Evidence for CO2 causing global warming?

[mistermack]

You've just defined a conspiracy.

No I didn't but I will. It's when people conspire.

95% of climate scientists agree global warming is caused by increasing CO2 because of human activities

Where did you get that? Who defined climate scientist, and did they ask everybody under anonymous conditions?
And what does it mean? ALL of the global warming? SOME of the global warming? HOW MUCH of the global warming? It's meaningless as it stands. Even I could go along with that wording.

[Animavore]

Where did you get that? Who defined climate scientist, and did they ask everybody under anonymous conditions?

Are you seriously going to play this game?
This is like a creationist asking, "Who defines a biologist? Who gets to say who's an expert on how life came to be?"
It's puerile to say the least.
Anyway, here's the relevant data from a 2008 Gallup poll linked below the article.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

[mistermack]

Where did you get that? Who defined climate scientist, and did they ask everybody under anonymous conditions?

Are you seriously going to play this game?
This is like a creationist asking, "Who defines a biologist? Who gets to say who's an expert on how life came to be?"
It's puerile to say the least.
Anyway, here's the relevant data from a 2008 Gallup poll linked below the article.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

Well you hardly stand in the street, stopping "climate scientists", so you have to get their names from somewhere. A climate conference on how GW is manmade would be an easy place to start. There are hundreds of ways of getting the answer you're looking for there.
But they didn't stop there. Look at the question:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
To be honest, I have to answer "YES" to that one myself. So they made quite sure they would get the answer they wanted.
.

[Animavore]

Where did you get that? Who defined climate scientist, and did they ask everybody under anonymous conditions?

Are you seriously going to play this game?
This is like a creationist asking, "Who defines a biologist? Who gets to say who's an expert on how life came to be?"
It's puerile to say the least.
Anyway, here's the relevant data from a 2008 Gallup poll linked below the article.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

Well you hardly stand in the street, stopping "climate scientists", so you have to get their names from somewhere. A climate conference on how GW is manmade would be an easy place to start. There are hundreds of ways of getting the answer you're looking for there.
But they didn't stop there. Look at the question:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
To be honest, I have to answer "YES" to that one myself. So they made quite sure they would get the answer they wanted.
.

The poll of climate scientist was taken from an independent report, not the Gallup, my mistake.
Here it is http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract

Of course, you're going to try claim it wasn't independent or anonymous or some bollox.

[mistermack]

The poll of climate scientist was taken from an independent report, not the Gallup, my mistake.
Here it is http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract

Of course, you're going to try claim it wasn't independent or anonymous or some bollox.

It''s a bollox question from an insignificant organisation. So it's a meaningless statistic, masqerading as evidence. Perfectly in keeping with the site as a whole.

It illustrates my point that "the science" is anything but!
.

[macdoc]

I've never claimed a conspiracy. What I see is a so-called new science, climate forecasting, with a history of NO correct forecasts, giving us prophecies of doom and gloom, unsupported by any track record.

(and please don't point out the "pretend" forcasts, where they fiddle with a model till it fits the past)

I don't think there is any conspiracy, but there is a fucking great bandwagon, with some tasty goodies for those who jump on board.
And anybody working in the field who has any doubts would be well advised to keep his mouth shut. Your point about concensus is false. People with doubts have learned to keep "schtum". And who can blame them?

Bottom line you haven't the least clue what you are talking about.
The science of CO2 has been around for over a century and hindcasting to test models is the norm.....

Why don't you read the science then come back and discuss intelligently instead playing the fool in a science forum...

Here you go - maybe in the meantime you can explain why the fossil fuel company's own scientists said to their pay paymasters....
" that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."

THAT was 15 years ago....did you not get the memo?.....denial of AGW currently is akin to denying evolution...it's for cranks and other such riff raff.

Stop reading Faux news and right wing anti-science rags and start reading the actual science including the history....

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/pat...s_11_13_07.htm

Current over view
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress. ... nce_kw.pdf

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport

Skeptic » The Magazine » Featured Article
https://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/fe ... hange.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/scien ... .html?_r=2

and another good basics
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html

Net mass loss of glaciers is a significant indicator as the energies involved are shocking in scale.

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet decay, continued « The Way Things Break
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... continued/

Net mass loss in Greenland alone is 100 cuKm annually and to put that in some perspective...it is as if the world is carpet bombing Greenland with 2000+ Hiroshima nuclear weapons a DAY!!
1/2 million a year in thermal equivalent to melt that much ice. And the same applies to the Western Antartic and also the mid-latitude glaciers...

a variety of sources - the Arctic Report is very multidisciplinary - I like analog signals - hard to fool the critters

This one gives you a real overview of the strong signals from biota and cryosphere

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

[macdoc]

The stance of the vast majority of the climate science community made by one of their own
•••••

where do I stand??.....in agreement with this

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

Links to Climate Change articles...115 pages from mainstream sources..

Here are the links to the threads from the dawkins science forum....all 115 pages of articles from main stream climate and science sources
From Nov 2006 to current

Most current 15 pages
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Global Climate Change Science News (Pt. 2)
http://beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/74571-1.html

previous thread 100 pages
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Global Climate Change Science News
http://beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/2184-1.html


and the fossil fuel companies knew this in the mid 90s..

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/scien ... .html?_r=2

You wander into a science forum with a tin hat theory?? and no knowledge......spare us...

and if you want the REST of the supporting science then click on my signature

How bad could it be...

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the*
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... 1-billion/

Monaco declaration
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134843.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6529307.ece

[mistermack]

Macdoc, if I wanted a million links, I would just google for them. If you'd offered ONE link to an interesting piece, I would have read it.

Your own comments seem to be just generalised slagging off anything sceptical, so I don't see much value there.

The original post was asking for real evidence that MANMADE CO2 is causing the climate to change. I'm still waiting.
.

[mistermack]

A number of people give the "scientific concensus" argument, and obviously view it as good evidence of manmade manmade-GW, presumably with the logic that the evidence is too technical, so they would rather trust the experts.
( I want to see the evidence myself, and I'm happy to research it, if its looking promising ).

WHY IS THERE A CONCENSUS AMONG "EXPERTS"?

And on trusting the experts, is this a good principle? It might be for a subject like maths, or physics, where a theory can be destroyed by a mathematical proof, or an experiment. But what about something like manmade-GW, that is so hard to pin down?

If you look for similar situations, you soon come to religion.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF BIBLICAL EXPERTS BELIEVE IN GOD.
(same for islam and most religions). Do we rely on that, and believe it because they say that they believe it?

When you compare GW and religion, the parallels are rather striking.

I was very struck by this piece about Biblical Scholars who came to realise it was rubbish :

VERY few, if any, of these scholars would or could admit error. It would simply destroy them, their careers and possibly their families.

Mike, when I was an intern youth minister, our head minister confessed to me this: "Jon, if I taught what I really know to be the truth, they'd fire me, and I have a family to support." No kidding. Now, Johnny was NOT an unethical man...merely one who skirted the critical issues in favor of sending his kids to college. This is not cynicism, this is reality. Even the unmarried students have built their 'very existence' off of the truths of the Bible. Think about how difficult it would be to sign that all away...to ADMIT you were wrong for 10, 20, 50 years.

Just look at what happen to former New Testament Bible scholar professor Gerd Lüdemann after publicly declaring his unbelief. He remarked, "People know Christianity is not true, but they won’t address it publicly". Even after attempts for appeal to reconsider, he was expelled from the theological faculty of Gottingen University. Aside from being a noted author in Europe, he used to teach the New Testament in a school in Germany that trains ministers.

Here's another discussion of the same problem :
(Link)

It give you a bit of an insight into where "climate scientists" actually are, and their options. Firstly, they don't choose the subject, if they are not "believers". You won't get far in the industry, as an open sceptic. Secondly, anyone who loses "faith" in manmade GW would be well advised to keep it quiet. Where is the work, for sceptics?
It's a perfect parallel with biblical scholars. Most START OUT as believers, and keep quiet if they start to doubt.

So IS IT ANY WONDER that you get a concensus, when you poll the "experts"?
.

[Animavore]

Bullshit. You're conspiracy theory is without justification.

[mistermack]

Bullshit. You're conspiracy theory is without justification.

Don't you feel even a tiny bit hypocritical? I give my arguments. You just assert something is "Bullshit and without justification" and don't offer a scrap of justification!!

Don't you see any irony in that?
.

[Animavore]

Bullshit. You're conspiracy theory is without justification.

Don't you feel even a tiny bit hypocritical? I give my arguments. You just assert something is "Bullshit and without justification" and don't offer a scrap of justification!!

Don't you see any irony in that?
.

You didn't give any justification to your argument so I can call "bullshit". You gave an example of something going on in another teaching altogether, totally unrelated, and then tried to claim this is what goes on in climatology. As if when you go into college to study the subject they warn you not to make waves. That going against the consensus will ruin you etc.. but you gave no evidence to support this.
There is no irony on my part what-so-ever.

[SPMaximus]

aaaw, whyd you guys stop? this thread is hilarious, keep going

[Trolldor]

Of course climate scientists are in a conspiracy. In fact all scientists are!

Gravity is a lie! So is Red Shift! Plate Tectonics! The 'experts' are all agreeing to fill their bank accounts, all those rich, powerful scientists. I bet they work with the Jews and committed 9/11.

[mistermack]

Of course climate scientists are in a conspiracy. In fact all scientists are!

Gravity is a lie! So is Red Shift! Plate Tectonics! The 'experts' are all agreeing to fill their bank accounts, all those rich, powerful scientists. I bet they work with the Jews and committed 9/11.

You must stop making those hats. The mercury is affecting your remaining brain cells.
.