Do You Believe In Global Warming???

[PA5COR]

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

The enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence (eg - satellite measurements of infrared spectra, surface measurements finding more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface).

The most powerful force controlling climate is radiative forcing. Whatever causes the planet to be in energy imbalance - to accumulate or lose heat - is what drives long term global warming or cooling. The factors such as ocean currents and El Nino are responsible for internal variations but have very little impact on long term energy imbalance.

So what causes changes to the planet's energy imbalance? Not just CO2 - there are many forcings that drive climate (eg - aerosols, solar variations, cloud albedo). However, the reason for the focus on CO2 is because CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

Closing your eyes to the most obvious drivers of the greenhouse effect and calling upon refuted higher solar output as main driver for the greenhouse effect doesn't cut the cake i'm affraid.

The only cooler times that come is in your house using the airco as the situation is now.

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

I believe in Global Warming...BUT...
I believe that it will not continue to increase permanently because it is a cyclic effect and probably due more to magnetic and/or radiant variations from our Sun, than to an alleged greenhouse effect.
I believe that it is not significantly due to man made carbon or greenhouse gasses.

Wex, w2ilp (I'm Less Pessimistic) Cooler times are coming...

[NL7W]

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.

The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. It is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable [not disproven] by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are "great" precisely because they broke with the consensus.

The claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

The enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence (eg - satellite measurements of infrared spectra, surface measurements finding more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface).

The most powerful force controlling climate is radiative forcing. Whatever causes the planet to be in energy imbalance - to accumulate or lose heat - is what drives long term global warming or cooling. The factors such as ocean currents and El Nino are responsible for internal variations but have very little impact on long term energy imbalance.

So what causes changes to the planet's energy imbalance? Not just CO2 - there are many forcings that drive climate (eg - aerosols, solar variations, cloud albedo). However, the reason for the focus on CO2 is because CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

Closing your eyes to the most obvious drivers of the greenhouse effect and calling upon refuted higher solar output as main driver for the greenhouse effect doesn't cut the cake i'm affraid.

The only cooler times that come is in your house using the airco as the situation is now.

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

[PA5COR]

Wrong again, may i refer to one of my earlier posts:
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
Your scaredness for your purse is clouding your judgement.

There is no politics involvd, and actions do have consequences, ask the farmers that now see their grain crop wither away in the fields, they now are seing their income tank, because you simply aren't being honest.

So, either we will have to dial back our "needs" or find alternative less destructive ways to do things, or have other groups of people pay the price for your unbridled refusal to change things, in the process also destroying a large amount of the food people need, and water that fast is becomming the next expensive or not available commodity.


So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.


When even large oil companies agree on the change in climate and rely on yet undiscovered "technical" solutions, you like to keep your eyes closed.
Why would an industry that pumped so much money into climate change denial invest in adapting to it? It’s really simple: climate change will affect the company’s bottom line. A 2009 report by IBM, Acclimatise and Carbon Disclosure Project found that the oil and gas industry is not prepared for the impacts of climate change to their physical assets. Climate change impacts, according to the report, “will become more severe creating new and enhanced risks for the oil and gas sector.”


Let’s look at how the big name oil companies (Shell, BP and Chevron). Why those three companies? All three companies track their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. All three acknowledge that climate change is real. BP, once known as British Petroleum, even goes so far as saying that BP stands for “Beyond Petroleum.”
None of the three companies really admit that in order to truly avoid the worst impacts of climate change globally, the use of fossil fuels must be phased out. However, the fact that the companies acknowledge climate change at all is a big leap from their funding of climate change denial.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.

The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. It is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable [not disproven] by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are "great" precisely because they broke with the consensus.

The claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

[AF6LJ]

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.

I agree....
Orwell At Work,

The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. It is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable [not disproven] by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are "great" precisely because they broke with the consensus.

The claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Most of the GW Mombo-Jumbo doesn't even approach a valid theory, just a bunch of scared people guessing in the dark.

[N0SYA]

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

The enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence (eg - satellite measurements of infrared spectra, surface measurements finding more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface).

The most powerful force controlling climate is radiative forcing. Whatever causes the planet to be in energy imbalance - to accumulate or lose heat - is what drives long term global warming or cooling. The factors such as ocean currents and El Nino are responsible for internal variations but have very little impact on long term energy imbalance.

So what causes changes to the planet's energy imbalance? Not just CO2 - there are many forcings that drive climate (eg - aerosols, solar variations, cloud albedo). However, the reason for the focus on CO2 is because CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

Closing your eyes to the most obvious drivers of the greenhouse effect and calling upon refuted higher solar output as main driver for the greenhouse effect doesn't cut the cake i'm affraid.

The only cooler times that come is in your house using the airco as the situation is now.

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

So THAT"S what that giant rectal thermometer NASA ordered was for!

[W2ILP]

The late Steve Mendelshon asked, "Is Morse Code a religion?" Steve did not BELIEVE that Morse tests should be required to license a ham. Perhaps he was right because we now have no testing requirement for a ham license and the hobby continues to survive. Perhaps he was wrong because in the eyes of some the traditional quality and culture has deteriated.

When I say that I do not BELIEVE that Global Warming is significantly caused by man made greenhouse gasses, I know that I may not be using the best of scientific data that has been recorded and continues to be recorded...BUT I also know that global weather is quite a dynamic result of many factors. Regardless of the collected data it can not be calculated to yield predictions of average global temperatures related to finite numeric figures of international industrial carbon exhausts. Those who tell you that replacing some number of old light bulbs with CFLs or LEDs will reduce GW by exactly some fraction of a degree per year are not any more scientific than those who try to predict the mean time of failure of a fan in my home air-conditioning system....nor the time it might take to get it repaired. I believe that for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows...I believe...When there is no rain I use a hose...I believe...I think...

Wex, w2ilp (Insane Limited Predictions)...May be based on hypothesis of faith...but may not be finitely scientific...I think...
W2ILP licensed since 1951

[AF6LJ]

The late Steve Mendelshon asked, "Is Morse Code a religion?" Steve did not BELIEVE that Morse tests should be required to license a ham. Perhaps he was right because we now have no testing requirement for a ham license and the hobby continues to survive. Perhaps he was wrong because in the eyes of some the traditional quality and culture has deteriated.

When I say that I do not BELIEVE that Global Warming is significantly caused by man made greenhouse gasses, I know that I may not be using the best of scientific data that has been recorded and continues to be recorded...BUT I also know that global weather is quite a dynamic result of many factors. Regardless of the collected data it can not be calculated to yield predictions of average global temperatures related to finite numeric figures of international industrial carbon exhausts. Those who tell you that replacing some number of old light bulbs with CFLs or LEDs will reduce GW by exactly some fraction of a degree per year are not any more scientific than those who try to predict the mean time of failure of a fan in my home air-conditioning system....nor the time it might take to get it repaired. I believe that for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows...I believe...When there is no rain I use a hose...I believe...I think...

Wex, w2ilp (Insane Limited Predictions)...May be based on hypothesis of faith...but may not be finitely scientific...I think...
W2ILP licensed since 1951

Very Well Put.

[W2ILP]

Some people fear Global Warming.

Children are afraid to sleep in the dark.
Men are afraid to be exposed by the light.
--Plato--

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
--FDR--

Do not fear fire. We need it to cook our food, melt our gold and make our steel.
Do not fear cold, heat or rain..We can now deliver e-mail without being exposed to it.


Wex, w2ilp (I'll Live Perspiring) Man has evolved to take some heat...Let us not lose the ability to sweat.I think..

[N0SYA]

I stand against all who do not espouse a faith in solargenic local warming!

[NA0AA]

In a hundred years, we will see a scene recreating the famous denoument in "Independence Day"

"You knew, you knew back in the 1950's, that crash in Roswell, you KNEW THEN, and you did NOTHING!"

Our great-grandchildren are going to look back and say "They knew then, and they did NOTHING!"

But at least we won't waste any money on nothing.

or to quote Shawshank...."Put your faith in God, your a** belongs to Mother Earth!"

Sleep well.