The Official Global Warming Thread

[kaharthemad]

np

[Tikker]

man made or not, global warming is a reality

[Phlegm]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.

The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.

"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.

"We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."

The letter was obtained by CNNMoney.com through ExxposeExxon, a coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

While there is nothing wrong with funding new research, activists said the intent of Exxon's letter seemed to be to criticize the UN report in the eyes of the public, outside the normal review process for scientific work.

"It is a major problem that scientists make arguments against climate change...that they can't back up [with] peer reviewed data," said Shawnee Hoover, campaign director for ExxposeExxon.

In a statement, AEI said Exxon's annual contribution to the group is small, amounting to less than 1 percent of AEI's annual budget.

It also said a $10,000 payment for scientific work was not unusual.

"A $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest," the statement read.

One academic disagreed with that claim.

"To me this is really amazing, you never get offered that kind of money," said Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois.

Wuebbles criticized the letter for attempting to influence the outcome of its authors.

"Even if groups ask you to write things, they don't try to give you the answer before hand," he said.

But David Karl, a climate professor at the University of Hawaii, said that the amount of money was typical for authoring such a report, but he took issue with the tone of the letter.

"It sounds like they were looking for a particular outcome," he said.

Exxon has been criticized in the past for funding groups that promote what many experts believe to be junk science.

"This has become a strategy of Exxon's over the years," said Hoover. "The number one way to fight Kyoto was to insert doubt into people's mind."

A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 "organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

According to Exxon's Web site, the company contributed $240,000 to AEI in 2005 and a similar amount in 2004.

An Exxon spokesman said the company continues to donate to AEI, but said it does not control what the group does.

The spokesman also noted that Exxon is one of many corporations that give to AEI, which is a well-known think tank.

But Exxon has recently acknowledged that global warming is happening. The oil giant conceded that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay human's role in global warming.

"There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed," reads Exxon's latest statement on global warming, issued Friday in response to the UN study. "CO2 emissions have increased...and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.

"Because the risks to society and ecosystems [posed by global warming] could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health."

But critics are calling Exxon's sincerity into question over their perceived attempts to cloud the public's perception of scientific opinion.

"What we want to see is that Exxon is making a polar change" before the company claims that it has reformed its old ways, said Hoover.

[Arlos]

Its the same exact thing as when the Tobacco companies would fund scientists $$$ in return for the scientists saying that there were no health risks whatsoever to smoking tobacco. Same exact thing.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Every group dumps funny money into 'experts', from the Teachers Unions, to Big Tobacco, to Exxon, to the Tuna people who own Pelosi...

[brinstar]

...to the white house, who pressured federal scientists to downplay their findings on global warming...

[Lyion]

To the liberal blogs and media outlets who write fictitious stories about the White house and science, such as the bullshit about the Grand Canyon, and Global Warming.

[Tikker]

eh?

what about the grand canyon are going nuts on now?

[Tossica]

To the liberal blogs and media outlets who write fictitious stories about the White house and science, such as the bullshit about the Grand Canyon, and Global Warming.

If it's all fictitious and bullshit, what is the motivation behind it? There has to be some sort of massive, personal gain for everyone involved for them to continue to put forth all of this convincing evidence. We know what the payoff is for the government. We know what the payoff is for the corporate world. I just don't understand what the worldwide scientific community has to gain by making up statistics. If there truly is nothing to what they present, and if they are somehow motivated by greed or the pursuit of funding as someone suggested earlier, why not just get a fucking job with one of the corporations and make a shit ton more money fudging results of tests and making up data for them?

[Lyion]

My quote and your points have nothing in common.

The media and fictitious White House holding the Science Man down stories are a product of propaganda, such as in the case of the Grand Canyon, and have been proven to mostly be full of shit. That was my simple point.

Everyone generally has an agenda. Some are more noble than others, but pretty much all of them are two sided.

[Tossica]

Way to avoid the question.

[Diekan]

Way to avoid the question.

He knows the answer, he just doesn't want to air it out.

Of course the GOP and Big Business is going to scream bullshit... the earth could catch on fire tomorrow and they'd say it was just a "cycle."

If they admit there's a problem, then they are in essence accepting that they must contribute to solving said problem... and that costs $$$.

They'd rather we live in a world of polluted, undrinkable water and filthy air with down pours of acid rain than to accept that they're the cause of it. Oh... hey... actually they'd LOVE that. Then they could make more money buy selling you water purification kits and air masks!!

Whether you believe it or not - the problem is NOT with all the third world countries out there (they DO contribute it YES).... the US produces 25 percent of the world's pollution ALONE. And, what's more pathetic is that we have the know how to institute programs and technology to reduce that percentage by 15 percent, but we wont do it. Because our love of money stands in the way.

[Lyion]

Why is Al Gore on a crusade to promote Global warming? Money, power, fame, and I'm sure he thinks its the right thing. The scientific community is very political, so their reasoning is somewhat similar to Mr Gores, although I don't doubt many feel it's noble.

None of you answered the question why would someone want to be a spokesman for being green, and yet fly private jets everywhere and have a carbon footprint bigger than a Sasquatch? As I said, I think a lot of people have their own personal reasons for this, and an agenda.

I do read the facts, but I don't subscribe to the biased media hysteria. As some of you seem to miss over and over, I think we should control pollution, but I'm against Kyoto because it is ass, as is anything regulated internationally. I agree with this gentlemans last paragraph completely.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 8763c6&k=0

The real deal? Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists, Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

[10sun]

My beer farts are the cause of global warming.

[Zanchief]

Why is Al Gore on a crusade to promote Global warming? Money, power, fame, and I'm sure he thinks its the right thing. The scientific community is very political, so their reasoning is somewhat similar to Mr Gores, although I don't doubt many feel it's noble.

See I don't buy that. You're just assuming again. Because your opinion is politically motivated then theirs must be too. Scientists for the most part, are much more interested in the truth then anything else. Maybe it's naive but I don't see why the vast majority of them would create a lie about something that could potentially have a catastrophic effect on the economy just so people can pay attention to them. It's just too evil and sinister. I reserve that level of vile behavior for your friends in the white house.

None of you answered the question why would someone want to be a spokesman for being green, and yet fly private jets everywhere and have a carbon footprint bigger than a Sasquatch? As I said, I think a lot of people have their own personal reasons for this, and an agenda.

Well you still haven't shown me any proof that Gore flies around on a private jet anymore than anyone else (if even at all for that matter), or that he's at all wasteful in the way he conducts himself.

[Harrison]

Maybe it's naive but I don't see why the vast majority of them would create a lie about something that could potentially have a catastrophic effect on the economy just so people can pay attention to them.

*blink* *blink*

You don't think they have $$ swaying their "facts"?

Where do you think their funding comes from? Candyland?

[brinstar]

it doesn't matter which set of scientists you believe, in my opinion-- the ones saying our pollution is going to cause a worldwide temperature increase which will melt the polar caps and flood us all to atlantis and back, or the ones that say oh you don't have to worry that's just a natural cycle, we're doing no harm. both camps get their research money from somewhere!

fact is, pollution is gross and it either directly or indirectly causes extinction of species (google me a scientist that disagrees with THAT!). global warming or not, how about we just take care of our planet because it is a pretty place filled with exciting forms of life? we put people on the moon, we mapped DNA, i'm pretty sure we can drastically cut pollution, and preserve the beauty of our planet for our descendants.

[Harrison]

I fully believe we are having a significant impact on the natural cycle of "global warming". I put that in quotes because now, in everyday life, people believe "global warming" automatically means "anthropogenic global warming".

That I do not believe. I do NOT believe we are the sole cause of global warming.

We are fucking shit up, but not to the extent they are trying to force us to believe. I am of course not a scientist, but I am educated enough to form my own beliefs about something given the amount of data available.

[Scatillac]

Maybe it's naive but I don't see why the vast majority of them would create a lie about something that could potentially have a catastrophic effect on the economy just so people can pay attention to them.

*blink* *blink*

You don't think they have $$ swaying their "facts"?

Where do you think their funding comes from? Candyland?

Halliburton.

[Zanchief]

Maybe it's naive but I don't see why the vast majority of them would create a lie about something that could potentially have a catastrophic effect on the economy just so people can pay attention to them.

*blink* *blink*

You don't think they have $$ swaying their "facts"?

Where do you think their funding comes from? Candyland?

They could be making a ton more money doing any number of other things. These people aren't motivated by how much funding they might be getting from the government. That a silly argument.

[Diekan]

Maybe it's naive but I don't see why the vast majority of them would create a lie about something that could potentially have a catastrophic effect on the economy just so people can pay attention to them.

*blink* *blink*

You don't think they have $$ swaying their "facts"?

Where do you think their funding comes from? Candyland?

They could be making a ton more money doing any number of other things. These people aren't motivated by how much funding they might be getting from the government. That a silly argument.

In fact, to add, they actually have MORE money swaying in their face by Big Business to dismiss the science... so why aren't they sucking THOSE paydays up?

[Lueyen]

In fact, to add, they actually have MORE money swaying in their face by Big Business to dismiss the science... so why aren't they sucking THOSE paydays up?

Because the assertion that big business funds more is false.

The Energy Foundation and several of it's comprising foundations members fill quite a few slots in the top 10 for contributions to climate related grants for research AND political activism. The Exxon Mobile foundation doesn't even rank in the top 10 for contributions to climate related activities. As a matter of fact comparisons between the Exxon Mobile foundations monies and the Energy Foundation alone show that Exxon Mobile funds 20 to 25 percent of what the Energy Foundation on it's own funds on a yearly basis.

Many of the arguments here specifically the charge that big business is trying to sway public opinion by confusing the issue and using the same tactics of the tobacco industry in the past are directly from the play book of the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists), which ranks around number 4 on the list of recipients of grant monies for climate related activities.

Detailed and consolidated information about contributions and recipients can be found in reports by The Marshall Institute, and organization that takes a middle ground approach.

From it's mission statement on climate change:

Are calls about the uncertainty in the state of scientific knowledge a call for no action? Nothing could be further from the truth. The message to policy makers is not to delay actions until uncertainties are reduced. Rather, actions should flow from the state of knowledge, should be related to a long-term strategy and objectives and should be capable of being adjusted – one way or the other – as the understanding of human influence improves. There is a sufficient basis for action because the climate change risk is real. Yet it is equally true that actions must not be predicated on speculative images of an apocalyptic vision of life in the near future.

http://www.marshall.org/

[Zanchief]

In fact, to add, they actually have MORE money swaying in their face by Big Business to dismiss the science... so why aren't they sucking THOSE paydays up?

Because the assertion that big business funds more is false.

The Energy Foundation and several of it's comprising foundations members fill quite a few slots in the top 10 for contributions to climate related grants for research AND political activism. The Exxon Mobile foundation doesn't even rank in the top 10 for contributions to climate related activities. As a matter of fact comparisons between the Exxon Mobile foundations monies and the Energy Foundation alone show that Exxon Mobile funds 20 to 25 percent of what the Energy Foundation on it's own funds on a yearly basis.

Many of the arguments here specifically the charge that big business is trying to sway public opinion by confusing the issue and using the same tactics of the tobacco industry in the past are directly from the play book of the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists), which ranks around number 4 on the list of recipients of grant monies for climate related activities.

Detailed and consolidated information about contributions and recipients can be found in reports by The Marshall Institute, and organization that takes a middle ground approach.

From it's mission statement on climate change:

Are calls about the uncertainty in the state of scientific knowledge a call for no action? Nothing could be further from the truth. The message to policy makers is not to delay actions until uncertainties are reduced. Rather, actions should flow from the state of knowledge, should be related to a long-term strategy and objectives and should be capable of being adjusted – one way or the other – as the understanding of human influence improves. There is a sufficient basis for action because the climate change risk is real. Yet it is equally true that actions must not be predicated on speculative images of an apocalyptic vision of life in the near future.

http://www.marshall.org/

The comparison can't be made between the vast majority of scientists charged with discovering the truth, and a very small subset of them who are completely corrupt. It's like saying McDonald's fry cooks make more money then the CEOs because the company dishes out more cash for them. Completely flawed argument meant to skew the issue.

These global warming scientists aren't rolling around in money. These grants may seem like a lot of money but for the most part it goes to their research, not their pockets. Furthermore, if their findings had been that people had no impact on global warming I'm sure they would be relieved and move on to another subject. It certainly wouldn't mean the end of their careers.

[kinghooter00]

Maybe it's naive but I don't see why the vast majority of them would create a lie about something that could potentially have a catastrophic effect on the economy just so people can pay attention to them.

*blink* *blink*

You don't think they have $$ swaying their "facts"?

Where do you think their funding comes from? Candyland?

Actually its from leftover nazi gold melted down from jew teeth, better known now as jewtooth technology

LOL, that must be alot of gold. Seems to be the only way to get money from a jew.

[Phlegm]

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

The global temperature are trending up so we are all going to die.