Climate change could lead to more wars

[msmike1]

I note that none of these are scientific publications. They are just popular press publications repeating some good rumors they heard. If you are trying to make an argument, you need something to support what you're saying. These don't support anything.

Doug

They support the fact that there is just as much evidence against global warming as there is for it. It supports the fact that global warming is a theory and nothing more.

Mike

[Guest]

They support the fact that there is just as much evidence against global warming as there is for it. It supports the fact that global warming is a theory and nothing more.

Mike

They do no such thing. Science isn't conducted through popular press editorials - it is conducted through published papers in accepted credible journals.

Your list amounts to nothing but spin and propaganda.

Show me the research which discredits AGW, then we can talk.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

They support the fact that there is just as much evidence against global warming as there is for it. It supports the fact that global warming is a theory and nothing more.

Mike

Actually, they don't present any evidence at all against global warming. FIRST: if you're going to say that global warming isn't happening, you need a set of globally-averaged temperature anomalies that show no change over at least the last century. To the best of my knowledge (and I have a Ph.D. in Environmental Science), there is no such data set. If you are aware of one, it is time to post its URL. I'm calling your bluff.

Doug

[MonkeyLove]

Yes, a lot of scientists are screaming global warming, but just as many say its crap. The Gov. line that there is no global warming? The Gov. is one of the main institutions pushing global warming. You may not have specifically said radical islam doesn't exist, but you did say it was created by the gov't. This is taken to mean that it doesn't really exist other than a gov't creation.

Mike

Can you show that "just as many say its crap"? A link might help you.

The government will only support what the science says, and both NAS and BEST have concluded on the matter. The second should be very important to you because that was funded by deniers.

The problem is that the government will not act on the matter simply because it works for big business and earns from tax revenues thanks to increased sales and profits, and those are assured only if more fossil fuel is used.

That's why governments worldwide have not agreed on what to do and why CO2 emissions continue to rise.

Finally, I didn't argue that the government created radical Islam. What I said is that the government uses terrorist groups to create false flags. That includes the al Qaeda, which was formed from mujahedeen armed and financed by the CIA, trained by Pakistan, and recruited by Saudi Arabia. The purpose of false flags is to justify wars, with costs ironically passed on to the same sheeple who support it.

[Doug1029]

Here are just a few I managed to pull up in about 5 minutes. Like I have said already, just as much evidence against it. Now, if you are going to continue this conversation please stop repeating the same studies over and over and over again. If that is the basis for your entire argument then don't debate at all.

Mike

If you'd like to know what scientists really think about global warming, the August 20 edition of EOS, the newspaper of the American Geophysical Union (mostly geologists) has an article on page 301: "AGU Updates Climate Change Position." A sidebar article, same page, is entitled: "Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action." That's pretty much what scientists think.

Doug

[msmike1]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

The Forbes article I listed earlier has a link to a peer reviewed paper as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I know that no matter what I post it will not be good enough for those that believe in man made global warming. No matter how much evidence there is against it. Of course these are normally the same people that swallow whatever the gov't tells them hook, line, and sinker.

Mike

[Doug1029]

http://www.epw.senat...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

The Forbes article I listed earlier has a link to a peer reviewed paper as well.

http://en.wikipedia...._global_warming

I know that no matter what I post it will not be good enough for those that believe in man made global warming. No matter how much evidence there is against it. Of course these are normally the same people that swallow whatever the gov't tells them hook, line, and sinker.

Mike

I'll check out your papers. It would help a lot if you would post the links to the actual peer reviewed articles. That's the proper procedure because it simplifies things for your readers.

Doug

[Doug1029]

http://www.epw.senat...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

I'm sorry, but this link is to a US Senate report, not a peer-reviewed article. If there is a link to a peer-reviewed article, I didn't find it. If you know of one in there, could you please post it.

Doug

[Doug1029]

http://en.wikipedia...._global_warming

This article references the 2001 Third Annual Assessment Report. As the Fifth Assessment Report has been published and publication of the sixth one is imminent, I suggest that the information on Wikipedia is more than a little bit obsolete.

The article has four lists of dissenting scientists. The first is by people who believe the evidence in support of the most-pessimistic estimates of temperature rise does not support the conclusions. Subsequent climate change has proven them correct, as only the least pessimistic projections have come to pass. Note that they weren't objecting to global warming per se; they were only stating that they didn't think warming would be as bad as the IPCC was projecting. I did my own assessment in 2003 and reached the same conclusion. I still believe that temperature rise will not be as fast as the original projections, but it is still going to happen.

Note that with the other three lists, almost all of the people are specialists in fields other than climatology. A medical doctor is a scientist, but I'm not going to ask him how deep I should drill for oil - I'll ask a petroleum geologist. By the same token, I'm not going to take the word of a geologist when it comes to climate - I'll ask a climatologist. And I'm certainly not going to seek the advice of a climatologist when thinking of having gall-bladder surgery.

The list of those who think global warming has natural causes includes two astronomers, a mathematician and several geologists. There is only one climatologist on the list and only two weathermen (not exactly climate, but close). The list of those who think the cause of warming is unknown includes only one atmospheric scientist and he's a weather man more than a climatologist.

In short, most of the listed dissenters have no qualifications in the study of climate. And also note that this is all based on 2001 information. Many (most?) of these people are now dead and gone. Now could we please hear from some of the world's 600+ climatologists. What are scientists saying NOW?

Doug

Edited August 28, 2013 by Doug1029

[msmike1]

I didn't say that that particular link had a peer reviewed article. I said the link to the forbes article posted earlier had a link to a peer reviewed article. I am not going to do all the homework for you. The link is there follow it if you want to. I was asked to provide evidence of scientists debunking man made global warming. I did that. Now that is not good enough. I could post links until I am blue in the face and it won't be good enough because some people will believe whatever the gov't tells them.

Mike

[msmike1]

This article references the 2001 Third Annual Assessment Report. As the Fifth Assessment Report has been published and publication of the sixth one is imminent, I suggest that the information on Wikipedia is more than a little bit obsolete.

The article has four lists of dissenting scientists. The first is by people who believe the evidence in support of the most-pessimistic estimates of temperature rise does not support the conclusions. Subsequent climate change has proven them correct, as only the least pessimistic projections have come to pass. Note that they weren't objecting to global warming per se; they were only stating that they didn't think warming would be as bad as the IPCC was projecting. I did my own assessment in 2003 and reached the same conclusion. I still believe that temperature rise will not be as fast as the original projections, but it is still going to happen.

Note that with the other three lists, almost all of the people are specialists in fields other than climatology. A medical doctor is a scientist, but I'm not going to ask him how deep I should drill for oil - I'll ask a petroleum geologist. By the same token, I'm not going to take the word of a geologist when it comes to climate - I'll ask a climatologist. And I'm certainly not going to seek the advice of a climatologist when thinking of having gall-bladder surgery.

The list of those who think global warming has natural causes includes two astronomers, a mathematician and several geologists. There is only one climatologist on the list and only two weathermen (not exactly climate, but close). The list of those who think the cause of warming is unknown includes only one atmospheric scientist and he's a weather man more than a climatologist.

In short, most of the listed dissenters have no qualifications in the study of climate. And also note that this is all based on 2001 information. Many (most?) of these people are now dead and gone. Now could we please hear from some of the world's 600+ climatologists. What are scientists saying NOW?

Doug

The NAS report could have the same things said about it. I have been asked to post links and I have.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/08/12/global-warming-alarmism-memorably-debunked

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/father-of-climatology-calls-manmade-global-warming-absurd

I have posted every type of link asked for. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on global warming. I am simply stating my opinion. If you don't believe it fine, I don't really care. I can sit here and post links all day long, but I've posted enough. Just as much evidence against it as for it. Its a theory.

Mike

[Doug1029]

The NAS report could have the same things said about it. I have been asked to post links and I have.

http://news.heartlan...orably-debunked

http://www.forbes.co...-their-science/

http://www.uncommond...l-warming-absurd

I have posted every type of link asked for. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on global warming. I am simply stating my opinion. If you don't believe it fine, I don't really care. I can sit here and post links all day long, but I've posted enough. Just as much evidence against it as for it. Its a theory.

Mike

With all due respect, the links above are to popular press material. The Heartland Institute is a right-wing "think tank" paid to raise doubts about warming. They're very good at it, but they are prone to misrepresenting the science. The rest just publish stuff they think will create a "controversy" and get them some readers. If what you have presented is all you can produce, your statement about evidence against warming is false. It is not supported by your references.

Doug

[Guest]

The NAS report could have the same things said about it. I have been asked to post links and I have.

http://news.heartlan...orably-debunked

http://www.forbes.co...-their-science/

http://www.uncommond...l-warming-absurd

I have posted every type of link asked for. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on global warming. I am simply stating my opinion. If you don't believe it fine, I don't really care. I can sit here and post links all day long, but I've posted enough. Just as much evidence against it as for it. Its a theory.

Mike

You have posted opinion pieces. You have not posted a single paper which would pass peer review. You have demonstrated nothing more than your ignorance of what constitutes scientific proof or debate.

Good work there.

Br Cornelius

[msmike1]

Inside the links and articles provided there are quotes/articles from reputable scientists, some of which are climatologists stating that man made global warming is not real. It also punches holes in certain scientific reports that are taken as the truth by so many. Of course you will overlook that and tell me it isn't a scientific journal so it has no credibility. Thats your way of not listening to alternative views other than your own. Whatever, I did my part. Hope you all don't burst into flames because of all of this global warming.

Mike

[Guest]

Inside the links and articles provided there are quotes/articles from reputable scientists, some of which are climatologists stating that man made global warming is not real. It also punches holes in certain scientific reports that are taken as the truth by so many. Of course you will overlook that and tell me it isn't a scientific journal so it has no credibility. Thats your way of not listening to alternative views other than your own. Whatever, I did my part. Hope you all don't burst into flames because of all of this global warming.

Mike

Those reports are collections of cherry picked quotes from reputable scientists or quotes from people who are paid by the oil industry to discredit science. This is why peer review is employed so that an opinion can be analysed on its scientific merits. A paper in a journal must have robust data to support the opinion been expressed. Opinion pieces, such as those you supplied, have no data to back them up and are not subjected to any scrutiny as to their scientific credibility. They are designed to imitate real science in order to fool those who are ignorant of the scientific method.

They prove nothing since they are not scientific but they are demonstrably effective in achieving their intended purpose - deception of the ignorant.

Br Cornelius