Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

**Epidemic** · December 28th, 2007, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by TOAD6147

Query: If 9 out of 10 reputable, widely read, and referenced scientists said a tsunami was headed your way and disaster was imminent, what would you do? If you had no other way of verifying it for yourself, would you go to higher ground or "stay the course" because the other 10% with questionable credentials said it's not verifiable since it cannot be seen coming over the horizon?

Reading seismic data and identifying location off the coast is far different then the science of GW.

I am not not sure that your 9 out of 10 reputable scientist thing is exactly fair. and even if it were then one would need to know why the 10th scientist who was reputable did not believe it was real. Sometimes the outstanding scientist is the one who is the one without the bias who sees something the rest are still failing to recognize.

Iif a scientist comes at his project with a goal in mind or a bias then it will take him some time to really reach the truth. I see evidence that is very hard to dispute that the scientists are not addressing. As such I will remain skeptial until my findings (which actually lean away from AGW) are answered.

PS my findings as seen in the ice core data relegate co2 to a effect of GW rather than a cause.

More recently I think recent cooling and warming trends when viewed on view by decades are also ambiguous. where warming occurred before tremendous co2 was generated by man and during peak co2 output from 1940's on the results are a bit ambiguous.

At this point if AGW is real I would put man and co2 as minor players.

**TOAD6147** · December 28th, 2007, 12:19 PM

Not that I was asking Joko, but since you butted in, you obviously didn't read the question much less, answer it. North Dakotan commenting on tsunami's is " kinda' like comparing apples to dog shit". Let me repeat and simplify the question for you:
If you had no other way of verifying it for yourself, to your personal satisfaction, and ONLY had 9 experts saying "go to higher ground" and only one saying "don't bother", what would you do?
As to Epi, let me put it another way; If you went to Newegg or what ever looking for a component or computer part and you saw a particular part had 10 user reviews 9 of which were negative and one which was positive, would you buy it based on the assumption that the majority were wrong and the single dissenter could possibly be right?

Sometimes the outstanding scientist is the one who is the one without the bias who sees something the rest are still failing to recognize.

And you are obviously dispelling the possibility that the reverse may be true in a much bigger way. Nay sayers have more of a financial agenda than the reverse, especially when you identify who is paying them for their "research".

**jokostel** · December 28th, 2007, 12:29 PM

Well smartass, since I don't happen to know much about study or subject of metorology, I would go with the majority, UNLESS the minority is someone who has been well known as being correct in odd scenarios.

But you can't seem to get it thru your thick fucking skull that humans arent even damaging this planet... even ONE major volcano eruption spews more gas and particles into the atmosphere than anything man has EVER done, or will do.
Check the damn history that has been recorded, and what scientists have found with the ice...
It's a natural cycle of the planet.

**TOAD6147** · December 28th, 2007, 12:37 PM

Well smartass, ...I don't happen to know much..

Thanks for clearifying that, smartass.

**jokostel** · December 28th, 2007, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by TOAD6147

Thanks for clearifying that, smartass.

About that subject.. I can google the shit or ask someone nearby who would... but frankly I don't care about it.

Typical fucking liberal scum.
Twisting shit as you see fit.

**jokostel** · December 28th, 2007, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by TOAD6147

Not that I was asking Joko, but since you butted in, you obviously didn't read the question much less, answer it. North Dakotan commenting on tsunami's is " kinda' like comparing apples to dog shit".

Since when does being in ND have anything to with that?
I have family members that LIVE in areas where it's damn near a common ordeal... So yeah... maybe I do have room to talk about the subject... you errogant fuck.

**Beemer** · December 28th, 2007, 02:28 PM

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

**Epidemic** · December 28th, 2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by TOAD6147

As to Epi, let me put it another way; If you went to Newegg or what ever looking for a component or computer part and you saw a particular part had 10 user reviews 9 of which were negative and one which was positive, would you buy it based on the assumption that the majority were wrong and the single dissenter could possibly be right?

You know I went with that logic on global warming for a long time. but like with the reviews of the computer part I have information that makes me believe the one outlier. perhaps the others are talking about things of no practical concern.

like if it were a video card not achieving 200 FPS when I would be happy with 60 fps. CO2 i am sure is a warming gas. however historical graphs relegate it to the likely status of a minor player.

**Beemer** · December 28th, 2007, 04:02 PM

Epi
Go to these graphs.
Find who analysed them, created them, and their significant findings of the graphs.

Armed with this info, use it as search criteria on realclimate.org and see what you can find out of why their analysis is discredited or confirmed based on science.

That’s all I do.

**mlee97** · December 29th, 2007, 01:09 AM

CO2 levels from previously stored sources have been released into the atmosphere by man.
Are the naysayers saying that imbuing the atmosphere with foreign CO2 has no effect?
Do they really believe that there is no physical reaction to change? How much and how fast, are to me legitimate debatable questions. Claiming trillions of pounds of fossil fuel burn-off has no significant effect seems a bit off.

**Beemer** · December 29th, 2007, 01:40 AM

Global warming is caused by natural cycles or solar forcing or volcanoes or all but not man is what has been said. Each having only minimal effect if any. All discredited as primary sources.

**The Real Bingo** · December 29th, 2007, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Beemer

Global warming is caused by natural cycles or solar forcing or volcanoes or all but not man is what has been said. Each having only minimal effect if any. All discredited as primary sources.

Based on what? A couple hundred years of "research" and "data" on a 4-billion-year-old planet?

**jokostel** · December 29th, 2007, 11:09 PM

Solar output, volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, current.....
It's nature and the universes most violent events trigger what happens to our climate..... Common sense if you just step back and look at it...and in an odd way, a good thing... as without volcanic eruptions, good luck on ever developing that oh so precious atmosphere that ya know, keeps us alive ...

**jokostel** · December 29th, 2007, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

Based on what? A couple hundred years of "research" and "data" on a 4-billion-year-old planet?

Considering most scientists know more about other stars and solar systems than about this planet...

**Haba** · January 13th, 2008, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

Based on what? A couple hundred years of "research" and "data" on a 4-billion-year-old planet?

That couple hundreds of years of research goes back to the age of the dinosaurs and even before that...

**sharder8** · January 13th, 2008, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by jokostel

Solar output, volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, current.....
It's nature and the universes most violent events trigger what happens to our climate..... Common sense if you just step back and look at it...and in an odd way, a good thing... as without volcanic eruptions, good luck on ever developing that oh so precious atmosphere that ya know, keeps us alive ...

Those are all true and they all play a part in the natual order of things on this planet Joko . . .

But common sense will also tell you that man has been and is the cause of a tremendous amount of damage on this planet as well. Just look at how much of the "natural" is no longer to be found around us.

As far as I'm concerned, the GW theorists may be going over board and hyping things a bit, and it may be as bad, or not as bad as they claim. But, the million dollar question is, knowing man's pursiut for self distruction, can we afford to delay or reduce the results of GW by reduction of the contributing factors man has control over?

Something to think about . . . what if both sides are correct in that it's normal cycle and man induced? By ignoring it, will we make it worse? Or will it last longer? Likewise, if we work to lower man's impact, can we make it shorter?

Harder

**sharder8** · January 13th, 2008, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Haba

That couple hundreds of years of research goes back to the age of the dinosaurs and even before that...

Sorry Haba, but I didn't know we had scientists collecting data that far back . . .

As far as I know, we've been collecting data for a couple hundred years, going back that far though.

Harder

**Beemer** · January 13th, 2008, 06:54 PM

That's not what he said. Read it again.

**Pexster** · January 13th, 2008, 07:55 PM

What sharder8 said above. Absolutely and completely concur!

And to take it a step further, even if we didn't cause any of it, why not see if we can do something to change it? The anger directed towards those sounding the alarm is irrational.

**sharder8** · January 13th, 2008, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Pexster

What sharder8 said above. Absolutely and completely concur!

HOLY CRAP!!!!

Everyone needs to mark this day down on their calenders!!!!

First, MTA posted that I'd made a good post . . . now Pex is agreeing with something I posted . . . .

Somebody call an Ambulance . . . I think I'm having a heart attack!!!

This is bad, bad I tell you . . . cuz' it's highly unlikely BOTH of them have changed . . . so that means I've changed!!!!

Must find out what changed . . .