Can we all finally agree that the time for arguing about global warming is over?

Question

Another New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Can we all finally agree that Global warming is not man made and start taking action to stem the tide of hysteria?

Answer 1

That's an interesting piece of work that seems to be supported by a few different researchers.

As I understand it, climate models assume the lower atmosphere doesn't absorbe any additional radiation because it's opaque to the relevant band of infrared radiation, so increased absorbtion suposedly only occurs in the upper atmosphere where the air is thin and the heating effect filters down.

Apparently that theory doesn't agree with real world data as the earth seems to warm from the ground up (as if increased solar radiation were responsible).

It really shouldn't surprise scientists if that turned out to be the case, after all, science does work on the limit of human knowledge and quite often researchers go down the wrong track.

It's early days yet for this theory, but the climate change researchers might have to start looking for a different type of climate change to research.

Answer 2

How many more times is it possible for that totally refuted article to be published.

The man behind it is Professor Fred Singer - he is paid by R J Reynolds Tobacco and ExxonMobil. He has founded organisations that are funded by Exxon, Chevron, Western Fuels Alliance etc. Quite obiously he claims that global warming isn't happening and that smoking is harmless. Further, he has significant personal investments in both the oil and tobacco industries.

Along with Professor Frederick Sietz (also funded by oil and tobacco), he is perhaps the least credible source you could cite. Do a Google search for both professors to find out more about their funding and the organisations they front.

I would be far more impressed if a skeptical scientist were to actually address the science behind global warming. After all, if someone or something is wrong then it's standard normal to illustrate the errors in their assertions. Not so with the skeptics who instead go off on a tangent or focus on some abstract concept.

Global warming is caused by an increase in the atmopsheric concentration of greenhouse gases - it's as simple as that, a well documented and easily proven scientific fact. This is what the whole theory of manmade global warming is based upon, so why do the skeptics consistently fail to address this issue?

If I said that the world was flat you could easy demonstrate that it was spherical and that my asumptions were wrong, you wouldn't need to come up with your own hypothesis that claimed the world was a cube, pyramidal, duodecahedron or anything other than flat.

Answer 3

We should at least agree that we don't all agree. You must be driving Dana and Bob crazy showing that their consensus is not such a great consensus. Dana talks about you believing it because you want it to be true. For me, the "belief" (as in blind faith) is squarely with the alarmists. I am a skeptic and don't pretend to know everything but I am certainly against those that try to hijack science for political reasons and then try to stifle skepticism with annoying claims of consensus.

Answer 4

No.
We cannot agree if Israel should be allowed to exist.
We cannot agree if communism is good or bad.
We cannot agree to all speak English (Or French or Chinese or whatever)
We cannot agree how to worship God, of even if God exists.
In short, the world as a whole cannot agree on ANYTHING.

Answer 5

If we don't argue, what will we do all day?

We should work to lower the amount of green house gas we produce, because it is the right thing to do, but we shouldn't do it in panic mode.

Answer 6

Ha, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Just wait for the authors of that study to be discredited by all the children skipping merrily off into the sunset with the Pied Piper of Nashville.

Answer 7

If you take away the global warming fear machine how do you expect the UN expand it's control over us?

Answer 8

NO - There are obvious AGENTS working Here & Now - Funded by the likes of very Rich Environmentalist Organizations to spread disinformation and keep people ignorant.

The Great proof is the OZONE Scam they successfully pulled off - today people don't know about it!

So far 5 thumbs down = 5 agents?
Aha Trevor = 6 a true Agent accusing Skeptics, Clintonesque style

Answer 9

Uh.. No! Global Warming is caused by the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One article versus hundreds is not a good reason to change our oppinion on this.

Answer 10

No.

Yes there are a few skeptics. There are also people (and even a few scientists) who think that the Earth is 6000 years old.

The two claims have similar scientific basis, ie none. Do you seriously expect this one study on one limited piece of the puzzle from confirmed global warming deniers to change anything? That's not going to happen.

It's EXACTLY like Creationists talking about "gaps in the fossil record".

This is still true:

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt