scientists and global warming

[shrewsbury]

constantly hearing that all scientists agree on global warming (which is false) it is nice to have some scientific backup.

ritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of Germany’s environmental movement who has headed the renewable energy division of RWE, that country’s second largest utility company, has co-authored a new blockbuster book with geologist/paleontologist Sebastian Luning announcing that the climate catastrophe heralded by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been called off.

The initial Bild article titled “The CO2 Lie” addressed “What the IPCC of the U.N. doesn’t tell you”, and then asks, “…what if the IPCC is wrong? Can we really blindly trust these experts? Are they really independent?” They then conclude, “The phenomenal prognoses of heat from the IPCC are pure fear-mongering.”

“There Hasn’t Been Any Global Warming In 12 Years!” emphasizes that CO2 is not that potent of a gas, and that a doubling would lead to only a 1.1°C temperature increase. Yet the IPCC fudges the models so that they produce a much higher increase because of the assumed water-vapor amplifier. This assumption is really on shaky ground.

Dr. Vahrenholt’s lack of trust in the IPCC’s objectivity and veracity took root two years ago when he became an expert reviewer for their report on renewable energy. He recently commented: “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy.” When he pointed out the inaccuracies to IPCC, their officials simply brushed them aside.

Vahrenholt and Luning aren’t the only leading German climate scientists to find that IPCC’s global warming projections are exaggerated. In 2001 Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who serves as the German government’s climate protection advisor, co-authored a paper refuting reliability of Global Climate Models upon which their alarmist projections are based

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...lobal-warming/

what do you think?

[habsheaven]

First, no one claims ALL scientists agree on climate change, just the vast majority in the field.

Second, this opinion piece is 3 years old.

Third, I thought this was an April Fool's joke.

[shrewsbury]

so qualified individuals in this area of study is not a valid opinion?
or is it because they disagree with the many, they must be wrong?

who cares about the age of the article, I can't be up to date on everything!!

how about his one from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

also, the last pole I seen used a whole 77 climate change scientist to prove their point.

then there is this, but it is a whole 2 years old
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/

but I did forget it was april fools, dang!!

[duane1969]

I saw a fantastic quote of global warming the other day. In essence, scientist claim Earth is 4.5 billion years old, yet we only have weather data dating back to the mid 1800's to base global warming trends on. Thus scientists are basing their "proof" that we are experiencing global warming on .00000004% of the planet's weather trends.

[habsheaven]

so qualified individuals in this area of study is not a valid opinion?
or is it because they disagree with the many, they must be wrong?

Switch this guy with a Christian scientist that insists the world is younger than 10,000 years old and ask yourself the same question. Whatever answer you get, apply it here for my response.

who cares about the age of the article, I can't be up to date on everything!!

I care. Being up here in the Great White North, I pay attention to the vanishing Arctic ice.

how about his one from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

I've got to wonder about the age of this one too, considering they are talking about Kyoto. I can see business wanting a rejection of Kyoto because it affects finances but a science institute? You would think a science institute would recognize all the good in Kyoto regardless of whether or not it is urgently needed. Makes me wonder about it's authenticity.

also, the last pole I seen used a whole 77 climate change scientist to prove their point.

not sure what that poll was but the major peer reviewed studies involve more than 77 scientists I can assure you.

then there is this, but it is a whole 2 years old
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/

Just from reading the article concerning the "study" and how it is slanted I can tell the study itself and it's originators are biased.

but I did forget it was april fools, dang!!

responses in bold

[habsheaven]

I saw a fantastic quote of global warming the other day. In essence, scientist claim Earth is 4.5 billion years old, yet we only have weather data dating back to the mid 1800's to base global warming trends on. Thus scientists are basing their "proof" that we are experiencing global warming on .00000004% of the planet's weather trends.

Nice try, BUT the data being used to come up with these "global warming trends" is not all taken from weather data. Do you think they just guessed about the timing of the Ice Ages of the past? Glacial movements? Ancient lake beds?

[shrewsbury]

habs, they use computers to simulate the effects of global warming. the issue is some the data being inputted has been altered and some is just flat out wrong.

and thanks for bringing up the ice ages, so we have had at least two global warmings before humans had a hand in it all.

[habsheaven]

habs, they use computers to simulate the effects of global warming. the issue is some the data being inputted has been altered and some is just flat out wrong.

and thanks for bringing up the ice ages, so we have had at least two global warmings before humans had a hand in it all.

Yes, they use computer programs to predict into the future. I have no comment on whether their data being inputted is wrong or altered. I haven't heard that accusation before.

I'm just taking a stab at this, but I think the scientists are aware of the Ice Ages and the warm periods too. Reminds me of the deniers of the Theory of Evolution when they say "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" Geez, you got us. We never thought of that.

Scientists are concerned with the RATES of change today, not the fact that changes are occurring.

[shrewsbury]

"If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?

there are monkeys?

I have no comment on whether their data being inputted is wrong or altered. I haven't heard that accusation before.

my first link

Dr. Vahrenholt’s lack of trust in the IPCC’s objectivity and veracity took root two years ago when he became an expert reviewer for their report on renewable energy. He recently commented: “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy.” When he pointed out the inaccuracies to IPCC, their officials simply brushed them aside.

[habsheaven]

there are monkeys?



my first link

Dr. Vahrenholt’s lack of trust in the IPCC’s objectivity and veracity took root two years ago when he became an expert reviewer for their report on renewable energy. He recently commented: “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy.” When he pointed out the inaccuracies to IPCC, their officials simply brushed them aside.

There's nothing there talking about "inputted data" being wrong. "Numerous errors" in what? He is commenting on a report on renewable energy, not climate change? He is speculating about the climate change reports. I don't see how your claim and this relates?