650 of world's top climate scientists say Global Warming is a myth

[Beldaran]

Ice Age Imminent (http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html)

[Marve Albert Voice]
Al Gore shoots, oooh he DOESN'T SCORE!

[rock_nog]

One person says something without any data to back it up, so it must be true. Come on Bel, don't tell me you seriously believe that "temperatures peaked in '98" myth. There's no evidence to back up that claim. Temperatures have continued to go up. They did go down slightly for 2008, but that's still just one data point, and it's still above average.

[Beldaran]

There's no evidence to back up that claim.

650 PhD Climate dudes disagree with that statement. [shrug]

[rock_nog]

If the tables were turned, and I said "650 PhD Climate dudes say global warming is real," would you take it as evidence?

*shrug* But I guess this whole thing will never get resolved. I'd say let's give it 10 years and see if global temperature still continues to go up, but I thought the same thing 10 years ago, and even though the global temperature did go up, it doesn't seem to have settled much.

[Russ]

About time.

The climate goes in a cycle. Temperatures go up, then they go down. They go up, then they go down. They go up, then suddenly everybody goes Global Warming crazy. It's like saying Global Darkness will cause the Earth to die when summer turns to autumn, and autumn turns to winter. Hopefully now that 650 swientists say it's a myth, people will start listening.

[Saffith]

Entirely untrue.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/650_international_scientists_e.php
http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

Few of these people could legitimately be called climate scientists. Plenty of meteorologists who don't know the difference between weather and climate, though.

It is true, due to El Niño and La Niña, that 1998 was especially hot and the following two years were much colder. But in 2001, it started warming up again, and 2005 was even hotter than '98. Yes, 2008 was the coldest year since 2000, but that still makes it hotter than any year up to 1998, and the past ten years as a whole hotter than anything before.

Even the basic description of what happened is wrong. These people weren't at the conference at Poznan; the updated list was just published at about the same time. Seriously, even WorldNetDaily's account was more accurate.

[Rijuhn]

The temperature fluctuates. I never believed it was global warming in the same sense as the doom-sayers were predicting, err, preaching.

It would seem like global stupidity is on the rise, but that's probably not the case. I'm just getting older and smarter and realizing how others peak early on, and the internet has giving everyone a voice... -_-

[rock_nog]

Frankly, what shocks me is that someone who holds science in such high regard as Beldaran decides to just throw all that out the window when the subject of global warming comes up. Regardless of what you believe about global warming, it should have been painfully obvious that this article was completely bogus. After all, while one could argue there's question over whether or not temperatures will continue to rise, there's absolutely no question whatsoever that temperatures have risen for the past decade. The fact that the author flat-out stated that temperatures haven't risen should have been a huge red flag.

Unless Beldaran knew it was bogus and was just trying to pull a fast one on us.

[Archibaldo]

You know it may not be the earth. Has anyone thought that maybe its the sun that's getting hotter? When my livingroom gets too hot, I don't blame my living room. ;)

[rock_nog]

That's already been looked into. Basically, scientists found that solar activity doesn't explain it - lately, the Earth has continued to get warmer even during periods of lower solar activity, so there must be another explanation.

[AtmaWeapon]

Beldaran I don't like your views on religion but you can come into the clubhouse for your views on global warming. Just don't get your hopes up for any wine we roll grape juice here (NOT Kool-Aid!)

[Beldaran]

Frankly, what shocks me is that someone who holds science in such high regard as Beldaran decides to just throw all that out the window when the subject of global warming comes up.

Please explain how being skeptical and listening to multiple viewpoints and ignoring political rhetoric is "unscientific".

[rock_nog]

Beldaran, my problem isn't your stance on global warming, and I've already said that. I disagree with you on it, obviously, but there's nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism. My entire point was that the article you cited was incredibly dubious, but you seem to have ignored that simply because it supported your view on global warming.

There's nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism, but it isn't healthy skepticism when you post junk like this and act like it has any scientific merit.

[Beldaran]

Actually, I don't have a view on global warming. Having a belief about it would be unscientific. However, I see lots of conflicting information and I'm unwilling to take people on faith when there is so much garbage information on both sides.

And the whole "Al Gore" marionette show is disgusting and untrustworthy.

If the democrats want us to destroy our economy because of a threat, they need to provide better evidence than a shitty movie (most of which was later proved innacurate and/or blatantly false) and a bunch of proselytizing about how business is evil and only the government can save the earth.

I'm just not naive enough to jump on the whole suspicious looking bandwagon. It smells of group-think.

[rock_nog]

I understand that - just want you to know that my issue was that you seem to have fallen for some of the crap from the other side. I mean, Al Gore and his ilk may be guilty of over-exaggeration, but that's nothing compared to the flat-out deception that occurs. Like, I've seen some of these "X number of climate scientists refute global warming" things before, and it always seems to turn out that the scientists in question either have incredibly dubious claims to being climate experts, or in some cases, they're actually shocked to learn they're on the list because they actually accept the theory of global warming.

Ultimately, your best bet is just to avoid the political theater altogether, and focus on peer-reviewed scientific research. Otherwise, you'll get nothing but crap like this from both sides - an endless stream of misrepresentations, exaggerations, things taken out of context, etc.

As for myself, I'm just kind of in a weird place, because while I accept the science of global warming, I am much more skeptical about any realistic plans to curtail it. Plus, honestly, I really just kind of have a "Let's wait and see" attitude, partly out of a desire for absolute certainty on the issue, but also because I just want to see what happens if it turns out global warming is real.

[Saffith]

You don't need to jump on any bandwagon. There has been and continues to be extensive research into the subject; there's no reason you can't look into the data and methodology yourself. Yes, the political aspect of it is idiotic and disgusting on several levels, but, really, isn't that true of politics in general? There's no point in getting hung up on it.

[Trevelyan_06]

I am still of the opinion that the global warming debate is ridiculous no matter what you believe. Even if pumping massive amounts of pollution into our atmosphere isn't causing global warming that doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

America needs to get itself off of the dependence on oil. No matter what you say about global warming, oil is a finite resource. As such, prices for it are just going to keep going up no matter if we let people drill in protected lands or not. Renewable resources that are cheap, widely available, and reliable are what is needed no matter if there is global warming or not.

[Moo2wo]

Thank you so much for that post, Russell.

[AtmaWeapon]

Guys I need an $800b stimulus package to prop up this climate. I need you to donate, no questions asked. Doing nothing is not an option. My paypal is [email protected] anyone who donates gets a nice book shipped to you in a box that's 90% styrofoam.

[Masamune]

Most people who're concerned about global warming usually promote energy conservation and emission reduction. As opposed to throwing money at it I mean.

[The_Amaster]

Yeah, I was trying to figure out why the WALL-E packaging was so different than the other DVDs. There, down in the corner "100% recyclable".

A perfectly good chance to expose corporate hypocrisy, shot down.

[Russ]

It's different? Can you take some pictures?

[rock_nog]

Y'know, this whole thing gets me to thinking. Russ argues that the climate goes in cycles. That'd be a pretty good argument, if it weren't for the fact that Russ basically denies almost all of Earth's history. WTF!? There were definitely periods in Earth's history when the climate has been warmer than it is now, but all of the evidence is more than 10,000 years old. Ugh.

[Beldaran]

Y'know, this whole thing gets me to thinking. Russ argues that the climate goes in cycles. That'd be a pretty good argument, if it weren't for the fact that Russ basically denies almost all of Earth's history. WTF!? There were definitely periods in Earth's history when the climate has been warmer than it is now, but all of the evidence is more than 10,000 years old. Ugh.

hahaha

omg Russ has to either accept the geological record, or global warming. lmao

[Modus Ponens]

Y'know, this whole thing gets me to thinking. Russ argues that the climate goes in cycles. That'd be a pretty good argument, if it weren't for the fact that Russ basically denies almost all of Earth's history. WTF!? There were definitely periods in Earth's history when the climate has been warmer than it is now, but all of the evidence is more than 10,000 years old. Ugh.

Logicpwned! (The best kind of pwned!)

[Aegix Drakan]

hahaha

omg Russ has to either accept the geological record, or global warming. lmao

...10 cookies say that Russ doesn't reply to this. *puts them on the table*

[rock_nog]

I wouldn't take that bet, but then, Russ could see the bet and change his behavior simply based on the existence of the bet. However, he could then see that I had anticipated that the presence of the bet could change his behavior, and alter his behavior again. But then he could see that... Okay, time to end this infinite recursion.

To be fair, he could still argue that the Earth's climate goes in cycles, it's just that it hasn't been around long enough for us to see those cycles (which would be odd, assuming that the Earth's climate is cyclical without evidence).

[Beldaran]

Yes, the earth is in the middle of a continuing cycle that would exist in the past, if the past existed, which it doesn't.

Jesus wins!

[Modus Ponens]

(which would be odd, assuming that the Earth's climate is cyclical without evidence)

Odd? You think it would be odd for him to assume something to be the case without evidence? Well, that would make it... what's the word... faith!

... Odd.

[Daarkseid]

To be fair, he could still argue that the Earth's climate goes in cycles, it's just that it hasn't been around long enough for us to see those cycles (which would be odd, assuming that the Earth's climate is cyclical without evidence).

Unless I'm severely mistaken, in the span of even just the last one thousand years, the earth has gone through a cooling phase and is now on a warming phase.

And then then the previous thousand years, a cooling period began around 500 AD and then reversed a few centuries later into the medieval warming period.

So since there have already been periodic climate cycles occurring in history, going back to when Jesus supposedly lived, its not particularly hypocritical or wrong that a young earth creationist denies evolution while accepting that the earths climate goes through temperature changes.

[rock_nog]

Well okay, yes, there have been some minor temperature variations in the past couple of thousand years (the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming Period, etc.), but on the scale of temperature shifts throughout Earth's history, those were actually very minor changes (though I would like to point out that even those very minor changes ended up having a significant impact on humanity). Which, I guess all you need is a shift of a couple of degrees or so to suggest that the Earth has natural cycles, but I think you'd be the point much more effectively by pointing out things like the Ice Age and various tropical periods throughout Earth's history.

[Saffith]

So since there have already been periodic climate cycles occurring in history, going back to when Jesus supposedly lived, its not particularly hypocritical or wrong that a young earth creationist denies evolution while accepting that the earths climate goes through temperature changes.
True, but you can't accept the conclusions without accepting the methods, and some of those same methods lead to the conclusion of an old Earth.