Is this the begining of the end for the man made global warming debate?

Question

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

It seems scientists are starting to object to receiving of grants being tied to agreeing with man made global warming.

If we get a few years of sustained global cooling soon will this be the end of the global warming debate. Will all the profits of doom then admit they were wrong or will they quickly move on to another theory.

Getting sidetracked here, but you don't have to be a crackpot to say that Asbestos is not as dangerous as many people believe. If your home is more than 25 years old it's probably full of the stuff.

Our parents generation didn't all keel over and die from aspestosis even though they were exposed to it a lot.

I know people have died from mining it, but they were exposed to high concentrations of the dust for 8 hours a day for around 20 years.

Answer 1

I don't believe it is the end. I believe the truth will be found and it will probably be somewhere in between the extreme theories now being put forth. As more scientists study the data and collect more new more accurate data, we will understand more about it.

Based on what I read now, it probably is not anywhere near as firm a theory as was presented in the latest book by gore and some of the ICC scientists. Particularly the relative effect of CO2.

That may not change the outcome or result of global warming, it may just be something more natural and little we can do but deal with it like other species have had to in our worlds history. Nature is cruel sometimes and has no conscience. It just does what it does.

Answer 2

The problem with the global warming debate is that you have a lot of people who do not come from a scientific background (Al Gore is a major example) who preach it like it's the gospel truth. In science you do not try to prove your theory correct by looking at all the things that seem to make it so, your goal is to disprove it. This is why you ALWAYS listen to evidence that is contradictory to the theory you states and address it. Politicians and self rightous celebrities are not exactly great at this, but unfortuantly those are the very people that most people (globally) listen to.

The fact is, the global warming debate isn't over. It's not a theory that's "almost a fact" as some would believe. There is a sizable community of people who study the issue (real scientists, not Al Gore) and find a lot of holes in the theory. These aren't just people paid off by the "corporations" or the republican party.

Answer 3

Gore's prize: A fraud on the people

12 hours, 31 minutes ago

Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to heed his counsel henceforth. No, thanks.

Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.

Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting trees.

Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer a serious international award. In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.)

On Friday the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two days before, a British judge ruled that Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors.

The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources," and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars." (Emphasis ours.)

And Islamic terrorists may give up jihad and sing Kumbaya after listening to old Cat Stevens records. But that's no basis for distributing the world's formerly most prestigious prize.

If winning this useless medal prompts Al Gore to get into the presidential race, which we doubt, the irony will be that the American people will turn a more skeptical eye to His Smugness than the Nobel committee did.

The American public won't accept at face value Gore's self-righteous proclamations or his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophy. And Gore has to know that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe -- Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage and savior he wishes he really were and left-wing Europeans and thespians try to convince us he is.

Answer 4

Link below provides a wider viewpoint on US scientific funding.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11417

If there is sustained global cooling then the scientists may eat thier hats, and we'll all be relieved . Meanwhile, 98.5% of scientific data points to AGW, and the clock is running.....

I googled your prized dissident and fond this -

In France, the Standing Committee on Asbestos (CPA), an informal body formed by a media consultancy in 1982, brought together manufacturers, scientists, public authorities and trade unions. The press consulted the CPA before anyone else, since it was the "expert" that could not be ignored, constantly singing the praises of the "controlled use of asbestos". It was not until 1995 that the scandal broke and the CPA vanished as mysteriously as it had appeared. But that did not prevent Claude Allègre, the French minister for education, research and technology, from denouncing the "intellectual terrorism" he claimed held sway on the Jussieu university campus in Paris, from which all asbestos was ordered to be removed. His conclusion was that "some kind of mass psychosis had transformed a minor problem into a major hazard"

As yor citation says, he is a renowned scientist! ;-)

Answer 5

Ben, imagine if you will that you go to see your doctor and the doctor says "I''m sorry Ben but you have an illness, take these pills and you'll be OK, if you don't take the pills you'll get much worse". What would you do?

You'd probably take the pills but, you may also want a second opinion. Off you go to see a second doctor who confirms the diagnosis. You then see a third, a fourth, a fifth doctor - they all say exactly the same thing.

100 doctors later and 100 identical prognoses until along comes a vet who tells you you're fine and there's no need to take the pills You decide to beleive the vet. Would that be a sensible thing to do?

It wouldn't be sensible but that's just what you're doing now - ingnoring the experts who know about the climate and chosing to believe someone who isn't an expert.

You may not like the notion of global warming but one geophysicist standing against an overwhelming mountain of evidence doesn't make it go away.

- - - - - - - - - -

From a scientific point of view the debate about global warming effectivety ended in 1896 when the role of humans in relation to global warming was established by Svante Arrhenius. In reality no scientific debate ever really ends but there comes a point when the focus of attention has to switch from debate to action.

With something such as global warming any delay in acting just excerbates the problem and ultimately it has a greater environmental, human and ecomonic impact. If governments had heeded the warnings from the scientists over 50 years ago we could have addressed and probably resolved all our current problems a long time ago.

Skeptics have been saying for many years now "if we get a few years of global cooling...", it hasn't happened and is a physical impossibility.

You previously asked a question about ozone depletion and correctly pointed out that the ozone depleting chemicals remain in the atmosphere for many years. The same is true of the greenhouse gases. We could stop emitting greenhouse gases with immediate effect but those already in the atmosphere will continue to contribute to global warming for many years - ranging from a few years to tens of thousands of years with an equilibrium being reached 60 to 80 years after the point of zero human emissions.

Global cooling is only possible if we tamper with the atmosphere and cause a repeat of the pollution induced global dimming of the mid 20th century or if there's a large scale natural catastrophe such as a huge volcanic eruption.

Answer 6

That press release (or whatever it purports to be) was put out a year ago. If that signaled the beginning of the end of global warming, it is taking its sweet time going away.

But yes, if we got a couple years of global cooling that would be the end of the global warming debate. That is one ginormous "if" though.

Answer 7

You and I agree that it's the beginning end of the debate. But our conclusion is different.

The scientific data on this has become overwhelming.

Because of the data, most every world leader accepts global warming as real and mostly caused by us. That's not something they want to do, it causes them big problems. George Bush changed his mind about it, something that doesn't come easily to him.

And, for the same reason, EVERY major scientific organization agrees also.

There's a simply overwhelming amount of data that proves that. A very small sample:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

All the "skeptics" arguments about the basic concepts are clearly refuted by the data.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Even strong conservatives accept the science:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

The bottom line. Not based on opinion.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Most all the "skeptics" are nibbling at details, not saying or doing anything that affects the basic conclusion that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

EDIT - Anti-PETA - "This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources," and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars." (Emphasis ours.)"

The US military isn't laughing about it.

"Climate Change Poses Serious Threat to U.S. National Security"

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-16-2007/0004565995&EDATE=

Answer 8

As the political case gets stronger, the scientific case get weaker, and the global warming alarmists get shriller and more aggressive.
Recently published papers have shown that the capacity of CO2 to absorb heat is about 1/3 of that used by the IPCC for its calculations, and the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere is about 1/2 of the IPPC's claim. These two exaggerations multiplied together have produced the the alarming predictions.
The UK education authorities are in court for showing Al Gore's film because it is a highly biased piece of propaganda full of inaccuracies, and it will be an offence in UK to show the film in schools without making it clear to pupils that it is political advocacy not science, and listing all the errors.
I am a retired ecologist, and many of my still working friends tell me that they are unlikely to get any of their research funded unless they can link it to climate change. This kind of official coercion can only produce resentment among scientists

Answer 9

Go and obtain some funding for the Flat Earth theory Ben, then you and I will talk turkey.

The reason scientists don't get money to research Global Warming unless they acknowledge human contribution is because no funding body in its right sense would fund such a ludicrous claim.

To directly answer your question, it isn't the end of the debate it's the start of a new one.

The new debate is "How much does mankind influence global warming and what the heck are we going to do about it"

Answer 10

We are beginning to see the end of the debate on global warming but not in the direction you claim. The science is getting more and more secure. Within not too many years the debate will be effectively over as the evidence in terms of changes discernable to everyone happen to the earth's climate patterns and rising sea levels.