Ed the scientific consensus is overwhelming, If you think scientists agreeing with each other (Consensus) isnt real science then we'ill have to agree to disagree = http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-ch...sensus-on.html
As said before i'm not a climatologist so i can only go by what i read, the majority of scientists through their measurements/research are saying its warming up and mans use of 100 million barrels of oil per day has something to do with it.
I dont get why the obsession to the point of psychosis to deny their findings?
As said before i'm not a climatologist so i can only go by what i read, the majority of scientists through their measurements/research are saying its warming up and mans use of 100 million barrels of oil per day has something to do with it.
I dont get why the obsession to the point of psychosis to deny their findings?
Consensus science is not science it's merely a belief, often tied either to peer acceptance or the money trail.
One cannot measure the accuracy of a laboratory from within . . .
Early in the book, Crichton has one of his characters define global warming as “the heating up of the earth from burning fossil fuels.” (p. 80) Not so, says another character, who defines global warming as follows:
... global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere because of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect.’ (p. 81)
The second definition is correct. “Global warming” really is only a theory, not a fact, and the words Crichton chose to italicize are all key terms in the scientific debate over whether the theory is correct or not. Over the course of the book, other characters document the following flaws in the theory of global warming:
most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor (p. 84);
temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased (p. 86);
temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);
“full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools ... the former president of the National Academy of Sciences ... will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy" (p. 90);
temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground (p. 99);
data from weather balloons agree with the satellites (p. 100);
“No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds,” yet cloud cover plays a major role in global temperatures (p. 187);
Antarctica “as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker” (p. 193, sources listed on p. 194);
The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years (p. 195, p. 200-201);
“Greenland might lose its ice pack in the next thousand years” (p. 363);
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “a huge group of bureaucrats and scientists under the thumb of bureaucrats,” and its 1995 report was revised “after the scientists themselves had gone home” (p. 245-246);
James Hansen’s predictions of global warming during a Congressional committee hearing in 1988, which launched the global warming scare, were wrong by 200 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years versus the actual increase of .11 degrees); in 1998, Hansen said long-term predictions of climate are impossible (pp. 246-247);
there has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather (p. 362, 425-426);
temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect (p. 368-369);
methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it (p. 369-376);
changes in land use and urbanization may contribute more to changes in the average ground temperature than “global warming” caused by human emissions (p. 383, 388);
temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who expect to find a warming trend (p. 385-386);
carbon dioxide has increased a mere 60 parts per million since 1957, a tiny change in the composition of the atmosphere (p. 387);
increased levels of CO2 act a fertilizer, promoting plant growth and contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert (p. 421);
the spread of malaria is unaffected by global warming (pp. 421-422, footnotes on 422);
sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world (p. 423);
the icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region (p. 423);
deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (p. 424);
sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years (p. 424);
El Niños are global weather patterns unrelated to global warming and on balance tend to be beneficial by extending growing seasons and reducing the use of heating fuels (p. 426);
the Kyoto Protocol would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 (p. 478);
a report by scientists published in Science concludes “there is no known technology capable of reducing [global] carbon emissions ... totally new and undiscovered technology is required” (p. 479);
change, not stability, is the defining characteristic of the global climate, with naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) much more likely to affect climate than anything humans do (p. 563); and
computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts (p. 566).
One character in State of Fear concludes, “The threat of global warming is essentially nonexistent. Even if it were a real phenomenon, it would probably result in a net benefit to most of the world” (p. 407).
Which word were you discussing? If you don't get it don't give up your day job, you may not be a scientist.
I've already stated i/m not a scientist and am basing my opinions on what i read and see in the media.
You were claiming Scientific consensus was not real science in response to my claiming there was a consensus among the majority of scientists that man is creating an abnormal spike in this particular phase of the Earth heating up,
I tried unsuccessfully to find a definition of your application of the term scientific consensus.
As for your quoting of individuals who refute what the majority of the science world is claiming may make for interesting reading however it really doesnt give much in the way of credible opposition to what the majority of the scientific stance is on the issue, With a bit of Googling one can find proof that the Earth is flat= https://www.google.ca/#q=proof+the+e...at&safe=active
Theres a lot of scientists and science in the world when you start to question their findings and research as a whole on any given matter you end up on a very slippery slope whereby all science and scientists become untrustworthy and the purveyors of deception and not to be believed ,a veritable scientific paranoia ensues whereby you end up believing nothing.
But, over the past few years I read so many conflicting reports on Global Warming and Climate Change that I've come to but one conclusion - NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON OR CAUSING IT!
They're all making guesses and calling it science.
IMHO, the claim that Manking is culpable for any of this is super egotistical.
The only conflicting viewpoints i'm seeing are coming almost entirely from a certain American political demographic..
ivcabbie do you think there is any atmospheric consequence to mans usage of 100million barrels of oil per day? And if those responsible for studying our atmosphere and climate came out en mass claiming we are screwing up the climate wouldnt that give you pause to ponder?
Linear Mode
