Consensus! *Hundreds* of Internationally Acclaimed Climatologists Agree: Mankind Is Causing Global Warming

yeah.. but you posted this in the wrong thread,, you should have posted it in the thread where the radio annoucer disproved global warming all on his own, using highschool science..
and brilliant things like, it was warmer in the past with no cars.. lol is that even a study??

Junk Science: (n) Science that doesn't agree with my preconceived notions. Generally a sign that the user has no argument and wishes to descend to the level of insults. cf. "Liberal" or "Neocon" in politics.

So I don't believe in "global warming" because I want to help Exxon make money? Why would I want to do that exactly? It's not like I own any shares.

Maybe I don't believe it because it fits the bill of past scientific theories that eventually proved to be a load of crap (COMING ICE AGE!!, El Nino will kill us all!!, 19 named hurricanes in 2006!...etc).

Would the fact that humankind is introducing huge and steady quantities of known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere mean anything more to you than just another load of crap?

No more than the past theory that the hole in the ozone layer was going to scour the planet of life.

Are you sure you just don't like the possible consequences of having to deal with the global warming problem?

I don't even consider it a problem, so whatever "consequences" you think there might be are moot to me.

how many times do they have to be wrong for you to be skeptical of their "unassailable" theories?

how many times do they have to be wrong for you to be skeptical of their "unassailable" theories?

You listen to 'they' too much - they're often wrong. The science behind the explanation of global warming is very strong, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

So everyone that doesn't believe in "global warming" is in the pocket of "Big Oil"? How amazingly conveinent for you to be able to lump all the skeptics into one camp! I hope you have verfiable proof that every single global warming skeptic is on the take from oil men. please show it, I mean every one, as per your claim, not a random guy here or there...every one. please, I'll wait.

Hegemonic, humankind has been _introducing— huge, steady, and increasing quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas. Earth's atmosphere is a dynamic system, and when you add even a relatively small amount of energy into a dynamic system, it can produce big results. What is the big mystery?

Ah since you dropped it I take that to mean your last statement, about every single skeptic being a oil shill was either amazing hyperbole or an outright lie. I can guess which one.

How many times do your unassailable climate scientists have to be wrong before you start being a little skeptical of them? They've blown their credibility over the last 20-30 years...but now they FINALLY got it right, it wasn't Global Cooling as they advocated for decades, it's instead Global Warming! Their position is the complete opposite of what they've advocated in the past and we supposed to just swallow and say "Ok guys, here's your grant money, save us poor humans!!!". puh-lease. They have no credibility to me.

haha.. faith, anyone?

there's little point in arguing with someone who's made up their mind. maybe they'll change their minds when their houses are underwater..

No more than the past theory that the hole in the ozone layer was going to scour the planet of life.

So that problem just went away by itself right?

Sure, there were dire warnings about the consequences of not doing anything, but these prompted people to action, laws were passed to reduce reliance on CFC's and as a result the problem is being addressed - by listening to the evidence not ignoring it.

Also, the alternatives now used are cheaper to produce and better than the CFC's they replace, resulting in better business for those who produce products that used to rely on them.

The same will be true of global warming, the argument here and in a concurrent thread that somehow climate change science is anti-capitalim only indicates a lack of imagination on behalf of the lazy capitalists who promote this view - more enlightened capitalists are going to clean up at their expense. This is not a capitalist vs. anti-capitalist issue from the business standpoint, it's an innovation vs. stagnation issue.

maybe they'll change their minds when their houses are underwater..

Nah, they'll just move the goalposts again. Already they've moved from "It's not happening" to "ok, it's happening but it's not human caused" the trend I've seen developing recently as this argument gets taken to pieces is a shift towards"ok, it's human caused, but it's them dirty Chinese wot dun it, not us".

The Chinese ARE a huge problem-- but this does not absolve anyone else of responsibility. We only have ONE PLANET to live on. The Chinese govt has been MORE receptive to climate science than ours-- but they suffer from the problems associated with being a rapidly developing nation.

Interestingly, the "backward" Chinese have much tighter CAFE goals than we do. I find that downright humiliating, as an American. It shows how in-the-pocket of Auto lobbyists our sorry Congress has been (and on both sides of the aisle-- Dems are too friendly to Detroit, too.)

"maybe they'll change their minds when their houses are underwater.."

2005 was a super-hot year for Miami condos. I think you'd have nuts to buy land on hurricane-land, but that's just me.....thw whole state isn't more than a few feet above sea level.

The Chinese ARE a huge problem-- but this does not absolve anyone else of responsibility.

Precicely my point - I have seen in numerous recent threads comments along the lines of - "ah, but with China opening 1 new Coal fired station every 5 days what's the point of doing anything" It's an infuriating attitude.

Getting back to the original point of my comment :-) (which was to sidestep the whole is it true or isn't it debate), I don't buy that this is all about Exxon spending money. Hegemonic seems to be much more in the camp of #2 and perhaps #1 from my original comment. His constant statements about "climate scientists" be "wrong" before points strongly to #2 if you ask me.

That whole Pascal's Wager thing is precisely the kind of thing I meant about painting somebody into a corner. Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent point but it doesn't get to a consensus it just further polarizes.

Kudos wookie for pointing out that the Ozone issue is basically the same issue and that action was key in that case. Bonus points for pointing out that the CFC replacements (ironically, CO2 is one of them) led to important innovations. I suspect the anti-global warming people will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your point but I think you are dead on.

Entrenched businesses have no economic incentive to adopt or promote disruptive technologies. Thus Microsoft isn't looking to Open Source, IBM didn't promote the PC, and Exxon has no interest whatsoever in alternative energy. Yes, there could be significant profits in any of those endeavors, but the playing field will be far more level than it is in the market they now dominate, and it is quite possible they will fail.

Furthermore, as the Holy Jack Welch, Peace Be Upon Him, hath spoken, the true measure of a publicly traded corporation's performance is the quarterly earnings report. Anything that focuses on the longer term is simply wasting your investors' money. Thus taking a hit for several quarters now while profits are fat will simply get the CEO sent packing, even though a time of record profits is precisely the best time to take risks.

Despite their lionization, most of our CEOs seem to be small, scared little men, not the bold captains of industry that the Randians and other anarcho-libertarians wish to portray them as. Their vision is small and self-centered. If Morgan or Rockefeller (for all of their faults) were alive today, they would eat these effete business school toadies alive.

In this respect, it probably should come as no surprise that the small, scared little man in the White House is a Harvard MBA.

'In this respect, it probably should come as no surprise that the small, scared little man in the White House is a Harvard MBA.'

Amazing how big bucks can get you those "social promotions" every time.

I'm ashamed to admit that one interesting bit of irony completely slipped by me in all these exchanges. Hegemonic condemns the climate change scientists because at one point they thought that the earth was cooling and now they are claiming it is warming.

Hegemonic is completely correct that this sort of thing happens all the time in science. This is because scientists reckless regard new data as being significant and allow that to taint their judgements. As a result, they frequently change their minds in the face of evidence which undermines old theories and supports new ones. Clearly, Hegemonic and most of the climate change doubters do not subscribe to this "progressive" school of thought. For example, considerable "progress" has been made in the area of treating disease. I suppose there are many who still prefer the "tried and true" treatments like leaches and blood letting but their numbers are dwindling for some reason.

The bottom line is that is never really "right". In fact, you should be cautious of any scientist who claims he is right. Most credible scientists (if you actually read what they say) will use words like "our theory is strongly supported by the data" or "according to our best understanding of the available data". While never "right" the predictions of science get better over time as a general rule. If you chose to bet against it you can do that but I don't see any rational basis for doing so and many catastrophes have befallen civilization while people sat around demanding a perfectly correct way of avoiding them.

Even more so that they have many religious folks preaching it as dogma.

The extreme narrowness of view typical of fervent capitalists and christian fundamentalists, together with their exploitive and evangelical character will certainly make this little planet uninhabitable if they aren't brought under control soon.

The belief that some angry god controls human events from a kind of celestial boardroom has prepared us for being used by a ruling class of capitalists who use the people and the planet to serve their ends. We're conditioned to believe that whatever these maniacally selfish capitalists do to create profit for themselves will be good for everyone.

It's beyond belief that we tolerate the greedheads' use of our environment as a sewer, and listen obediently while the media "balances" climate science reports with reactionary claims of the "right" of profit-grubbing parasites to foul our world until we prove we're being harmed.

Whatever... I wouldn't trust either of them, they both dumb @!$%#heads

Whatever... I wouldn't trust either of them, they both dumb @!$%#heads

He casts... A BITE!

Wow... fishing for folks who are incapable of comprehending the concepts of sarcasm and satire around here is about as much of a challenge as, say, falling down.

RobieB you need to do a little reading. It's the skeptics that have been torn apart. The science has been done, redone, reviewed and re-reviewed by a LOT of scientists. If it's not happening it's the biggest conspiracy ever.