..Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.[3][4][5][6]. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. [7][A]...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

How do you account for the rise in carbon dioxide, water and methane in the atmosphere which is undisputed ?

Yes levels of these three is up as it has been in the past and will be in the future. Its a natural cycle thats been occurring forever. The reccurrance is also demonstrated by the data,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Do you dispute the nature of the greenhouse effect ?

No but NASA had just demonstated that the effect has been grossly overstated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Climate change is a hypothesis, not a law or theory.

What is the alternative hypothesis ?

Man made caused climate change is the question, even CERN is discovering that there is another scenario that does accommodate that this cycle recurrs regularly over time.

There isn't one.

There is no battle.

There is however a determined effort by contrarians and those in the service of energy companies who feel threatened to present a false controversy.

Comrade Stalin, Scientist.

Sure if you say.

 

[Openmind]

There is no battle.

"..Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.[3][4][5][6]. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. [7][A]...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

How do you account for the rise in carbon dioxide, water and methane in the atmosphere which is undisputed ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Do you dispute the nature of the greenhouse effect ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Climate change is a hypothesis, not a law or theory.

What is the alternative hypothesis ?

There isn't one.

There is no battle.

There is however a determined effort by contrarians and those in the service of energy companies who feel threatened to present a false controversy.

Comrade Stalin, Scientist.

So nice to read some factual information!

 

[Pandora]

Yes levels of these three is up as it has been in the past and will be in the future. Its a natural cycle thats been occurring forever. The reccurrance is also demonstrated by the data,



No but NASA had just demonstated that the effect has been grossly overstated.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect"]

Man made caused climate change is the question, even CERN is discovering that there is another scenario that does accommodate that this cycle recurrs regularly over time.



Sure if you say.

For some, human caused global warming is a religion. No matter how much proof you give them or how many facts you have, in the end all that matters is their religion.

 

[dogtowner]

For some, human caused global warming is a religion. No matter how much proof you give them or how many facts you have, in the end all that matters is their religion.

I find it interesting that they claim an allegence to "science" but as the actual science is sho9wn to be incorrect and new data is produced, they abandon science claiming that its settled. Totally in conflict with what science really is.

 

[Pandora]

I find it interesting that they claim an allegence to "science" but as the actual science is sho9wn to be incorrect and new data is produced, they abandon science claiming that its settled. Totally in conflict with what science really is.

I don't think they really have an allegence to science as much as they have an allegence to what ever validates their belief system. If science can, then great. If it can't, then oh well they are not changing their belief system.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't think they really have an allegence to science as much as they have an allegence to what ever validates their belief system. If science can, then great. If it can't, then oh well they are not changing their belief system.

Can't argue with that.

 

[PLC1]

so sayeth the godfather of the warmer set


Yes it is, his own agency NASA recently demonstrated that the effect CO2 has is vastly overstated.

If we could reverse global warming by disbelieving it, then we'd be in for an ice age.

What people choose to believe or not believe alters reality not in the least.

 

[dogtowner]

If we could reverse global warming by disbelieving it, then we'd be in for an ice age.

What people choose to believe or not believe alters reality not in the least.

And we beieved that increased CO2 HAD to increase the warming effect we would have experienced increasing temps (on average worldwide) over the last ten years. But we didn't.

The science is clearly not settled. The degree of which is unknown. Belief when fact shows otherwise isn't so great either.

Oh and I seem to recall that the degree or so that it went up in the back half or so of the 20eth century has been reversed over the last 10-12 years.

 

[PLC1]

And we beieved that increased CO2 HAD to increase the warming effect we would have experienced increasing temps (on average worldwide) over the last ten years. But we didn't.

The science is clearly not settled. The degree of which is unknown. Belief when fact shows otherwise isn't so great either.

Oh and I seem to recall that the degree or so that it went up in the back half or so of the 20eth century has been reversed over the last 10-12 years.

So, you believe that warming has been reversed over the past decade?

Maybe belief can reverse global warming after all.

Or maybe you don't have the facts exactly right.


Whichever could it be?

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.