Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

"Scientific Body"? Well, maybe not. But, among the "scientists" themselves, there is quite a bit of discussion as to the degree and significance of that influence. Most would concede there is an additive effect, but many "natural" occurances eclipse man's contribution. Further, there is still great dispute as to causation, and the likely scenarios, of global warming, or cooling. And, to deny the politics is not driving much of the discussion is foolish at best.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

"Scientific Body"? Well, maybe not. But, among the "scientists" themselves, there is quite a bit of discussion as to the degree and significance of that influence. Most would concede there is an additive effect, but many "natural" occurances eclipse man's contribution. Further, there is still great dispute as to causation, and the likely scenarios, of global warming, or cooling. And, to deny the politics is not driving much of the discussion is foolish at best.

There is certainly debate among scientists, that isn't in dispute either.

Yes there is certainly politics involved too. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, for example, had to revise their official position because large numbers of their members threatened to not renew their memberships as the associations position did not reflect their own feelings.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's not true because you say it isn't and put forward no more proof than that. I see.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. Its on those who claim its true, and want to tax everyone for a carbon footprint. Consensus is not good enough, sorry. It wasn't good enough way back when, and it isn't good enough now. Prove it to the people.

The consensus of the scientific community isn't good enough? What would be good enough? Florida under water?

Move to higher ground.

Thanks for the helpful advice.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

you claim that all scientific "associations" have consensus. What I mean is that YOUR idea of consensus isn't good enough. Many meteorologists disagree, whether the ####. itself agrees. Many scientists also disagree. But again, anyone who disagrees you call "not a scientist" so therefore, you can claim 100% of scientists agree.

I claimed it - cause its true.

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

The only holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their position in 2007.

Good job on focusing on one word as opposed to the rest of the post. "claim". Now you're just repeating yourself to make it sound like there is not one scientist who disagrees. Which is a lie.

Joe - the institutions I'm talking about represent tens of thousands of scientists around the world.

And there are 10s of thousands of individual scientists who disagree with it. So, I guess there isn't consensus

Joe, just pulling a number out of your #### for the sake of "Nyah Nyah" doesn't prove any point. Certainly there are scientists who disagree with the theory, that isn't in dispute.

The fact is you don't have the first clue what the big picture is with regard to what you're claiming. The views of the associations in question are tangible (as are their memberships).

Ahh so I don't know the "big picture" and I guess i'm "too dumb" and need to "do my homework" and i'm "whining" again. I have the first clue. Global Warming is about Taxes, and therefore is suspect.

I think we can all agree that emissions need cleaned up, and if inventors and engineers want to come up with alternate forms of energy, thats fine as well (which they are). Cap and Tax is BS as well as GW. You can see the data for yourself that the earth has been cooling over the last 11 years, but no, you need someone else to tell you that its warming and we need to tax everyone.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's not true because you say it isn't and put forward no more proof than that. I see.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. Its on those who claim its true, and want to tax everyone for a carbon footprint. Consensus is not good enough, sorry. It wasn't good enough way back when, and it isn't good enough now. Prove it to the people.

The consensus of the scientific community isn't good enough? What would be good enough? Florida under water?

Move to higher ground.

Thanks for the helpful advice.

Simple solutions are often the best solutions: K.I.S.S.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you claim that all scientific "associations" have consensus. What I mean is that YOUR idea of consensus isn't good enough. Many meteorologists disagree, whether the ####. itself agrees. Many scientists also disagree. But again, anyone who disagrees you call "not a scientist" so therefore, you can claim 100% of scientists agree.

I claimed it - cause its true.

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

The only holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their position in 2007.

Good job on focusing on one word as opposed to the rest of the post. "claim". Now you're just repeating yourself to make it sound like there is not one scientist who disagrees. Which is a lie.

Joe - the institutions I'm talking about represent tens of thousands of scientists around the world.

And there are 10s of thousands of individual scientists who disagree with it. So, I guess there isn't consensus

Joe, just pulling a number out of your #### for the sake of "Nyah Nyah" doesn't prove any point. Certainly there are scientists who disagree with the theory, that isn't in dispute.

The fact is you don't have the first clue what the big picture is with regard to what you're claiming. The views of the associations in question are tangible (as are their memberships).

Ahh so I don't know the "big picture" and I guess i'm "too dumb" and need to "do my homework" and i'm "whining" again. I have the first clue. Global Warming is about Taxes, and therefore is suspect.

I think we can all agree that emissions need cleaned up, and if inventors and engineers want to come up with alternate forms of energy, thats fine as well (which they are). Cap and Tax is BS as well as GW. You can see the data for yourself that the earth has been cooling over the last 11 years, but no, you need someone else to tell you that its warming and we need to tax everyone.

Joe - all I said was that major national and international associations representing 10's of thousands of scientists around the world endorse anthropomorphic climate change (at least the basic theory) - that is a relatively quantifiable fact (The AAPG alone comprises 31,000 members). You can assume there's a degree of political influence there - but given that all of these bodies accept the basic theory, it really ought to say something fairly conclusive about the current state of world scientific opinion on the subject.

Thumbing your nose at that and saying similar numbers reject it - might make you feel more secure in your position, but it isn't based on anything concrete.

I said nothing about cap and tax - that's an entirely separate subject to whether human activities adversely impact climate.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[Tahoma 2,298]

No one said Oil companies are evil, but they do have a specific set of interests that they will safeguard for obvious reasons. How hard is that to understand?

It's not difficult to understand at all. In fact, it's easy to understand. It's difficult for Joseph to "understand" only because he was caught with his pants down, and decided to go into avoidance-mode in the hope that he could change the subject and deflect our attention from reality. Fred Singer realizes which side of his bread is buttered, and Joseph knows it.

It's a good thing that this thread is not about second-hand cigarette smoke. Wouldn't Joseph's avoidance-mode sound even funnier when he replied: "so because Tobacco companies are evil (for some strange reason) - That means that second-hand cigarette smoke being bad for your health is true?"

Fred Singer would be proud.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

you claim that all scientific "associations" have consensus. What I mean is that YOUR idea of consensus isn't good enough. Many meteorologists disagree, whether the ####. itself agrees. Many scientists also disagree. But again, anyone who disagrees you call "not a scientist" so therefore, you can claim 100% of scientists agree.

I claimed it - cause its true.

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

The only holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their position in 2007.

Good job on focusing on one word as opposed to the rest of the post. "claim". Now you're just repeating yourself to make it sound like there is not one scientist who disagrees. Which is a lie.

Joe - the institutions I'm talking about represent tens of thousands of scientists around the world.

And there are 10s of thousands of individual scientists who disagree with it. So, I guess there isn't consensus

Joe, just pulling a number out of your #### for the sake of "Nyah Nyah" doesn't prove any point. Certainly there are scientists who disagree with the theory, that isn't in dispute.

The fact is you don't have the first clue what the big picture is with regard to what you're claiming. The views of the associations in question are tangible (as are their memberships).

Ahh so I don't know the "big picture" and I guess i'm "too dumb" and need to "do my homework" and i'm "whining" again. I have the first clue. Global Warming is about Taxes, and therefore is suspect.

I think we can all agree that emissions need cleaned up, and if inventors and engineers want to come up with alternate forms of energy, thats fine as well (which they are). Cap and Tax is BS as well as GW. You can see the data for yourself that the earth has been cooling over the last 11 years, but no, you need someone else to tell you that its warming and we need to tax everyone.

Joe - all I said was that major national and international associations representing 10's of thousands of scientists around the world endorse anthropomorphic climate change (at least the basic theory) - that is a relatively quantifiable fact (The AAPG alone comprises 31,000 members). You can assume there's a degree of political influence there - but given that all of these bodies accept the basic theory, it really ought to say something fairly conclusive about the current state of world scientific opinion on the subject.

Thumbing your nose at that and saying similar numbers reject it - might make you feel more secure in your position, but it isn't based on anything concrete.

I said nothing about cap and tax - that's an entirely separate subject to whether human activities adversely impact climate.

Well, if the issue is whether the earth warmed at some point pre-1998, then I agree. The data supports it. Cap and Tax Is really not an entirely separate issue. All the propaganda out there is used to support Cap and Tax. Anyone who knows anything about economics (even a small fraction) knows that corporations do not actually pay any taxes, their consumers do. So therefore, cap and tax will be a tax on all but the wealthiest.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If we were using the rationale presented in the OP article - second hand smoke would actually be good for kids

[HAL 9000 96]

Since Joe is spelling out the same 'argument' based on crass scientific ignorance- down to the apparently fraudulent, PNAS-knockoff petition signed by '30K scientists', much in the same way GaryC did so months ago- a clear and lucid explanation of the differences between valid scientific procedure, knowledge, and ethically relevant peer-reviewed methodology were provided.

Several OT searches should help clarify, for those in need of clarification as to the differences between weather (what he's whining about) and climate (what he's making ignorant statements about), as well as the science behind the molecular interactions that may or may not be causative in this entire debate.

For those of you sick and tired of the same ignorant crying, that cannot remember those science classes provided here free of charge, now would be a good time to search these threads.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

No one said Oil companies are evil, but they do have a specific set of interests that they will safeguard for obvious reasons. How hard is that to understand?

It's not difficult to understand at all. In fact, it's easy to understand. It's difficult for Joseph to "understand" only because he was caught with his pants down, and decided to go into avoidance-mode in the hope that he could change the subject and deflect our attention from reality. Fred Singer realizes which side of his bread is buttered, and Joseph knows it.

It's a good thing that this thread is not about second-hand cigarette smoke. Wouldn't Joseph's avoidance-mode sound even funnier when he replied: "so because Tobacco companies are evil (for some strange reason) - That means that second-hand cigarette smoke being bad for your health is true?"

Fred Singer would be proud.

Really a wacko post. It speaks for itself.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Since Joe is spelling out the same 'argument' based on crass scientific ignorance- down to the apparently fraudulent, PNAS-knockoff petition signed by '30K scientists', much in the same way GaryC did so months ago- a clear and lucid explanation of the differences between valid scientific procedure, knowledge, and ethically relevant peer-reviewed methodology were provided.

Several OT searches should help clarify, for those in need of clarification as to the differences between weather (what he's whining about) and climate (what he's making ignorant statements about), as well as the science behind the molecular interactions that may or may not be causative in this entire debate.

For those of you sick and tired of the same ignorant crying, that cannot remember those science classes provided here free of charge, now would be a good time to search these threads.

Your response to everything is "you don't understand".. You just have a problem with people not accepting the liberal religion of GW without any proof to back it up.

Saying, "you don't understand the molecular reasons" is BS. There hasn't been warming for 11 years, and yet emissions have increased.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And the oceans are acidifying (totally not because of increased CO2 concentrations).

[Tahoma 2,298]

If we were using the rationale presented in the OP article - second hand smoke would actually be good for kids

One of my favorites: "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" (Ronald Reagan, 1981).

[Joseph & Ana 0]

And the oceans are acidifying (totally not because of increased CO2 concentrations).

Ok, show me the data - and I never said anything that we shouldn't cut emissions

Just not in the name of GW, and not with Cap and Tax, which wouldn't help the environment.