Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
U.S Army: Climate Change is Not Man-Made But Sun-Made
blog.wired.com — The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth ’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."
MakiMaki- 211 diggs
- digg it
- Stevanoski, on 06/03/2008, -16/+22Der, everyone knows this except those who use man made global warming to further their political views.
- rpi22, on 06/03/2008, -13/+19"There is a clear consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real and that it is man made!"
"Well, all these scientists present tons of evidence that disagrees with you..."
"Well, they are clearly so far outside of the consensus that we can just ignore them and continue our hysteria mongering!"
Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Otherwise, its not a consensus.- greenfyre, on 06/03/2008, -5/+9In science you give serious treatment to their work, which may include rational, logical interpretation of the data; however, their unsubstantiated opinions counts for zero. Unsubstantiated opinions of industry funded hacks like Singer, Ball and Robinson counts for even less.
We'll see what the scientific community has to say about West and his model. Maybe it's good, maybe not. - monoa, on 06/03/2008, -9/+7It's always the same fact-free rhetoric. Never any evidence or references. You just spout some ***** and think you've scored a point.
"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm - and that was *7* years ago.
""The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now." - American Association for the Advancement of Science
I could fill this page with statements from every scientific academy of every country on the planet that would say similar, but you say that is not consensus!
You are a delusional half-wit denying the reality that is in front of you. - rpi22, on 06/04/2008, -7/+12NO EVIDENCE?! Are you retarded?! What the ***** is this article then?!
Mankind is responsible for less than 5% of atmospheric CO2. But hey, what's scientific fact in the face of utter hysteria?!?!?!?! If the gov't gets people scared enough, they will do anything.
Not to mention, the latest data shows global cooling, but hey let's ignore that because it's not as coooool as Al gore. But, OMG, don't look at the evidence proves you're full of ***** or just plain ignorant!
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197 ...- Waiting2awake, on 06/04/2008, -6/+4If you make $100 a week, and spend $99 you will eventually be rich.
If you make $100 a week and spend $101 you are bankrupt...
OMG it is only 2 dollars...only 2%!!!!
Smarten up. - Isidore, on 06/04/2008, -7/+2Only 5%? The earth's athmosphere is a delicate balance - like our bodies. Try increasing your calorie intake by 5% and see what happens in a few years.
Everyone accepts that the sun and other natural causes affect climate the question is are human activities one of those factors.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ...
Overall the earth is still warming and melting the ice caps. The
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7418041.stm
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
http://www.thelocal.se/11526/20080503/- BigManOnCampus, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4A delicate balance implies an unstable equilibrium. In physical terms this means that pushed slightly either direction the system begins moving on it's own toward a different equilibrium, presumably a more stable one. The problem is that the CO2 on this planet has been much much much higher in the past, and we didn't turn into Venus. So if the earth's climate is such a delicate balance, why does the climate appear to be so stable?
- Waiting2awake, on 06/04/2008, -6/+4If you make $100 a week, and spend $99 you will eventually be rich.
- rpi22, on 06/04/2008, -8/+8ZOMG!!! the polar ice caps are melting...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_sout ...
ON MARS!!!- JimmySpaza, on 06/04/2008, -7/+7I guess Martians are driving their SUVs too.
Hopefully, the Goracle will set up a new remote Church of Global Warming on Mars to teach them a lesson.
- JimmySpaza, on 06/04/2008, -7/+7I guess Martians are driving their SUVs too.
- samoan27, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Well the fact that ALL the planets in our solar system have increased in surface temperature* makes me think that this is certainly a credible theory (I don't think the wasteful US economy has too much effect on Jupiter's climate). However none have increased like ours making me think it's a little of both.
*The technology to read temperatures through space is relatively new and the data sets are small compared to what's available for Earth's history - AllyOfReason, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Lets not forgot that the understanding of the Earth's dimension as being flat was once a scientific consensus. That the atom and big bang were impossible were once scientific consensus as well.
- LumpyRevolution, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous."~Carl Sagan
Over ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND scientists have come forward with information OPPOSING the thoughts that man is doing this.
The most man can ever do to affect global warming at its MOST HIGHEST levels is .03% ... Refute that if you can.
- greenfyre, on 06/03/2008, -5/+9In science you give serious treatment to their work, which may include rational, logical interpretation of the data; however, their unsubstantiated opinions counts for zero. Unsubstantiated opinions of industry funded hacks like Singer, Ball and Robinson counts for even less.
- greenfyre, on 06/03/2008, -9/+24Interesting, really interesting.
1) This is not a US Army position, but rather a report on the work of one US Army scientist
2) Looking that their Physics Today paper http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308. ... it is in published as "Opinion", not as peer reviewed research (why not?)
3) They report that the suns influence "could be as much as 70%", omitting that by their model it could be as low as 15%. Reporting one extreme and not the other is cheesy
4) It is not at all clear from this opinion piece whether this is an entire reworking of their earlier piece http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142 ... or whether it merely a representation of it. It looks a lot like the critique of their earlier paper still applies http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
So, I'll watch this one with real interest (the research, not this thread), but there are some real warning flags here.- BigManOnCampus, on 06/04/2008, -4/+5All climate research that attempts to reach predictions/conclusion should be published as opinion considering the system they mean to understand is so far beyond our ability to accurately model as to make predictions meaningless.
- greenfyre, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2Including (and especially) the prediction that things will stay as they are
However, 'opinion' is a useful tag that the work has not been subject to peer review, and the analysis may be flawed, etc
- greenfyre, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2Including (and especially) the prediction that things will stay as they are
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1damn I dugg your globalist propaganda by accident
- BigManOnCampus, on 06/04/2008, -4/+5All climate research that attempts to reach predictions/conclusion should be published as opinion considering the system they mean to understand is so far beyond our ability to accurately model as to make predictions meaningless.
- scamerica, on 06/03/2008, -16/+10Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys:
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers- monoa, on 06/03/2008, -7/+11scamerica, possibly the most clueless, dishonest and cowardly person on Digg:
1. Many of the people you list are taken from the discredited Heartland list - http://www.desmogblog.com/distinguished-scientist- ...
2. Who do we believe? The handful of contrarian scientists you keep listing or the *thousands* of scientists who say catastrophic climate change is happening and is due to human activity?
3. "With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
4. A detailed look at your list:
* Dr. Edward Wegman, a mathematician, said "We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise."
* Dr. David Bromwich - his research is based primarily on single site assessments at Amundsen-Scott Research Station. He does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
* Prof. Paul Reiter has not denied the reality of global warming, he has merely questioned the relationship between it and the effects on mosquito-borne diseases. He sits on the council of an organization called the 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil.
* Prof. Hendrik Tennekes is an aeronautical engineer. His opinion matters why?
* Dr. Christopher Landsea has said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades ..., and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."
* Dr. Antonino Zichichi has made a career out of controversy. He is widely ridiculed in the scientific community for his error-strewn publications.
* Dr. Richard Lindzen is also a member of 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which receives major funding from ExxonMobil. He also works for 'Cato Institute' - again funded by ExxonMobil.
* Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is criticised by Professor Hans Oeschger who says that some of Jaworowski claims are "drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
* Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu - "it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2 ... Prominent climate change is in progress in the Arctic"
* Dr. Claude Allegre - 20 years ago in "Clés pour la géologie", he wrote "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature...". He now says "The cause of this climate change is unknown".
* Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov - his claims that solar activity is the main contributor to climate change have been discredited - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb ...
* Dr. Richard Tol, an economist, does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, he has merely debated the economic impact.
* Dr. Sami Solanki - "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
* Prof. Freeman Dyson - "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
* Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change and does not suggest that the sun "could account for most of the warming" - http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
Lawrence Solomon: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." - http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=12d ...
His entire list is composed of lies, misquotes and discredited claims. To keep pasting it makes him dishonest. Or stupid. Or both.- JimmySpaza, on 06/04/2008, -7/+4Stop pasting this b.s. 31,000 scientists now say that global warming is junk science...and all you have to show in response is a few names of questionable scientists that you keep mindlessly repeating? Shame.
- grumpyrain, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5Great. But with a pool of 31000 possible 'scientists' to choose from, why does scamerica need to copy-paste the same discredited list over and over?
- monoa, on 06/04/2008, -3/+4As always, Spaz offers no evidence, although I know he's referring to the 'Oregon Petition' - http://www.petitionproject.org/ . This list of '31,000 scientists' has included 'Geri Halliwell' (Spice Girls), 'Perry Mason' (fictitious detective), 'Michael J. Fox' (Back To The Future!) and a bunch of others that show the list up for what it is - unverified *****. Anyone can sign the form with any name and qualification they choose - it will get added to the list of 'scientists'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon ...
Spaz, you're as dumb and dishonest as scamerica. Have you heard the phrase, "when you're in a hole, it's time to stop digging"?
- grumpyrain, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5Great. But with a pool of 31000 possible 'scientists' to choose from, why does scamerica need to copy-paste the same discredited list over and over?
- JimmySpaza, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1@grumpyrain
"Great. But with a pool of 31000 possible 'scientists' to choose from, why does scamerica need to copy-paste the same discredited list over and over?"
I don't know, dude. I'm not Scamerica.- grumpyrain, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1You may not be Scamerica, but you are telling monoa to stop posting a rebuttal to Scamerica's post and calling it bs. I make a simple point. 31,000 is a lot of people, surely it easy enough to be able to find 10 pretty reputable scientists. These can't be the top 10, or otherwise if they are, it is not particularly impressive.
- JimmySpaza, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1@ grumpyrain
When it comes to this global warming stuff, it's become so politicized with huge amounts of money playing a factor that it is difficult to find anyone without an agenda or bias. This includes scientists.
The bottom line is that you have scientists on both sides of the issue saying different things. Bias is rampant. And people are using science and scientists to advance their own agenda. - monoa, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2No, but your're as dishonest and dumb as him when you keep ignoring evidence that disproves your claims while offering no evidence of your own.
You keep yapping about your '31,000 scientists' while offering no evidence for them. You keep ignoring the evidence that clearly disproves the legitimacy of your '31,000 scientists'. That makes you some combination of dishonest, delusional and dumb.
Also, there are "scientists on both sides of the issue" in the same way that there are scientists on both sides of the creationism / evolution 'issue', i.e. a handful of wingnuts on one side and the rational, reality-based remainder of the planet on the other.
- grumpyrain, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1You may not be Scamerica, but you are telling monoa to stop posting a rebuttal to Scamerica's post and calling it bs. I make a simple point. 31,000 is a lot of people, surely it easy enough to be able to find 10 pretty reputable scientists. These can't be the top 10, or otherwise if they are, it is not particularly impressive.
- JimmySpaza, on 06/04/2008, -7/+4Stop pasting this b.s. 31,000 scientists now say that global warming is junk science...and all you have to show in response is a few names of questionable scientists that you keep mindlessly repeating? Shame.
- monoa, on 06/03/2008, -7/+11scamerica, possibly the most clueless, dishonest and cowardly person on Digg:
- monoa, on 06/03/2008, -9/+14"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed." - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30 ...
Further, if Dr. Bruce West has got it right, it means that every national academy of science of all the major industrialized countries on the planet have got it wrong. What are the chances that every reputable climate scientist on the planet has got it wrong and this guy has somehow hit on the right answer.
Looking at Dr. West's bio we get: "His research focus has been on the development of the mathematical tools necessary to understand complex phenomena as they apply to the nascent discipline of Network Science".
He's a mathematician! He has no qualifications in the subject! As usual, 5 minutes research debunks another 'expert' for the denial team.
Also, the usual gullible idiots here start clapping their hands, thinking they've found 'proof' that global warming is a hoax. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. - WiseWeasel, on 06/04/2008, -9/+13Of course, the US Army is also the single largest contributor to global warming (or at least the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses for those skeptics among us) in the world, so take this with a grain of salt.
http://www.energybulletin.net/29925.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0327-21.htm- AllyOfReason, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1"largest emitter of greenhouse gasses"
Have you ever heard of volcanoes? You need to be a little more specific.- WiseWeasel, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2K, single largest greenhouse gas-emitting organization in the world...
- AllyOfReason, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1"largest emitter of greenhouse gasses"
- tas08, on 06/04/2008, -6/+10Just a couple quick points, take them as you will.
1) I do not trust the IPCC much, as the scientists are largely government appointed. That means potentially corrupt politicians are helping to decide who is on the the committee.
2) We understand little of the sun's influence. Things that are constantly surprising us with their level of influence and complexity. This could go for or against the article.
3) It seems to me that many groups like the IPCC were setting out to prove that global warming is our fault instead of trying to step way back and look at everything as a whole. Preconceived hypotheses are dangerous and could say, limit their study of the influence of something like the sun so that its full influence is overlooked.
Again, just a few things I thought of while reading the article. Anyone have any thoughts on them?- Isidore, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5tas08, You distrust the IPCC because you think they are largely government funded. But the US Army is largely government funded. Do you distrust research linking tobacco and cancer because of government funding? Or do you trust tobacco companies more.
You are suggesting a massive conspiracy by scientists from different countries with different political systems and different forms of funding eg tenured academics.
There will always be contrarians, but there is a clear scientific consensus - based on evidence - that humans are now one of the factors changing the climate.
The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC:
"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." 2007
“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”
National Academy of Sciences (US), Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada, Académie des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Source: 2001 http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ... Royal Society 2005 http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20 ...
Royal Society 2007 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/resolveuid/88fcf2 ...
Scientific opinion on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...- tas08, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Well then! I do very much appreciate your reply, you clearly put some effort into it, and it wasn't condescending, thanks!
I see what you mean about stuff like the research done by the army... I guess my main concern when I mentioned not really trusting the IPCC is like, it seems there is much more to gain for many related to the IPCC. If you're a government who wants more totalitarian control, if global warming is real (I believe that it is) & humans are the primary contributors (that's where I have my doubts), then you can impose all kinds of regulations in all areas of life. So, there is a lot to gain, and perhaps many scientists are more than willing to oblige the politicians so they have a job and funding and our government has its problems but we're no China or anything like that.... perhaps. (You ever seen Thank You For Smoking? Well my idea is like in that movie - big tobacco has their scientists who will work furiously proving that cigarettes don't hurt you). Anyway, this doesn't mean I totally distrust all governments or the IPCC or anything like that, it's just a big concern to me.
Anyway, again, I appreciate your reply!
- tas08, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Well then! I do very much appreciate your reply, you clearly put some effort into it, and it wasn't condescending, thanks!
- Isidore, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5tas08, You distrust the IPCC because you think they are largely government funded. But the US Army is largely government funded. Do you distrust research linking tobacco and cancer because of government funding? Or do you trust tobacco companies more.
- lucidguru, on 06/04/2008, -6/+10First of all "global warming" is a poorly chosen word to represent this phenomenon... "global climate destabilization" is much more accurate...
Second many scientists downplay the role of the sun when talking about the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect gets all of it's energy from the sun, why should we ignore the largest input factor when studying the climate? Shouldn't all of the parts be important?
Lastly all arguments for/against greenhouse gasses, fossil fuels, deforestation, etc. are pretty minor when it comes to the real problem. The real problem is that human beings cannot control the climate and the weather.- Waiting2awake, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5Of course it is - but Global Warming was the talking point - to co-incide with the 70's global cooling, which from what I understand was a book that no credible scientists took seriously, but those that refuse to see the truth around them and think it is within their rights to destroy the petri dish that all of us need, have grabbed on to "Global warming" as the label of choice because of that association and that every time it gets cold you have the usual dufus' claiming "What global warming...brrrr"
It is climate change. From what I understand the proper label is Climate change. - monoa, on 06/04/2008, -4/+2OMG! All the scientists on the planet forgot about the sun! Quick! Call them up and let them know!
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30 ...
- Waiting2awake, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5Of course it is - but Global Warming was the talking point - to co-incide with the 70's global cooling, which from what I understand was a book that no credible scientists took seriously, but those that refuse to see the truth around them and think it is within their rights to destroy the petri dish that all of us need, have grabbed on to "Global warming" as the label of choice because of that association and that every time it gets cold you have the usual dufus' claiming "What global warming...brrrr"
- JimmySpaza, on 06/04/2008, -11/+6And the Goracle and his Church of Global Warming takes another hit. I hope that Al Gore's global warming opera has better success.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_en_mu/al_go ... - brjohnson789, on 06/04/2008, -5/+2I am skeptical of the whole "we're all gonna die" message of supposed man-made global warming, but considering the fact the army lies all the time, this makes me less skeptical.
- suzywang3000, on 06/04/2008, -6/+8global warming is most certainly man made. We need to stop consuming. We need to punish everyone and everything that emits CO2. The sad fact of the matter is that the world has far too many people and we waste far too much. Most of the 6+ billion need to die and the remaining need to become subsistance farmers - like the Amish. No more pro-sports, no more American Idol, no more McDonalds, no more SUVs... we sadly need to impose these changes on the world or the ice caps will melt, causing the polar bears to die, disrupting the eco-system and flooding various coastal cites who do not have the technology to build dykes like Holland did. And we need to do it NOW, folks.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/04/2008, -4/+5You either forgot sarcasm tags, or to take your meds again...
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Nope, it's more or less accurate - you need to learn a little science
- WiseWeasel, on 06/04/2008, -4/+5You either forgot sarcasm tags, or to take your meds again...
- Isidore, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6For those interested in the scientific evidence rather than conspiracy theories.
3 min clip of Sir David Attenborough who was once a climate skeptic, believing that all global warming could be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
IPCC FAQ on Physical Science basis http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
UK Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ... especially fact 1.
Royal Society Guide http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6230 - dukeeeey, on 06/04/2008, -5/+6According to Nasa ..
"Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article17 ...
Did your car do that ? Man made global warming is just total junk science. The solution politicians come up with is a global government and a global carbon tax. Just what we need, bigger government.- monoa, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Did you read the article? "The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth."
Instead of quoting out of context from an unrelated publication, let NASA speak for themselves:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_world ...
- monoa, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Did you read the article? "The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth."
- bdiggitty, on 06/04/2008, -5/+4The only reality is that there is a huge debate and controversy as to the causes (or even the very existence) of global warming. I believe it is too early to really start shutting down either side of the argument. It is important to consider all possibilities rather than to be herded into either corner. That's what scares me more than anything is how easy it is to send the populace into hysteria about anything. Its amazing how easily it is to manipulate and control what is on the public agenda. The prospect of global warming has existed for many years, however, since that movie has come out it has almost sent the populace into this mindset that this impending phenomenon is the next big monster in the closet. There's this huge sense of urgency that has been appended to the topic. The only stimulus that I can see that has contributed to this urgency is the recent release of this movie. Urgency, and scare tactics lead to bad judgement, and that is what is truly alarming. When so many people have made up their mind, refuse contradicting sentiment, and want to implement big changes, before either side of the scientific perspective has truly worked the everything out. That is a universal problem that has continuously plagued humanity for centuries, and makes the prospect of global warming look laughable in comparison.
- Comus, on 06/04/2008, -3/+5I think stories like this only help to display that the complexity of Earth's climate is still beyond our understanding. Does this disprove man-made global warming? No. At the same time, however, I don't think the myriad studies out there prove it either. It only illustrates that most extremely adamant proponents and opponents are largely a political force and not a scientific one. There are too many declarations without enough evidence on both sides.
I am essentially a man-made global warming agnostic because of this. However, I still feel like we should be focusing on cleaner sources of energy. Just because it isn't necessarily a current problem doesn't mean that it won't become an obvious problem down the line.- AllyOfReason, on 06/04/2008, -3/+1I do agree with you in most regards, so I dugg you up. However, there is plenty of evidence that has been gathered all over the world that do seem to suggest that the sun indeed is responsible for the current warming trend.
In fact, there have actually been cycles identified dating back almost a million years that line up with the current warming trend's chronology.
A lot of people overlook the fact that the livelihood for many scientists and researchers depends on funding coming from the pro-anthropogenic camp. Thus, it's not hard to see an obvious bias in many of their view points.- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1"A lot of people overlook the fact that the livelihood for many scientists and researchers depends on funding coming from the pro-anthropogenic camp"
Easy to overlook because it is total *****
Science funding: You get grants to do research. You must account for every penny and it must all be spent on research. You get the money whatever your research results are. You also get your salary no matter what the results are. In fact the only risky thing is falsifying the research, because if you are caught your acareer is over. The smartest thing to do is good research as best you can regardless of the answers because then you keep your job and get more research grants.
Denier funding: The money goes straight into your pocket and no one ever asks what happened to it. You only get the funding if you slander climate change. The funders don't care if what you say is true, distortions, or outragous lies, as longs as it confuses people about climate science. You will never get any more funding if you don't say climate change is hoax.
See the difference? Given these situations, what would a scientist do? What would a Denier do?
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1"A lot of people overlook the fact that the livelihood for many scientists and researchers depends on funding coming from the pro-anthropogenic camp"
- bdiggitty, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2That is a very coherent logical position and I firmly stand behind you on this Comus. But I think your voice is a whisper against the deafening torrent of the frenzied popular opinion.
- AllyOfReason, on 06/04/2008, -3/+1I do agree with you in most regards, so I dugg you up. However, there is plenty of evidence that has been gathered all over the world that do seem to suggest that the sun indeed is responsible for the current warming trend.
- buba1243, on 06/04/2008, -3/+3So the sun is going to make earth hotter does that mean we should add to it with man made global warming?
- tunapez, on 06/04/2008, -5/+3I SAID GLOBAL WARMING IS ALL YOUR FAULT!
STOP SNIVELING, CONSUME ANOTHER/BETTER AUTO AND SAVE THE ***** PLANET OR I WILL TAX YOU AGAIN!
-The Powers That Be - sgiffy, on 06/04/2008, -3/+2The sun heats my house proving that my furnace doesn't.
- wynja, on 06/04/2008, -3/+3The problem is that there are a multitude of factors contributing to climate change..... but let us not forget that climate change is part of Earth's history. In fact, in the last 100,000 years the climate has been more stable than it ever previously was.
- HeartlandUSA, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4JimmySpaza: First, the 31,000 "scientists" (most without a phd) did not say that climate change was junk science. They said that they had doubts that it was man made, because the evidence wasn't convincing to them. But that petition has been circulating for nearly a decade & a great deal of evidence has come out since then.
My main point though is more general. The Army is not in the field of science or climatology in general, so they are not experts. In fact the only sciences they work on are for weaponization of technologies. Also, the DOD & Pentagon (ie: the military) have been extremely politicized by our current Republican administration.
Lastly, the Army & everyone should also take a quick look at this: July, 10 2007 - BBC - 'No Sun link' to climate change - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
'No Sun link' to climate change
By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity
Dr Piers Forster
Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
Warming trend
The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.
But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.
However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.
Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.
"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.
Cosmic relief
The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.
But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed by, among others, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.
Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.
During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.
Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.
He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.
"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."
Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/natu ... - HeartlandUSA, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4NASA audit: Climate science politically compromised
BLOOMBERG NEWS
June 4, 2008
WASHINGTON - Political appointees in NASA's public affairs office "compromised" information on climate-change science for political advantage over a two-year period, an audit by the agency's inspector general found.
Communications issued between late 2004 and early 2006 "reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized global warming research made available to the general public," the auditors wrote in a statement released yesterday.
The inquiry followed allegations by James Hansen, the top climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, that public affairs officials prevented him from speaking to the media in December 2005, according to the audit. Hansen in 1981 warned global-warming pollution was heating the planet faster than forecast, and he has joined environmental groups in calling for a faster transition to cleaner energy sources such as wind.
"The core issue of how our government in general, and NASA in particular, continues to manage the important issue of climate change information is worthy of careful consideration by both the executive and legislative branches of government," the auditors wrote.
Kristin Scuderi, spokeswoman with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the agency has no comment on the report's findings.
Fourteen U.S. senators co-signed a Sept. 29, 2006, letter to NASA's inspector general requesting the probe into allegations of "political interference" with the work of the space agency's scientists.
Investigators interviewed 59 witnesses, including present and former NASA scientists, public affairs officials and senior managers, and reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents and congressional testimony, according to the audit.
The political appointees in public affairs denied influencing news releases, claiming instead many were "poorly written or too technical in nature for meaningful broad public dissemination." The dispute didn't extend to global warming research distributed to the scientific community, including journals and conferences.
Keith Sefton, deputy general counsel to NASA, said in a written response included with the audit that the findings weren't supported by evidence.
"The report, by failing to distinguish between substantiated problems and mere speculation and allegations, contributes little to the understanding or issue resolution," Sefton wrote. "The legitimate conclusions arising from these circumstances are those that NASA has already acknowledged, and has long since fixed."
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedi ... - RP4408, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3I just completed reading, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism". This monograph gives convincing evidence that GHG has fluctuated throughout history and does not coincide with temperature rises. Yet, there is consistency with solar influences. I am not convinced by the alarmist' talking points of impending doom.This was easy due to my lack of 'green' influence who's means seem cult like - by way of ad hominem attacks on those who are skeptical.
Whether it be a War on Terror or a War on Man Made Global Warming, global elites have used stratagems to manipulate and engineer society to their liking. Either way they do not like us 'useless feeders' inhabiting their proposed Utopia.
The true battlefront at hand is Freedom versus Slavery.
Which side do you choose?- monoa, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Well, you can choose the author of that book - Christopher C. Horner, who is a lawyer, not a scientist, and legal counsel for a group called 'Cooler Heads Coalition'. This group receives funding from Exxon Mobil, Texaco and others. They work for the interests of oil companies, protecting their profits.
Or you can choose the consensus of every scientific academy of every industrialized country on the planet - humans are causing global climate change, which will cause catastrophic changes in the environment if we do not act *now*.
One is rational and reality-based, the other just confirms what many people *want* to believe in order to protect their wealth and to continue consuming natural resources without any guilt or thought for the environment.
- monoa, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Well, you can choose the author of that book - Christopher C. Horner, who is a lawyer, not a scientist, and legal counsel for a group called 'Cooler Heads Coalition'. This group receives funding from Exxon Mobil, Texaco and others. They work for the interests of oil companies, protecting their profits.
- RP4408, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3"Or you can choose the consensus of every scientific academy of every industrialized country on the planet - humans are causing global climate change, which will cause catastrophic changes in the environment if we do not act *now*."
Your words tell me that you have made a choice to continue a collectivist world view. I am for individual liberty which calls for me to act in my own self interest without infringing upon the inalienable rights of others - which costs nothing more than my own labor and values. The collectivist view transfers (steals) wealth from the poor and puts it into fewer hands causing an arbitrary imbalance.
Peace... - RP4408, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1A must read for all on the fence.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ...- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2And if that collection of paranoid rhetoric and Denier Myths didn't convince that the Deniers have nothing to offer, try the actual science:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
For debunking of the many myths in that piece, see any of
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics How to talk to Global Warming Skeptic
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ... Climate Change: A guide for the perplexed
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004 ... Response to common contrarian arguments
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climate ... Climate change debate summary
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ... Climate Change Myths
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/ ... A Thorough Debunking
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Skeptical Science
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/sk ...
http://environment.newscientist.com/climatemyths
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosph ...
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37379 92% of "neutral" Eco-skeptics turn out to be industry shills and http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ ...
How did all this come about? see http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/05/manufacturi ...
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2And if that collection of paranoid rhetoric and Denier Myths didn't convince that the Deniers have nothing to offer, try the actual science:
- jamdogg, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Wait... There's a giant ball of nuclear reacting gas that burns with enough energy to consume our planet like a postage stamp in a forest fire, near us? How can it possibly have anything AT ALL to do with the temperature here?
- davidhallstrom, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Well put.
- davidhallstrom, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Well what do you know, an article that is realistic.
- misterxter, on 06/08/2008, -2/+0It will take a few years before the rest will know that global cooling has already started.
- D1ckFace, on 08/19/2008, -1/+1The truth about who is controlling the global warming debate: http://digg.com/environment/Global_Warming_or_Glob ...
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
