I've posted this before, but:
http://politicalforum.com/viewtopic....+change#390438

Direct link to the in-depth discussion:
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2007/07...te-change.html

It lays out the evidence that the planet is warming, and why scientists think humans are playing a significant role.

This canard again. "The scientists" never claimed any such thing. A handful of researchers did -- and even their suppositions were blown way out of proportion by a single Newsweek article. It was never accepted as mainstream theory.

The difference is that this particular change is progressing far faster than previous ones. A truly objective person tries to ascertain the actual cause of the current warming, not assume it's simply the same as superficially similar warmings in the past.

__________________
Man up.

I didn't read to 2001, but the 1995 certainly does not.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Really? Then give me the quote of Bush's where he admitted that "humans are responsible for GW." I'll wait.....

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Again.....I'm not claiming we don't have some global warming taking place. I'm saying you cannot leave out thousands of years and just start in the last 10 years or so and claim that it's man-made now.

Just like today's claim of global warming isn't mainstream theory. Does the name James E. Hansen ring a bell? He's a NASA scientist who back some 36 years ago helped foster the opinion that there would be an "ice age" within the next 50 years. He's the same guy that I believe it was you who defended a few months ago....after he blasted the Bush administration---claiming they had muzzled him on the issue of global warming. But now....instead of an ice age caused by fossil fuels, he's claiming a global warming catastrophe caused by fossil fuels. Coult it be this Soros-funded scientist agrees with the 'left' and just doesn't like fossil fuels????

And a truly objective person doesn't just assume that humans are responsible for it. OR that we could change the course anyway. You're right----the cause hasn't been assertained yet.

I personally think what's behind it is the liberals and anti-corporate types who just don't like fossil fuels. And they look for any way they can to pin all the world's problem on it. And yet....these are the same nuts who also don't care for wind energy---because it might hurt a bird.....and who fight nuclear energy tooth and nail....and who refuse to look at any reasonable plan to remedy our reliance on fossil fuels.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Um.... yes it is. By a wide margin.

And if he was the only guy making the claim -- instead of being part of a wide majority of climate scientists -- you'd have a point.

Agreed. Which is why I lay out the science behind the conclusion in the links above -- which indicate a significant human role in the warming.

Is that an excuse for not actually examining the evidence objectively?

__________________
Man up.

Then there is this noted scientist and expert on weather and climate:

"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people, " says Bill Gray.

"BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists"

"Gray believes in the obs. The observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.

"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."

In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again."


"Bill Gray has a favorite diagram, taken from a 1985 climate model, showing little nodules in the center with such labels as "thermal inertia" and "net energy balance" and "latent heat flux" and "subsurface heat storage" and "absorbed heat radiation" and so on, and they are emitting arrows that curve and loop in all directions, bumping into yet more jargon, like "soil moisture" and "surface roughness" and "vertical wind" and "mel(*)(*)(*)(*)er" and "volcanoes."

"It's a big can of worms!" Gray says. It's his favorite line.

The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.

"They sit in this ivory tower, playing around, and they don't tell us if this is going to be a hot summer coming up. Why not? Because the models are no (*)(*)(*)(*) good!"

Gray says the recent rash of strong hurricanes is just part of a cycle. This is part of the broader skeptical message: Climate change is normal and natural. There was a Medieval Warm Period, for example, long before Exxon Mobil existed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301305_pf.html

Still lots of controvery and conflict among scientists. So, yes Raytri. I read all the pros and cons opinions on global warming. I've yet to see any hard and fast proven conclusions that what we're seeing now is NOT more a part of the natural phenomonon of climate.

And as far as consensus of scientists....look at where the funding is going for your answer. The funding is going to those who are trying hard to prove that global warming IS caused by man.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

What does an inability to predict specific weather have to do with global warming trends?

The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that man-made climate change is happening. The evidence is irrefutible. This flat-earth, the sun revolves around the earth mentality expressed by some within this site is so astounding as to be not worthy of further comment.

Sorry that we’re on to you guys, but titling those who don’t give into these claims is a bit transparent if not getting old.
Lets try and keep the racism down a bit also, adverse and untrue references to Galileo and the catholic church is the same to regular people as saying something about M. L. King and black profiling. Galileo was not imprisoned to keep his findings secrete, he was a church elder and advisor that went against a grid command to wait for completion of abroad church communiqué. He went against a kings command which was not tolerated back then. Just be thankful we discovered the earth was round so you could call the movement global warming instead of pancake or box warming.

__________________
Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free.
However promoting your culture to where you have come will bring but what you fled.

My emphasis
For starters: his opinion. Show me the evidence he bases his opinions on.

Dr. Gray "believes" in observations. Anyone here want to guess how the paths of hurricanes are predicted? I'll give you a clue, meteorologists don't use crystal balls. So Dr. Gray's lack of trust in numerical models appears to be a bit misguided.

His misuse of the term weather also discredits him. No one is attempting to predict the weather in 100 years; climatologists are attempting to predict the climate in 100 years. Look up the difference.
Your story on Dr. Gray is an appeal to authority. His opinions are not backed by evidence.


But have you studied the evidence. Have you, JP, read the "Working Group I: The Science of Climate Change". No, I didn't think so.
Sure it is. And Bush was the one that planned 9/11. Oh wait! We don't have any evidence of that either?
The funding is going to scientists who are studying our climate. End of story! Unless you have evidence that their agenda is other than the advancement of science, your allegation is nothing more than another conspiracy theory.

So you JP post one scientist who disagrees with the consensus based on opinion. I give you Hansen (NASA) and Kevin Trenberth, (National Center for Atmospheric Research), who base their conclusions on data.
JP, which doctors' conclusions would you accept: a doctor that looked at you and, without gathering any data concluded that you were healthy or 2 doctors who've done blood tests, ie gathered data, and told you you had diabetes?

For every scientist who is of the opinion that humans are not the part of the reason for GW, I'll match you 2 scientists who conclude from the data and evidence that humans are partly responsible.

__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe