Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

"I do dispute that it can be said that this has anything whatsoever to do with human activity.

Alterations in the activity of the sun are more likely to "blame" for the slight increase in temperature. This is especially obvious when you consider that the temperature on Mars also seems to be rising"

Source please?
 
zenbabelfish said:
Source please?
Click to expand...

And furthermore, madanthony, is it peer-reviewed? And does it conclude that all of what we're observing can be explained by the sun alone? Or at the very least, does it say that's a major cause?
 
zenbabelfish said:
"I do dispute that it can be said that this has anything whatsoever to do with human activity.

Alterations in the activity of the sun are more likely to "blame" for the slight increase in temperature. This is especially obvious when you consider that the temperature on Mars also seems to be rising"

Source please?
Click to expand...
Here's one:
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET
20 March 2003

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
Click to expand...
Even more convincing is this graph:
http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif
You notice that the graph of solar activity and temperature are almost exactly the same.

Here's a bunch more:

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?.
C. R. de Freitas (2002)
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 50, 297-327
http://bcpg.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/2/297
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply.
L. C. Gerhard (2006)
AAPG Bulletin 90, 409-412
http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/90/3/409

The Sun's Role in Climate Variations.
D. Rind (2002)
Science 296, 673-677
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/5568/673

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years.
T. J. Crowley (2000)
Science 289, 270-277
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5477/270

Climatic change in Chile at around 2700 BP and global evidence for solar forcing: a hypothesis.
B. van Geel, C. J. Heusser, H. Renssen, and C. J.E. Schuurmans (2000)
The Holocene 10, 659-664
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/659

Palaeoenvironmental evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar science.
F. M. Chambers, M. I. Ogle, and J. J. Blackford (1999)
Progress in Physical Geography 23, 181-204
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/181
Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change.
C. A. Perry and K. J. Hsu (2000)
PNAS 97, 12433-12438
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/23/12433
 
And does it conclude that all of what we're observing can be explained by the sun alone? Or at the very least, does it say that's a major cause?
Click to expand...

The stuff that I've seen says that it's a minor but non-negligible part, ~20% or so. These findings, of course, are swept under the rug by "official" climatologists who favor alarmist predictions and raidcal policies in the stead of workable solutions.

The scarier statistic is that if Britain were to shut off tomorrow---i.e. completely eliminate all emission of carbon, the growth in China over the next two years would make up for the loss. If we have decided that climate change is an issue, then the west should surely lead the way. However, any good that we may do in this hemishpere will be overshadowed by China and India. China and India will refuse to accept any limitations on their carbon emissions, under the auspices that they are still "developing" and the West is "developed".

I think we should take the Futurama solution and move the Earth's orbit out just a bit.
 
There are still some scientists who are not sold on anthropogenic causes for climate change.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Click to expand...

Rest of the article, with some shitty popups...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
 
I too have my doubts about mankind creating enough gasses (at least to this point in time) to create an unnatural global warming.

I cant find anyone to explain to me the pattern of warming / cooling that seems to occur on several cycles and link this to mankind. 100K years and 400K years seems to be the accepted pattern.

More recently heres a few links to stories done on warming patterns:

Holocene Warming Info

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Middle Ages warmer than today:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

Heres some people looking at past ocean levels:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000226/bob10.asp

Also, the claims of C02 being a cause of global warming and the reports that there hasnt been as significant of a shift in C02 levels in ice checks going back 100 - 400 to 600 K years ago (depending on whos doing the reporting) doesnt this fly in the face of CO2 being a cause if we had significant warmings as shown in the holocene climatic optimum? If the temps rose then and ice cores dont show an associated CO2 rise, what caused the temps to rise 4 - 8000 years ago?
 
Dear Madanthonywayne, I'm sorry I haven't read the references you provided but I am sure they are valid...that is the problem with a statistics.
Problem is that I can't take the chance on believing statistics when we have so much to lose and I also feel I have the responsibility to my fellow humans and creatures.
 
Problem is that I can't take the chance on believing statistics when we have so much to lose and I also feel I have the responsibility to my fellow humans and creatures.
Click to expand...

This is the normal environmentalist response--that it is better to err on the side of caution. The problem is, here we are talking about literally thousands of trillions of dollars. The Kyoto protocols have cost something like $300 billion and cut the projected temperature in 2050 by 0.003 K. If we want to save 3 K, the naive extrapolation is 3 thousand trillion dollars that the world would spend---we could colonize the moon for this!
 
zenbabelfish said:
Or a scientists response.
Click to expand...
A scientist would do a cost/benefit analysis of any proposed action and see that the Kyoto protocals are insane by any reasonable standard. A scientist does not act without evidence. To do so is to turn global warming into a religion.
 
No - a scientist would look at the evidence and leave the cost/benefit analysis to the accountant that pays his/her wages (in the context of the OP).

An accountant acts regardless of evidence if the buck is there...money is the lifeblood of global warming.
 
madanthonywayne said:
A scientist would do a cost/benefit analysis of any proposed action and see that the Kyoto protocals are insane by any reasonable standard. A scientist does not act without evidence. To do so is to turn global warming into a religion.
Click to expand...
With consumption already a religion we need a new religion. Do you really think pumping all our energy sources out of the Earth then expelling it ALL into the atmosphere, consistently for a century or more isn't going to have effect? Even if it isn't our cause why not do our best to reduce any impact we do have? I'm more than willing to pay higher prices. Why the irresponsibility from the Right? Because their oil baron gods like things just as they are. We'll see where that gets you.
 
The Kyoto protocol is flawed because it is not appropriate to reduce fossil fuel emissions in the proper quantity.

What needs to happen is the abolition of fossil fuel. Period. But as everyone knows, that can't happen overnight.

It's hard to believe denialists are still being rampant on these forums.
 
Some of the denialist links posted above are obviously a product of Big Oil's junk science. There are, of course, the tobacco denialists too. I've seen them post some pretty convincing "literature" on these forums before. What a disgrace to humankind.
 
zenbabelfish said:
Totally Facial - and how many of them live at sea level?
Click to expand...

6.6 billion minus a half dozen divided by 6.6 billion? There are always a handful of people in space. You'll need a population of about 50 to survive into a healthy population again. And we don't even have that many people in space.
 
Some of the denialist links posted above are obviously a product of Big Oil's junk science.
Click to expand...

Obviously there can be no science that is contrary to the prevailing opinion that is not funded by partisan interests.

What needs to happen is the abolition of fossil fuel. Period. But as everyone knows, that can't happen overnight.
Click to expand...

Care to run that by China first?
 
I can say that most, if not all, net environmental groups are pro oil. Oh they won't say so but they censor any debate re big oils responsibilities and push the hoax of greenhouse gases.... everyone is responsible for them.

But only big oil is responsible for the oil layer upon the seas.

Most net science forums are in the chartel.... even this one. Meaningful and detailed discussion is impossible.

The net is thus nobbled.

Even Al Gore (oh hero of global warming) is chuckling to himself... and pocketing millions. (oil man, and equally guilty of coercion and hiding the truth)

Tis the scam of all time, and you the public are asleep, and if the messenger wakes you up... shoot him.

Bush (oil man),,,, LOL, y'all caught in a trap and no way out.
pathetic.
 
BenTheMan said:
Obviously there can be no science that is contrary to the prevailing opinion that is not funded by partisan interests.



Care to run that by China first?
Click to expand...
That's right, pass responsibility onto someone else.:rolleyes: Typical 'pro-active' American.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top