5 ms·

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

12 points by gibsonf1 18y ago

pg 18y ago
If anything this article makes me more convinced global warming is a real problem, not less. It has the tone of an infomercial, and they seem to have had to dig very deep to find people to quote.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  It does have the design of a web page trying to sell me Viagra... in 1999. However, the few people they quoted looked like their credentials were reasonably legit ("award-winning" is meaningless. However, many had degrees in the right fields, and had worked for legitimate organizations). I don't know what the credentials of the whole 400 looks like, though. It is interesting that when supporters of climate change alarm have petitions like this, it is considered a faux pas to question its validity. You are accused of being anti-science if you do. I suppose that is what the "politicization of science" means in practice. The point is to challenge the idea that the "science is settled", and that you are a quack/heretic/flat-earther if you disagree.
- aristus 18y ago
  It doesn't convince me either way, but it does bother me that it's been a long time since I've heard anything other than "scientist counts" for and against, rather than actual evidence. Forget the scientist counts -- a lot of doctors went to their graves denouncing Pasteur as a quack. What's the actual evidence for and against? What's the CO2 count lately? Is that number significant? Have ocean levels risen? Where? How much? Etc. The financial crisis is pretty complex too but there have been many insightful and detailed essays written about it.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    All of that evidence is easy to find. It's not what the media reports on because the average CNN viewer can't handle it.
    - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
      Have to disagree. The finance/economics comparison is quite apt. There are reams of data and high quality dispassionate financial analysis online. The climate stuff is nothing but press releases. The data is NOT readily available. The papers cited in the press releases are not online for free. And even if they were, they're obfuscated such that anyone with a life needs some second hand analysis to form an understanding. You really don't see that sort of analysis.
      - timr 18y ago
        "The papers cited in the press releases are not online for free." Not Even Wrong. Go here, and have your fill: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm Furthermore, from the site: "Hard copies of the Summaries for Policymakers, Technical Summaries, Synthesis Reports and Technical Papers in English and in other UN languages, and CD-ROMs of the full reports, can be obtained FREE OF CHARGE from the IPCC Secretariat." As for your second point -- that the reports are hard to understand -- then with all due respect, I would suggest that if you can't understand the reports, you aren't qualified to have a dissenting opinion on the matter.
        kingkongrevenge 18y ago
        > Go here, and have your fill: Ok, I'll go download one of these here technical papers. "Implications of Proposed CO2 Limitations." Let's jump down to pg23, picked at random. Here we have a multi page discussion of models that are NOT published anywhere for free. You have to go buy them as far as I can tell. This was my whole point. These IPCC papers are huge collections of commentary with footnotes, not actual research. > that the reports are hard to understand The reports are not hard to understand at face value. They are hard to meaningfully understand. A statement of cash flows for most corporations can be basically explained in ten minutes. It doesn't mean anything without analysis, however. You need industry context and commentary along with it. If you just read a company's annual report and look at the page with the statement of cash flows on it you're not going to know shit. These IPCC papers are VERY MUCH like glossy annual public company reports, even aesthetically. They are nothing like the writing that leads to real understanding of economics or the finances of individual companies. BTW: Why would anyone take an organization with "intergovernmental" in its name seriously? Treating government releases as your first source in any other field is a pretty surefire way to fail.
KevBurnsJr 18y ago
Arguing about the cause of global warming is like standing on the railroad tracks arguing whether the train is your fault. We see the train, and it ain't stoppin'. http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/research/glacier_animation.gif http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/research/glacier_anim... The debate is moot. Time to concern ourselves with stepping out of the way.
- EliAndrewC 18y ago
  I've never quite understood this argument. If humans are causing and/or worsening global warming, then understanding how we're doing this will let us know what we can do to mitigate it.
  - Retric 18y ago
    AC is one example of mitigation that is independent of cause. I think it's important to compare the cost of preventing global worming vs dealing with global worming. I suspect that finding a cheep alternative to Coal power plants and internal combustion cars is going to be the cheapest long term solution, but there are a wide range of options. In the end CO2 can only have a finite impact on global worming so the question becomes what trade offs are worth it. PS: When other options become cheaper then stopping becomes "free".
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Grass grows over mountain inside of 200 years. Film at 11. Forgive me for not panicking, but somehow I missed the comparison with other planets and 10,000,000 year graphics that put this in perspective. Oh. That's right. We have no other examples of complex ecosystems to draw on, and scant little data to draw conclusions with on with our current climate. But by all means, it must be disaster on its way.
  - timr 18y ago
    "...scant little data to draw conclusions with on with our current climate" Yeah, I guess the scientists just forgot to put data in the IPCC reports, and the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the subject that came before them.
josefresco 18y ago
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical." Whoopty fricken' do, you're "skeptical", now how about you actually go out and do some 'science' and prove some people wrong. Simply writing a letter about how you're skeptical does nothing, solves nothing and is just a distraction.
Paul_Morgan 18y ago
This is a minority report blog. It's just more Republican propaganda using the senate.gov source to give it credibility.
timr 18y ago
Wow. Six-hundred fifty, eh? That sure is a big number! (Sounds like we need another Project Steve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)
earle 18y ago
Listen. Mars is heating at the same rate as Earth. The explanation is really that simple.

12 points by gibsonf1 18y ago

pg 18y ago

If anything this article makes me more convinced global warming is a real problem, not less. It has the tone of an infomercial, and they seem to have had to dig very deep to find people to quote.

Prrometheus 18y ago
It does have the design of a web page trying to sell me Viagra... in 1999. However, the few people they quoted looked like their credentials were reasonably legit ("award-winning" is meaningless. However, many had degrees in the right fields, and had worked for legitimate organizations). I don't know what the credentials of the whole 400 looks like, though. It is interesting that when supporters of climate change alarm have petitions like this, it is considered a faux pas to question its validity. You are accused of being anti-science if you do. I suppose that is what the "politicization of science" means in practice. The point is to challenge the idea that the "science is settled", and that you are a quack/heretic/flat-earther if you disagree.
aristus 18y ago
It doesn't convince me either way, but it does bother me that it's been a long time since I've heard anything other than "scientist counts" for and against, rather than actual evidence. Forget the scientist counts -- a lot of doctors went to their graves denouncing Pasteur as a quack. What's the actual evidence for and against? What's the CO2 count lately? Is that number significant? Have ocean levels risen? Where? How much? Etc. The financial crisis is pretty complex too but there have been many insightful and detailed essays written about it.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  All of that evidence is easy to find. It's not what the media reports on because the average CNN viewer can't handle it.
  - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
    Have to disagree. The finance/economics comparison is quite apt. There are reams of data and high quality dispassionate financial analysis online. The climate stuff is nothing but press releases. The data is NOT readily available. The papers cited in the press releases are not online for free. And even if they were, they're obfuscated such that anyone with a life needs some second hand analysis to form an understanding. You really don't see that sort of analysis.
    - timr 18y ago
      "The papers cited in the press releases are not online for free." Not Even Wrong. Go here, and have your fill: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm Furthermore, from the site: "Hard copies of the Summaries for Policymakers, Technical Summaries, Synthesis Reports and Technical Papers in English and in other UN languages, and CD-ROMs of the full reports, can be obtained FREE OF CHARGE from the IPCC Secretariat." As for your second point -- that the reports are hard to understand -- then with all due respect, I would suggest that if you can't understand the reports, you aren't qualified to have a dissenting opinion on the matter.
      - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
        > Go here, and have your fill: Ok, I'll go download one of these here technical papers. "Implications of Proposed CO2 Limitations." Let's jump down to pg23, picked at random. Here we have a multi page discussion of models that are NOT published anywhere for free. You have to go buy them as far as I can tell. This was my whole point. These IPCC papers are huge collections of commentary with footnotes, not actual research. > that the reports are hard to understand The reports are not hard to understand at face value. They are hard to meaningfully understand. A statement of cash flows for most corporations can be basically explained in ten minutes. It doesn't mean anything without analysis, however. You need industry context and commentary along with it. If you just read a company's annual report and look at the page with the statement of cash flows on it you're not going to know shit. These IPCC papers are VERY MUCH like glossy annual public company reports, even aesthetically. They are nothing like the writing that leads to real understanding of economics or the finances of individual companies. BTW: Why would anyone take an organization with "intergovernmental" in its name seriously? Treating government releases as your first source in any other field is a pretty surefire way to fail.

KevBurnsJr 18y ago

Arguing about the cause of global warming is like standing on the railroad tracks arguing whether the train is your fault. We see the train, and it ain't stoppin'. http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/research/glacier_animation.gif http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/research/glacier_anim... The debate is moot. Time to concern ourselves with stepping out of the way.

EliAndrewC 18y ago
I've never quite understood this argument. If humans are causing and/or worsening global warming, then understanding how we're doing this will let us know what we can do to mitigate it.
- Retric 18y ago
  AC is one example of mitigation that is independent of cause. I think it's important to compare the cost of preventing global worming vs dealing with global worming. I suspect that finding a cheep alternative to Coal power plants and internal combustion cars is going to be the cheapest long term solution, but there are a wide range of options. In the end CO2 can only have a finite impact on global worming so the question becomes what trade offs are worth it. PS: When other options become cheaper then stopping becomes "free".
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Grass grows over mountain inside of 200 years. Film at 11. Forgive me for not panicking, but somehow I missed the comparison with other planets and 10,000,000 year graphics that put this in perspective. Oh. That's right. We have no other examples of complex ecosystems to draw on, and scant little data to draw conclusions with on with our current climate. But by all means, it must be disaster on its way.
- timr 18y ago
  "...scant little data to draw conclusions with on with our current climate" Yeah, I guess the scientists just forgot to put data in the IPCC reports, and the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the subject that came before them.

josefresco 18y ago

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical." Whoopty fricken' do, you're "skeptical", now how about you actually go out and do some 'science' and prove some people wrong. Simply writing a letter about how you're skeptical does nothing, solves nothing and is just a distraction.

Paul_Morgan 18y ago

This is a minority report blog. It's just more Republican propaganda using the senate.gov source to give it credibility.

timr 18y ago

Wow. Six-hundred fifty, eh? That sure is a big number! (Sounds like we need another Project Steve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)

earle 18y ago

Listen. Mars is heating at the same rate as Earth. The explanation is really that simple.