Global Warming - who do you believe???

[glenc (Glen)]

Take a look at the proper Science journals, the ones that are refereed.
If the skeptics have something to say they should publish there.
If it's rubbish it probably won't get published.
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/i...vironment.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search...arch_submit=go

[andrew2008]

Steve Fielding also wrote an article that appeared in The Australian a couple of weeks ago on this very conference.

Some of the statistics he was stating and theories put forward were frankly wrong and have been proven so in numerous articles i've read. it's kind of embarassing to have someone in government with the ability to stop green measures with such a poor grasp of the basic science on the topic.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Rod take my advice read the relevant science journals, they have a different story to tell, than what the septics want you to believe.
BTW to get anything done in Government you have make your case into the worst case, we would all love to have Government and public opinion grounded firmly in evidence based reasoning, but it isn’t going to happen. If you want to get to the bottom of this issues read the relevant science journals. The public debate that is going on has little to do with the what the climate scientist are thinking. .

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

Rod take my advice read the relevant science journals, they have a different story to tell, than what the septics want you to believe.
BTW to get anything done in Government you have make your case into the worst case, we would all love to have Government and public opinion grounded firmly in evidence based reasoning, but it isn’t going to happen. If you want to get to the bottom of this issues read the relevant science journals. The public debate that is going on has little to do with the what the climate scientist are thinking. .

Sorry to burst the bubble, but a lot of science is now controlled by the mighty $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Not a great reference point for unbiased expert opinion !!!

[avandonk]

It is over folks. Picking a choice year like 1998 to compare the last ten years to is utter drivel. Fielding is a twit of the first order. The OZ is totally biased. Most of you do not not what day it is if you ignore refereed scientific research.

Do you folks bone up on designing aircraft before you fly? A bit of auto design before you drive? Some heavy solid state physics before you trust your computer? A bit of quantum mechanics before your breakfast tweets!

ALL of the deniers keep repeating the same arguments that have been refuted repeatedly by reputable scientists.

Bert

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by andrew2008

Steve Fielding also wrote an article that appeared in The Australian a couple of weeks ago on this very conference.

Some of the statistics he was stating and theories put forward were frankly wrong and have been proven so in numerous articles i've read. it's kind of embarassing to have someone in government with the ability to stop green measures with such a poor grasp of the basic science on the topic.

Which statistics?
Which Theories
In what way were they wrong
What were the articles that proved that the statistics and theories were wrong

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

A great read Alan, thanks for posting it.
I don't see how "who do you believe" could add any religious fervour to the debate, probably just a word read wrong.
Seems when the evidence from the otherside gets presented by some credible science all of a sudden the shoes on the other foot and the man made CC theorists have to go into overdrive to find reasons to shoot it down. This is not the scientific way.

PeterM.

I agree

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

It is over folks. Picking a choice year like 1998 to compare the last ten years to is utter drivel. Fielding is a twit of the first order. The OZ is totally biased. Most of you do not not what day it is if you ignore refereed scientific research.

Do you folks bone up on designing aircraft before you fly? A bit of auto design before you drive? Some heavy solid state physics before you trust your computer? A bit of quantum mechanics before your breakfast tweets!

ALL of the deniers keep repeating the same arguments that have been refuted repeatedly by reputable scientists.

Bert

The argument is not over.
I don't do quantum mechanics every breakfast.
I suppose a reputable scientist is one that agrees with the "science" of global warming.
I can still think, so I'm a skeptic.

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by Rod66

KennyGee,

at the risk of sounding disagreeable, the debate continues to rage on and I'd point out its more than just conservative think tanks and oil companies - which closet have you been hiding in? The opposite opinion to that is like saying the only people that are supporting this global warming is a has-been vice president and the cronies from universities that he gives funding to. Now I don't believe that's true but it makes as much sense as your statement. There are many supporters that WISH the debate was over, but its not over by a long shot.
As for the creation of emissions you've over simplified it, that's just one example of how greenhouse gasses are created, you do understand greenhouse gasses come from more than just carbon don't you? ie farting cows, land fill, waste dumps etc.. My point is, the media have seized on the term carbon and for some reason the world is fixated on the perception of this black substance in our atmosphere that will block out the sun eventually..
Check this page out for more info on what greenhouse gases are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases

Sorry but until we get rid of the sensationalism and the untruths and take the emotive statements out of it, we're doomed to let governments implement schemes with questionable benefit, using our hard earned tax payer dollars.
You can probably tell what I think about a carbon trading scheme...

Rod

well said KennyGee

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by Marclau

Sorry to burst the bubble, but a lot of science is now controlled by the mighty $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Not a great reference point for unbiased expert opinion !!!

Not a logical argument: But it's good to know your bias

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by Rod66

Les,

that's probably the closest I have seen yet to the underlying truth behind the current man made climate warming paranoia sweeping the media. I'm pleased to see a lot of good arguments above using the term CO2 and carbon dioxide.
Lets take a look a look at some of the marketing going on here. Consider the terms CARBON trading scheme, CARBON emissions. What immediately comes to mind? Big thick black particles clogging our atmosphere? That's what carbon is right? I'd never heard carbon dioxide abbreviated to carbon until the whole climate change paranoia came about. Now think for a moment what the vast majority of people understand about climate change - its whatever the media tells them... and there are some pretty savvy media people out there.
I think there has been a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the general public about this and the wave of paranoia is only going to be halted by educating people that first of all its a colourless, odourless gas we are talking about and there is conflicting evidence as to the reason why our temperature is changing. Rather than have a scientific debate, leading minds are publicly garotting each other - scientific method thrown out the window..
We need people like Steve Fielding to get to the bottom of this and turn the spending of our hard earned dollars to things that have no doubt as to their benefit to our society. They are our hard earned dollars they are spending right..??

How did I come to an astronomy forum and get tangled up in this?

Rod

Someone has to say the Emperor has no clothes: in this case it's Fielding

[qld]

Originally Posted by Archy

The argument is not over.
I don't do quantum mechanics every breakfast.
I suppose a reputable scientist is one that agrees with the "science" of global warming.
I can still think, so I'm a skeptic.

Adolf Hitlers scientists knew a thing or two about genetics..thank god we won the war ! you also might remember that Stalin's scientists also got it wrong with agriculture.(cant grow wheat in the tundra) Both these guys made sure that no one was allowed to criticise their thought they even had holiday homes for those who didnt fit in.....Aristotle the greek had you all fooled for 2000 years and he was very convincing because of the company he kept (Big AL remember)..and dont forget Karl Marx , he sure knew what he was about ....his deciples are still trying to work out the economics of a chook raffel (because they couldnt they added the raffel theory, to university studies as well)......never mind we now all have honest Kevin to guide us ...i remember when he first arrived and said " I'm from queensland and im here to help you" driving the ute he borrowed from his mate next door........................
As the old song goes "when will we ever learn....." up the sceptics the agnostics the rebels the non conformists the rest of you are truely the chosen ones the true believers.


qld (im from queensland and i dont need anyones help)

[Scoper (Malcolm)]

I agree whole heartedly, it is over. I find it difficult to understand why people who are enthusiastic about a science, astronomy, which is based on the known laws of physics and method of science still uphold the view that somehow, the same laws and method being used to derive information about the world's climate over tens of thousands of years is not only wrong but deliberately false. If climate change physics is wrong and false then all of physics is wrong and false
To imply that disparate teams of scientists are engaged in a blatant fraud to deceive the public "for the almighty dollar" beggars belief. Such a conspiracy would involve an enourmous amount of complex collusion between hundreds of scientists.
I am reminded of the heated denials of scientific findings about the hazards of smoking back in the early seventies; the "arguments" used to deny this are much the same as the arguments used against the discoveries of the correlation between carbon dioxide emmissions and global warming today.
Climate scientists are just doing science about the world's climate---nothing more.Their findings are not an attempt to conspire against a gullible public. Science attempts, by models (theories) to present a real interpretation of our universe and how it works. It is not absolute, there is no such thing as proof in the absolute sense, science presents evidence that is compelling, proof is analogous to the speed of light limit; we can increase the compelling evidence almost to dead certainty but never get exactly there.
I believe science is correct when it presents a Heliocentric solar system as reality, the evidence for it is "beyond reasonable doubt", in other words it would be unreasonable for me to believe otherwise. The same holds true for the findings of climate change and its correlation to CO2 emmisions.
Those who are "chasing the almighty dollar" are those who have a vested interest in denying the evidence, which is overwhelming, for climate change through man made CO2 emmissions.
But it doesn't look as though we humans are going to heed the warnings; does it matter? I guess not because if we don't do something about it then nature will---to the peril of humanity.

[Allan_L (Allan)]

And how long ago was it that a majority of reputable scientists believed the world was flat? Or that the Earth was the centre of the universe?

Plenty of people had no reason to doubt that either.

But thank "God" that some did.

History is full of scientific heroes who were regarded as "twits of the first order" by their peers.

PLEASE Don't burn all the sceptics, because I suspect that scientific advancement would cease without them.

Anyway, Fielding isn't a sceptic, from my reading he believes. But he has been presented with some facts that don't quite fit the model. And he dared to ask "...please explain?".

When did that become a crime?

And if someone knows the answer to the three questions he posed, can you please post them, without emotion, and without insulting the questioner. I hear a lot of Bluff and Bubble about what an idiot he is. Can someone please explain why. Other than to simply say the experts say so.

Don't get me wrong! I want CO2 emissions to be reduced too. THEY PROBABLY MAKE SEEING MORE DIFFICULT FOR US ASTRONOMERS. But imposing another tax is not likely to be the answer. ESPECIALLY when they intend to give a heap of the cash raised to the biggest polluters so they will not be financially disadvantaged????
HELLO !!!!!

[tonybarry (Tony)]

I'd like to echo Allan_L's statement:- "And if someone knows the answer to the three questions he [Fielding] posed, can you please post them, without emotion, and without insulting the questioner. I hear a lot of Bluff and Bubble about what an idiot he is. Can someone please explain why. Other than to simply say the experts say so."

I am interested in science. The science I know about is based on the repeatable test; on predictive modelling; on experimental results before theory; and especially that no question is too stupid to be answered.

I am OK with statements like "We don't have all the answers as yet, but ..."

What I am not OK with is "All those who disagree with position X are fools."

If this were a journal and I were submitting a paper for peer review, the editor would have the right to say "Go away and do your homework."

This is not a journal and I am more interested in the homework anyway. If anyone can explain, I'd be pleased to read. Especially with regard to what the skeptics say.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[qld]

Originally Posted by tonybarry

I'd like to echo Allan_L's statement:- "And if someone knows the answer to the three questions he [Fielding] posed, can you please post them, without emotion, and without insulting the questioner. I hear a lot of Bluff and Bubble about what an idiot he is. Can someone please explain why. Other than to simply say the experts say so."

I am interested in science. The science I know about is based on the repeatable test; on predictive modelling; on experimental results before theory; and especially that no question is too stupid to be answered.

I am OK with statements like "We don't have all the answers as yet, but ..."

What I am not OK with is "All those who disagree with position X are fools."

If this were a journal and I were submitting a paper for peer review, the editor would have the right to say "Go away and do your homework."

This is not a journal and I am more interested in the homework anyway. If anyone can explain, I'd be pleased to read. Especially with regard to what the skeptics say.

Regards,
Tony Barry

thank god there are some non sheep around

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

What are the three questions Fielding asked?

[Swanssm (Peter)]

Ken,
I believe the questions you are refering to are:

Direct Quote from The Australian - June 19
* Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
* Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th-century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
* Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10years of stasis and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy-making?

The three elephants in the room ......

Regards
Peter

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by Allan_L

And how long ago was it that a majority of reputable scientists believed the world was flat? Or that the Earth was the centre of the universe?

Plenty of people had no reason to doubt that either.

But thank "God" that some did.

History is full of scientific heroes who were regarded as "twits of the first order" by their peers.

PLEASE Don't burn all the sceptics, because I suspect that scientific advancement would cease without them.

Anyway, Fielding isn't a sceptic, from my reading he believes. But he has been presented with some facts that don't quite fit the model. And he dared to ask "...please explain?".

When did that become a crime?

And if someone knows the answer to the three questions he posed, can you please post them, without emotion, and without insulting the questioner. I hear a lot of Bluff and Bubble about what an idiot he is. Can someone please explain why. Other than to simply say the experts say so.

Don't get me wrong! I want CO2 emissions to be reduced too. THEY PROBABLY MAKE SEEING MORE DIFFICULT FOR US ASTRONOMERS. But imposing another tax is not likely to be the answer. ESPECIALLY when they intend to give a heap of the cash raised to the biggest polluters so they will not be financially disadvantaged????
HELLO !!!!!

Absolutely spot on..........just becuase I question what I read or that I try and understand both sides of the story (open mind) does'nt or should'nt make you a fool/side X/political or anything else..........
I just simply wont be a sheep on anything and have always questioned everything.

As for the almighty $$$$$ for funding from large companies, I have first hand experience. In a previous life (or shouldnt I say that) I was the IT Financial Controller to building databases with computations to deliver analysis results on statistics. Higher powers at times did not like the accountable answers (based on simple maths) and I was asked to change or rewrite the program to a more favourable answer. so no, I am not bias but I fully understand how the system of funding works......

[leinad (Dan)]

Perhaps some might find this release interesting:

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12084