National Academy scientists fight back on climate change by waterlibrarian

I had the following conversation at http://waterlibrarian.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/national-academy-scientists-fight-back-on-climate-change/

rogerthesurfThis is especially true when politicians take up the IPCC banner and start taxing us poor tax payers on the account of THEIR flawed reasoning.

Cheers

Roger

 
IPCC report, which was written in 2007, has underestimated the danger from climate change.

No, they are not kidding. In fact, from what I’ve seen, the scientific consensus is that the lastIn case you haven’t already done so, please read the letter from hundreds of esteemed scientists: 

Why would they lie about this?

All or most of them have secure jobs; they don’t need your tax money. Could it be that they are honestly concerned about the planet and the generations that will come after us?

rogerthesurf
says

May 11, 2010 at 8:40 pm

These signatories are all from the US Academy of Science.
I’m quite sure that they all rely on tax payers money from their very first pay packet. If big business was backing them, it would influence their credibility I’m sure.

Their claim to be signing the document in their own capacity is accurate? Well I dont think so.

And as contributors to the IPCC I’m sure a lot of cash comes their way from that source one way or another, as well.

Howabout checking out these scientists who are also petitioning the UN and US government.

Do you think they are not concerned about the planet and the people on it?

If you have not already done so I invite you to visit my blog. If you disagree with any of it, I am quite willing to take the time to discuss it with you. Not all my sources are on there.
In the meantime contemplate these two documents.

Cheers
Roger

 
waterlibrarian says:

May 11, 2010 at 9:31 pm

“These signatories are all from the US Academy of Science.”
Membership in the National Academy of Science is granted to distinguished scientists.

These people are not employees of the NAS.

“I’m quite sure …” “Well I dont think so. … I’m sure a lot of cash comes their way from that source one way or another, as well.”
A lot guesswork there. I think some of them have worked for the IPCC and some have not. I imagine those that have got paid for their work. So what?

As for getting paid by the taxpayers: I see a lot of private universities (and even Microsoft) on the list.

And what if they are getting paid by the tax payers to some extent? Is the U.S. government forcing scientists to toe the climate change line? If so, why did most climatologists believe in climate change in the years 2001-2009 — a time when our government was trying to do as little as possible about the problem?

Re. your links: These chestnuts are the best you can do?

Maybe 1922 was a warm year. I hear there are natural fluxes from year to year. It’s also anecdotal evidence from one part of the world — nothing like the worldwide sharp warming trend we have seen for decades.

There was no consensus in the 1970s about “global cooling” anything like what we have now regarding climate change.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php title=They_predicted_global_cooling_in_the_1970s

 
rogerthesurf says:

May 11, 2010 at 8:41 pm

PS You pay taxes as well right?
Cheers

Roger

¡
waterlibrarian says:

May 11, 2010 at 9:33 pm

Yep. Climate change research is one area I am happy to see my dollars go.
I also drive a car. I wish climate change were not true. But I can look at the

overwhelming evidence and see that we need to do something soon.

rogerthesurf
says:

May 11, 2010 at 11:49 pm

Thanks for your reply,
Its true that there wasn’t a panic about global cooling in the 70s like there is now.

Maybe normal people were smarter then. I do remember that there were complaints about North Atlantic ice though, but no one tried to tell us it was our fault.

 The skiing was OK in Canada though some of those years.

If you check out the “official” global temps you will see that 1922 was not a particularly warm year. Sure took us a long time to notice the ice melting if it had already retreated in 1922.

I didnt see any comments about my blog though. You are not afraid to consider evidence that contradicts your views are you?

Cheers

Roger

waterlibrarian says:

May 14, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Re. the 1970s: I’m not talking about “normal people,” and I’m certainly not talking about anecdotal evidence about skiing conditions in Canada. I’m talking about scientific consensus.
In the 1970s, a few scientists thought they detected “global cooling.” Today, the vast majority of climatologists believe with a high degree of certainty that the worldwide climate is warming and that it is caused by human actions.

(Yes, I know you cited a letter signed by 100 scientists, but many, if not most, of them are not climatologists. The letter I cited came from 255 scientists, all of them distinguished climatologists.)
Re. 1922: You’re still talking about one indicator (ice cover) in one part of the world (the Arctic) in one year (1922). Climate does not move in a smooth line; there are ups and downs.

What we have now, though, is a steady warming, worldwide, from 1980 to the present. It’s showing up in steadily decreasing sea ice, increasing sea level, and increasing surface temperatures. If you want to talk about official readings, have a look at

I had a look at your blog. Most of what I saw were your insinuations about what you think are the “real motives” of scientists and politicians for saying that climate change is real. I’ll have another look and comment where appropriate.

If you’re really interested in answers to your questions, I suggest you look at

 

If you want to discuss these matters with people who are far more knowledgeable than me, I suggest you go to

You are not afraid to consider evidence that contradicts your views are you?
  

 

You said 6 days ago:

“You are not afraid to consider evidence that contradicts your views are you?”

Absolutely not.I am still waiting for some one to explain the proof behind the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

Cheers

Roger

waterlibrarian said 2 days ago:

You want 100% proof? It’s not going to happen. Science doesn’t work that way. Ask a scientist to prove the gravity hypothesis, and he or she will tell you it’s the best hypothesis we have right now, but it could always be disproved if a better one comes along.

That’s how the anthropogenic-greenhouse-gases-cause-climate-change hypothesis is. It’s the best one we have to explain the evidence before us. (I hope you don’t mind that I rephrased your question a little. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and warming is not the only effect we are seeing.)

I’m so pleased to hear that you’re looking for an explanation. I’ve found some good ones on the following pages. I hope they are enlightening for you.

More CO2 does worsen climate change: http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change

Yes, Global Warming is real and it’s still happening: http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-global-warming-real-and-happening

Don’t miss this part:

“Finally, we have greenhouse gases. In this case, things work out well. Both the timing and magnitude of today’s warming are well-explained by greenhouse gases.

“This is why scientists conclude that humans are likely responsible for most of the warming of the last few decades. Greenhouse gases provide a reasonable explanation for the warming, while no other factor can explain the entire warming (though other factors, such as solar, might be playing a minor role).”

The climate models have it right: http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-part-3-climate-models-have-it-right

If you want to discuss this further, you should go over to http://www.realclimate.org There you’ll find people who will give your arguments the full and fair hearing they deserve.

“Yes, I know you cited a letter signed by 100 scientists”  Would you mind checking the links I gave you concerning that again and consider revising that statement?

Now I hope we are talking about non biased evidence.

Of course all the links you gave me above are heavily biased, obviously apparent by their very titles.
Might pay to keep your evidence confined to scientific papers and facts, not peoples opinions of them.

But I am afraid you have missed the point.

I said that I am waiting for someone to explain to me the proof behind the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

Everyone of your links proceeds as if this hypothesis is fact and then go on about the results of various models and observations. This may deceive the weak minded but it does not deceive anyone with half a brain.

Please read my blog again where the question (after the well deserved lampooning of the politicians) is clearly laid out.
 
Just because the climate may be warming  recently does NOT constitute proof of the above hypothesis.
Unfortunately the fact that the planet warms up regularly, a number of those times recorded in historical records etc, seriously disproves the hypothesis.

Now think hard about this,I know (because you told me) you are not afraid to consider evidence that contradicts your views.

Cheers

Roger

says:

May 11, 2010 at 5:45 pm
“protesting the politicization of climate science by those who deny that climate change is happening”
Are they kidding? Its the IPCC and its “scientific” contributors who are politicising science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: