Global Warming skeptics - the proof is here.?

Question

I won't play games and make this sound like a question.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

1000 pages long. Well over 1000 references to the peer reviewed scientific literature. 150 authors, 600 reviewers. Possibly the most solid and most peer reviewed scientific document in history.

Chapter 2 is where the beef is about the causes of warming. 200 pages, about 500 references.

Why the IPCC report is the definitive work, and what the scientific community thinks about it:

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

George Monbiot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Kiziah - no way was he implying that global warming is science fiction. Asimov is also well known as an author of many nonfiction books explaining science to laypersons. In fact he seems to have written more nonfiction, based on this information:

http://www.booksnbytes.com/authors/asimov_isaac.html

back2saystuff - Scientists are right about stuff like this far more often than they're wrong. You and I live much better lives because science generally works. Occasionally scientists who contest consensus views are Gallileo or Einstein. Much more often, they're just a guy with a bad theory.

Matt - The consensus is not important as such. It is important because, if there were no scientific proof, there would be no consensus. And the strength of this consensus shows the proof is very strong also.

Your website reference references the bogus swindle video.

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

and therefore is not scientifically credible. The articles reference a few skeptics - there are always a few skeptics.

Elite Lady - the "global cooling" deal in the 70s was just a few guys with a theory and little support. None from major scientific organizations. They weren't like global warming scientists who have large amounts of good data and backing from most all scientific organizations. They were, in fact, much like the global warming skeptics of today. More detail here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

eric c - The IPCC indeed has some political input into its' reports, particularly the summaries. But the general result of that is to _reduce_ the scientists concerns about global warming and its' man made nature, not make the reports more alarmist. The US and China are the principal actors, toning the science down, not up. As was said by Monbiot, the IPCC errs on the side of being too timid and reporting more uncertainty than most scientists think is warranted. Once again a (very) few skeptics disagree.

Answer 1

If you guys don't want to read all 1000 pages, then just read the Summary for Policymakers. It contains a very good summary of the data and conclusions.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM.pdf

Thanks for the link, Bob. Very informative!

Answer 2

I didn't read the 1000 pages of light. There is a lot of discussion on the scientific front and the political front as to Global Warming. A lot of people have theories.

However, what I want to know is why aren't we doing anything to prepare for Global Warming? We are "reducing emisisons, going green" and a slew of other things to "help the environment." However, the Earth has been here for a long time and will continue to be here for a long time. It is a question of whether or not the Earth will support us and our lifestyle.

Move inland, build a better house, get ready for hotter temperatures. There will be more sun, so why not exploit solar power. Build more efficient air conditioners. Prepare for changes in growing seasons. The list could be endless. The point is that we can't do anything about the past. We may or may not be able to slow Global Warming with our minor changes in our ways. But why not prepare for the future? Or do we just want to wait and complain?

Answer 3

The IPCC is not a scientific body. It is a political one, and by all reports it is biased.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1210.htm
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

Real climate maybe a site by climatologists, but they have an agenda.

edit: If you read the links above it is the other way round. Why does Chris Landsea state "I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."

Answer 4

I think you did great answering that other guy's question and providing him with links. He chided you for this, however. He also made reference to Isaac Asimov. Do you think he was implying that global warming is science fiction? If so, how can people be so smart and so stupid at the same time. Thanks for the links.

Thank you. I've never read Asimov. I've just seen too many people on this board making fun of Al Gore.

Answer 5

I'm not even going to try reading the 1,000 pages (I wonder how many of the signatories did?). Ask Copernicus or Galileo about the consensus of opinion they overturned; all the science and religion of the day had it wrong. How about the Alaska pipeline that was going to make America energy independent for the next century. Or how about the Scopes Monkey trial that's still being argued across America, and many of the loudest voices refusing to believe evolution are the science teachers!
You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Answer 6

I take that you've read all 1000 pages, Bob.

Well, reading this won't take nearly as much:

There are doubts about the validity of some of these CERs, on two separate grounds. First, some of them appear to breach the CDM's requirements for sustainable development - 53% of the existing CERs come from just six monster projects, in India, China and South Korea, all of which engage in the most controversial form of carbon reduction. They manufacture refrigerant which produces as a side effect a gas called HFC-23. Although carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas, HFC-23 is 11,700 times more likely than carbon dioxide to encourage global warming. Refrigerant companies find it relatively cheap to instal an incinerator to burn the HFC-23 and, once that is converted into certified reductions of emission, each tonne saved can be sold as 11,700 carbon credits. These companies are now earning millions of euros from these credits - more than from selling their refrigerant products.

The environmental problem is two-fold, first that HFC factories tend to pour out other pollutants which don't happen to be greenhouse gases but which are unpleasant or dangerous for local communities; and second, that the potential profits from burning HFC-23 are so great that companies are being encouraged to expand production of refrigerants so they can produce more HFC-23 to incinerate, thus increasing the net amount of pollution.

Secondly, as our front-page story today reports, there is evidence that a significant percentage of current and future CDM reductions, possibly as many as 20%, may have been wrongly checked. This effects not just the 50m tonnes of CERs which have been issued already, but a massive quantity which is sitting in the pipeline as a result of hedge funds pouring an estimated €4,000m into high-profit carbon projects.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2093850,00.html

It's all in who you trust. This is just the tip of the iceberg; eventually, more of the truth will come to light. I don't trust the IPCC. Not one iota. They could tell me the globe is cooling tomorrow, and I still wouldn't trust them.

Answer 7

Why doesn't anyone bring up what we learned in 1st grade plate tectonics the continents are a drift so of course there's going to get climate changes nothing is going to stay the same forever

Answer 8

You better hope Global Warming is going on because China isn't going to do anything substantial to control their emission. Regardless what the rest of the world does if China isn't involved then it will not matter.

Consensus is not science.

Read April 10 & May 15 news item.
http://www.knowingtruth.com/

Answer 9

What happened to the "Come Ice Age" threats issued in the 1970's?

Answer 10

it,s getting warmer i,m a gardener and things are blooming sooner than 5 years ago