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/
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?
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?
These people are not employees of the NAS.
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.
overwhelming evidence and see that we need to do something soon.
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?
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
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.
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.