TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Interesting development in the climate change debate...

Interesting development in the climate change debate...

Looks like the tides are indeed shifting...

Link:

"New report authored by two esteemed weather scientists challenges AGW theory

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has issued a rebuttal to the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change. The report challenges the theory that man somehow has played a major role in changing the global climate, and also challenges the need to adopt painful and costly measures to combat this perceived threat, such as giving up meat in our diets.

Where many in the AGW community would have you believe that there is a consensus over global warming theory, the reports showcases the ongoing debate on the topic and support for alternative theories. Over 31,478 American scientists signed a petition in the appendix citing �there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth�s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth�s climate."

Unlike the UN's IPCC, which is chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian economist with no formal climatology training, the NIPCC is headed by two esteemed climatologists, each with a large body of work in the field.

The first coauthor of the report is Dr. S. Fred Singer, a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Dr. Singer received a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his outstanding work in the field. In the 1980s he continued to study the Earth's climate as the vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA). He also taught as a professor at University of Virginia.

Dr. Craig D. Idso also coauthored the report. Dr. Idso has a Ph.D in geography from Arizona State University. He has extensively studied the climate as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and has published papers in the field of climatology. He also lectured on Meteorology at Arizona State University. His specialties include studying the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations.

Among the conclusions reached by these esteemed researchers were that:

* Climate models suffer from numerous deficiencies and shortcomings that could alter even the very sign (plus or minus, warming or cooling) of earth�s projected temperature response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.
* The model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth--especially for a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level--is much too large, and feedbacks in the climate system reduce it to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.
* Real-world observations do not support the IPCC�s claim that current trends in climate and weather are �unprecedented� and, therefore, the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
* The IPCC overlooks or downplays the many benefits to agriculture and forestry that will be accrued from the ongoing rise in the air�s CO2 content.
* There is no evidence that CO2-induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, either on land or in the world�s oceans.
* There is no evidence that CO2-induced global warming is or will be responsible for increases in the incidence of human diseases or the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions.

The pair, along with the 31,478 scientists backing their assertions, are urging lawmakers worldwide to carefully consider the body of evidence against AGW theory and lack of evidence in support of AGW theory. Cutting carbon emissions by a mere 15 percent is estimated to cost $1,600 per U.S. citizen yearly and leave the nation $9.4 trillian poorer. Totally forgoing carbon emissions could be extrapolated to cost the average citizen over $10,500 USD yearly. And Dr. Idso and Dr. Singer provide compelling evidence that this would be a pointless and foolhardy sacrifice as it would have virtually no affect on the climate."

I remember a few years ago they had a petition signed by a similar number of scientists, and the response was largely to the effect of "Oh, anybody can make a petition, and most of those signatures aren't from real climate scientists, they're from, like, physicists and shit, who are obviously just stupid."

We'll see if a formal report from actual climatologists makes any difference. I'm sure that some smart-ass will be quick to point out that it's not peer reviewed (yet) and ignore the fact that the IPCC has not subjected any of its findings to any sort of scientific scrutiny, ever.

Yeah, I saw the petition that you are referring to as well. Sadly, as expected, it was quickly wiped away. Most likely, this one will to - though there is understandably a lot more to support it with the current state of the global economy

As Geologists, we have a bit of a different outlook on climate change. Sure anthropogenic sources of methane, CO2, etc contribute but their overall effect on climate change is minimal at best.

In any case, we won't see the effects of climate change in our time anyways, 2012 is just around the corner

lolol

Something interesting this article should have mentioned about their two leading esteemed scientists:

quote:

re:Fred Singer "Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once accepted an unsolicited check from Exxon for $10,000." source his partner in crime: Craig D. Idso, who runs the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, has also been funded by Exxon.

I'd also love to see a list of the 37,000+ esteemed scientists--and before anyone get's their panties in a bunch--I just thought I'd point something out; I have no interest in discussing the controversy behind global warning.

Funny and insightful

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie I'd also love to see a list of the 37,000+ esteemed scientists--and before anyone get's their panties in a bunch--I just thought I'd point something out; I have no interest in discussing the controversy behind global warning.

Wait, I thought you were one of the skeptics? Maybe I have you confused with someone else.

Anyway, that's so typical of MSM journalists, when you can't refute somebody's argument, just start attacking their credibility. This quote from the same article says it all:

quote:

But scientists say there is no "other side." The debate about global warming is over, they say.

Yep, scientists say that. Which scientists? Doesn't matter - scientists. "They" say it's over. And "they" never took money from any NGOs, no sir.

People really should be ashamed to publish such arrogant garbage.

Humans are too arrogant to think they can fuck up the Earth.It was here before us ,it will be here after.

we can still fuck things up pretty good.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit we can still fuck things up pretty good.

Hell yeah we can. We can poison it to hell with our ridiculous chemical waste and mow down the forests that give us all life. I guess the one positive thing about all this attention is that a lot of people are starting to look at things like this. However, like always, it gets misdirected once the "brains" in government get involved. /sigh

I had no idea that 'our' (human) models are so poorly constructed, and quite often wrong. But the more and more I pay attention, the clearer it becomes that we just don't have the processing power or accurate relationships to model things are trying to predict. From wind tunnel testing for cars, to energy equations for power plants, and to the climate, we are very far off.

Hell, if F1 teams, spending $500m/year each still needs to do real world testing to confirm/refute their wind tunnel testing, then how can we expect that we can model the entire climate 100 years in the future?

Sorry folks, but computers won't fix this one for us.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Sorry folks, but computers won't fix this one for us.

i heard windows 7 was pretty good.

quote:

Originally posted by smuncky i heard windows 7 was pretty good.

A winnar is you!

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Hell, if F1 teams, spending $500m/year each still needs to do real world testing to confirm/refute their wind tunnel testing, then how can we expect that we can model the entire climate 100 years in the future?

Physical models are an integral part of science; we do need try our best at them and not just give up. The part that many people seem to miss is that models need to be proven, they need to be back-tested and tested and re-tested. Instead, what happened was that some people came up with a model, deduced some potentially alarming results, decided that it was cause for concern, and sort of massaged the historical data to make the back-tests work. Once it became a political issue, the chance for any realistic scientific scrutiny was long lost; when present-day evidence fails to verify the model, they introduce red herrings like the "precautionary principle".

People take it as evidence in favour of the AGW hypothesis that a great deal of scientists (but not an overwhelming majority, and certainly not all) agree on the premise. But scientists are not immune to bias either. Just look at the infamous Monty Hall problem, where statistics showed that 92% of all Americans including some 1000 Ph.Ds not only insisted that the right answer was wrong, but became incredibly irate when shown both empirical and formal mathematical proofs. And that was just a simple, mathematical problem with a scope of one paragraph.

Beware of popular wisdom; even if all those 37,000 scientists were working in the coal/oil industries, and that's extremely doubtful, the fact they can find anywhere near that many dissenting opinions is an important signal. How many actual credentialed scientists do you think you'd be able to find opposing say, the theory of evolution, or using antibiotics to treat infections? Think about it for a minute.

American corporate agenda!

The end.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.