quote Global warming not only is real, but "humans are almost entirely the cause," a self-described former climate change skeptic has declared. "Call me a converted skeptic," Richard A. Muller, University of California, Berkeley physics professor said in an opinion piece posted online Saturday in The New York Times. Muller in October released results from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, set up for global warming skeptics, that showed that since the mid-1950s, global average temperatures over land have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit). In his new statement, Muller said, "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." He credited his turnaround to "careful and objective analysis" by BEST, explaining: “Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. ... ” Money for the BEST study came from five foundations, including one established by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and another from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire coal magnate and widely seen as a source of money for conservative organizations and initiatives that have fought efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Muller's website says the BEST findings will be released Monday. Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter Muller said in his opinion piece he remains skeptical of some climate-change claims. "Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_...-global-warming?lite

No wonder the internet is slow right now. Get ready for the cut and past brigade.

However, one man doesn't change the controversy. It's still pretty broad. I think that if it's real, it's too late.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 07-29-2012).]

I swear people love number without doing any of the actual work.

The earth is in a fight for constant balance. Every 500-1000 years the earth goes through a warming and cooling cycle. Just like the sun every 7 years goes through a warming and cooling cycle.
Its documented that the last mini ice age was during the time period of the french revolution (1700's). The primary fact for the revelation was due to the hash conditions and the inability to grow crop due to the cold harsh climates. and prior to that was the Dark ages (14/15 century).
Also every 50-100 years the earth switches its magnetic polarity. This is how the earth prevents its self from ripping its self apart. As the lava/magma is released from the mid-atlantic ridge, it has either a positive or negative polarity. It the last cycle was positive and it releases another positive. then like two positive magnets it will reject and push away. This would cause large earthquakes and massive Tsunami's. So to prevent this it switches between a positive and negative polarity. No one knows how the earth does this but its proven this happens.


So please enough with the global warming BS. Im a meteorologist & oceanographer and know what im talking about. So no need to quote what someone is saying to the public.

------------------
V/R
AG2(AW/SW) Mauk

quote Originally posted by D3M6B: I swear people love number without doing any of the actual work. The earth is in a fight for constant balance. Every 500-1000 years the earth goes through a warming and cooling cycle. Just like the sun every 7 years goes through a warming and cooling cycle. Its documented that the last mini ice age was during the time period of the french revolution (1700's). The primary fact for the revelation was due to the hash conditions and the inability to grow crop due to the cold harsh climates. and prior to that was the Dark ages (14/15 century). Also every 50-100 years the earth switches its magnetic polarity. This is how the earth prevents its self from ripping its self apart. As the lava/magma is released from the mid-atlantic ridge, it has either a positive or negative polarity. It the last cycle was positive and it releases another positive. then like two positive magnets it will reject and push away. This would cause large earthquakes and massive Tsunami's. So to prevent this it switches between a positive and negative polarity. No one knows how the earth does this but its proven this happens. So please enough with the global warming BS. Im a meteorologist & oceanographer and know what im talking about. So no need to quote what someone is saying to the public.

Feel free to point out their mistakes, expert.

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012...ml?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Please update us on your results.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-29-2012).]

Never mind--my mistake.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-29-2012).]

All based on FLAWED temperature data.

PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

Chico, CA July 29th, 2012 – 12 PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.


This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication.

The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said:

I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.

The USHCN is one of the main metrics used to gauge the temperature changes in the United States. The first wide scale effort to address siting issues, Watts, (2009), a collated photographic survey, showed that approximately 90% of USHCN stations were compromised by encroachment of urbanity in the form of heat sinks and sources, such as concrete, asphalt, air conditioning system heat exchangers, roadways, airport tarmac, and other issues. This finding was backed up by an August 2011 U.S. General Accounting Office investigation and report titled: Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network

All three papers examining the station siting issue, using early data gathered by the SurfaceStations project, Menne et al (2010), authored by Dr. Matt Menne of NCDC, Fall et al, 2011, authored by Dr. Souleymane Fall of Tuskeegee University and co-authored by Anthony Watts, and Muller et al 2012, authored by Dr. Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley and founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) were inconclusive in finding effects on temperature trends used to gauge the temperature change in the United States over the last century.

Lead author of the paper, Anthony Watts, commented:

“I fully accept the previous findings of these papers, including that of the Muller et al 2012 paper. These investigators found exactly what would be expected given the siting metadata they had. However, the Leroy 1999 site rating method employed to create the early metadata, and employed in the Fall et al 2011 paper I co-authored was incomplete, and didn’t properly quantify the effects.

The new rating method employed finds that station siting does indeed have a significant effect on temperature trends.”

Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.

Leroy 2010 adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.

Using the new Leroy 2010 classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al. (2011), Menne et al. (2010), and Muller et al. (2012), yields dramatically different results.

Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:

These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.

Other findings include, but are not limited to:

· Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.

· Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.

· Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

· Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.

· The raw data Tmean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted Tmean trend for poorly sited stations.

· Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.

Just do some research on Magnetic Stripes" and narrow it to the ocean and or ocean floor. its know that it happens every 50-100 years although is quick minor changes. but the actual long pattern is near 5-10K years.

------------------
V/R
AG2(AW/SW) Mauk

A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the Earth's magnetic field such that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south are interchanged. The Earth's field has alternated between periods of normal polarity, in which the direction of the field was the same as the present direction, and reverse polarity, in which the field was the opposite. These periods are called chrons. The time spans of chrons are randomly distributed with most being between 0.1 and 1 million years with an average of 450,000 years. Most reversals are estimated to take between 1,000 and 10,000 years. The latest one, the Brunhes–Matuyama reversal, occurred 780,000 years ago. Brief disruptions that do not result in reversal are called geomagnetic excursions.

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

So dino and his palls of the jurassic period were responsible for the hot times of the cretaceous period?
After all, the dinos were the evolutionary masters of their time, they had to make the greenhouse gases then.
I still say warm is more normal than ice ages...

It was actually Mr. Slate and his rock quarry Brontosauruses

------------------
V/R
AG2(AW/SW) Mauk

if global warming was anything but the farse it is I'd worry, but thats exactly what it is.. yes the climate is changing, and those that think we in the industrial age are the reason.. are either blind or fools.
you can look up record highs for any day you choose.. funny thing is.. allot of those highs are from way way back.. before the industrial movement.. and most of the rest are 20-70 years old..
if the globe was warming as fast as the fear mongerers say, we should be breaking record highs every day or at lest within every 4 years.. not still have records from 40-70 years ago still standing..
but there is huge money in the humans are the cause of the warming..
as far as the "papers" linked above.. anyone can make and data "read" what they want it to.. I don't care if the whole science world ok's them.. show me any area that has had record highs records broken more than 50% of the time everyyear.. I'll even be nicer, fine one thats broke the records highs 25% of the time..

some areas are warming.. the bigger a city gets the warmer it gets.. walk on grass then pavement.. ,grass then aroof.. or a cerment building wall in the sun..
the warming is from that.. but to think that us humans are having a huge impack on the globes warmth is a fools game..

and IF the dyno's died and the ice age began because of a rock(s) hitting earth and putting dust in the air, blocking the suns rays.. it could be said that us. cleaning the dirty dust and other crap out of the cloud cover, is also warming the earth.. less cloud cover more rays reach earth.. but that works agains the fear mongerers global warming money ball.
see I just made data, say what I wanted it to say.. just like science and their "papers"

[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 07-30-2012).]

It's absolutely amazing to me how common sense flies out the window when otherwise reasonable folk start talking about climate.

To say that "if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck" is in any way true, you have to look at the egregious claims of the climate scammers.

Sure the globe has been warming since the last ice age, and sure there are sporatic spikes up and down.

But,

Are there increased hurricanes? No.
Are there dead and dying polar bears? No
Are the small islands in the world going under water? No.
Are the tides shifting? No
Are the oceans rising dramatically? No
Are the IPCC data proven to be concocted? Yes

Essentially the claims made by Gore and his pals have been proven to be entirely groundless and false.

That said, sure the oceans are rising at about 3mm per year, up from 2 mm in the 20th Century. But, the poster child for this phenomenon is the island of Tuvalu which should be under water by now and is nowhere near there.

(Remember, 3mm is about1/8"). And, this is part of the earth's recovery from the last ice age. This is not due to people.

Wait..... I'm wrong! There are now 6.6 billion people, and the weight is squashing the continents outward and causing the oceans to be squeezed slightly. This increases the level! So we are at fault after all.

Arn

What is absolutely amazing is that humans think they can control the weather. That is exactly what this entire global warming BS is all about. That and there is more money in research for all those over educated PHD’s and all the other letters in the alphabet. So they have to scare those with the money into paying these over educated idiots to do RESEARCH. That always comes out in their favor so they can get more money for more research to pay for the researcher’s new cars and boats, summer homes, but never a cure for anything, never a cure for global warming or cancer or anything.

Why because there is more money in research than a cure.

So the researchers always say their research says what they want it so say to keep the research funding combing.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

same as every other time this horsepoop comes up.

global warming IS real. very few will deny that. it is the cause which is in question.
and, many have a very specific reason to deny the chance that greenhouse gasses are a factor. they will stand and fight to the bitter end, like Tobacco companies STILL do today. I too dont quite buy the greenhouse theory. But, I do admit it is feasible. and the more I hear those trying to squirm, the more they seem to be the ones making stuff up.

what I'd really like to see is some info on the impact of the global warming - which IS happening - manmade or not. if it is manmade - we CANNOT stop it. not without some good 'ol genocide. how will global warming impact? I feel that for where I live, the impact will be nothing but good. and, even more - I hope that it will make the middle east uninhabitable. wouldnt that be the greatest thing? buring oil make the oil producing regions uninhabitable. would that be that bee knees? after all, oil producing regions create the worst leaders. must be something in the water?

so - anyways - those who think global warming is manmade - will you support the only solution: mass murder? or accept that global warming as-is.

One thing that was a real eye opener to me was recently seeing a television program where they quoted a number of "climate change experts" during the late seventies where they were saying that there was irrefutable proof that the Earth was cooling and that we were on the verge of entering another ice age. Some of the scientists quoted in this story were some of the same ones we hear today telling us about how there is irrefutable proof of global warming. David Suzuki (a Canadian geneticist, and host of a popular TV show) was one of the ones who was quoted in the program. Arns85GT will know who he is.

Climit change is happening. We all agree on that. Fossil fuel is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We all agree on that. We're still arguing about how much effect that has. If the science is right it will probably be too late to do anything by the time we quit arguing about it. Maybe Fierobear is right. I hope so, but I would prefer that we ere on the side of caution. Myself I trust the climate scientists more than I do the fossil fuel industry. That industry is totally interested only in their monetary profit. I don't see where science has a motive to promote false propaganda. It's easy to see the fossil fuel industries motive.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Climit change is happening. We all agree on that. Fossil fuel is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We all agree on that. We're still arguing about how much effect that has. If the science is right it will probably be too late to do anything by the time we quit arguing about it. Maybe Fierobear is right. I hope so, but I would prefer that we ere on the side of caution. Myself I trust the climate scientists more than I do the fossil fuel industry. That industry is totally interested only in their monetary profit. I don't see where science has a motive to promote false propaganda. It's easy to see the fossil fuel industries motive.

Cautionarily well said.
I know enough to know I don't know enough.

Said it before, I work in a research facility and have personally heard certain researchers state that for guaranteed funding you have to be able to tie your research somehow to either: 1) global warming, or 2) gas and oil.

As long as you are doing research into these areas you WILL get funding no matter what.

That being said, could it simply be that this so called "Ex-Climate Change Skeptic", being that times are tough and it is hard to get funding right now (yes I do know, the money is not coming like it use to), simply changed his perspective ONLY in order to secure some funding for his work?

If anything we are in an extended "ice age" - the "cooler" temperatures that we are now seeing have been around a lot longer than any other period in the complete global temperature history, not some small time frame that the certain element of today would have you believe (in which case, yes the temp has increased, but is still no where's near where it 'normally' has been in the past).

That being said, we as a collective do need to clean up our act, not because it is creating global warming, but because we are starting to live like a bunch of pigs (use in a very loose term) and just throwing everything out and causing pollution.

As they say in this song:

There is a big different between "controlling" and "influencing" the weather. We can't control squat but we certainly can influence it - probably not on a global scale. Seeding clouds is "influencing" but in no way "controlling."

The next 10 years will be exciting!

quote Originally posted by dratts: Climit change is happening. We all agree on that. Fossil fuel is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We all agree on that. We're still arguing about how much effect that has. If the science is right it will probably be too late to do anything by the time we quit arguing about it. Maybe Fierobear is right. I hope so, but I would prefer that we ere on the side of caution. Myself I trust the climate scientists more than I do the fossil fuel industry. That industry is totally interested only in their monetary profit. I don't see where science has a motive to promote false propaganda. It's easy to see the fossil fuel industries motive.

really,, REALLY... no they'd not say something to keep the RESEARCH MONEY COMING IN.. NA, THAT NEVER HAPPEN RIGHT.. come on.. ICELANDS OR GREENLANDS volcano did more damage with "greenhouse gasses" in a week than we've done in 300+ years..
HELLO.. mother earth just did more harm( if you believe the fear monerers, global warming) than we ever could.. in a week.. and that went on for 5 weeks then followed up with 3 more...
the farce was found out, so it went from global warming to climit change.. so it didn't look like the lie it is.. yes climit is changing.. it be changing if we where all still in horse and buggies..
when is someone going to realize the polar caps ice melt is JUST THE LAST OF THE ICE AGE .. took millions of years to melt the earth.. but like anything the end ,ends faster than the middle..
my god people can't think

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: ICELANDS OR GREENLANDS volcano did more damage with "greenhouse gasses" in a week than we've done in 300+ years..

I don't think so.


It's been posted more than once on this forum:

quote Why all the concern about carbon dioxide emissions from human activities, when just one volcano emits so much more carbon dioxide..?

Terry Gerlach was a volcanic gas geochemist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey.

His new article "addresses the widespread mis-perception in the media, the blogosphere, and much of the climate skeptic literature that volcanic CO2 emissions greatly exceed anthropogenic CO2 emissions".

quote The bottom line? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

In other words, year in and year out, human activities emit 100 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than volcanoes.

For more--and a link to Gerlach's new article:
http://www.realclimate.org/...genic-co2/#more-8349

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: In other words, year in and year out, human activities emit 100 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than volcanoes. For more--and a link to Gerlach's new article: http://www.realclimate.org/...genic-co2/#more-8349

untill the volcano erupts.. oops left that fact out..
we are a bug, that earth will crush it we are causing to much harm..

Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle
British Geological Survey, 2005.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432

This gives similar figures:
Human caused emissions of CO2 = c. >30 Gigatons/year
Volcanic (both terrestrial and submarine) = c. 0.3 Gigatons/year

ie. volcanic emissions of CO2 are about 1% of anthropogenic emissions.

Someone claiming that volcanic emissions of CO2 exceed human emissions is not a climate sceptic:

he/she is either ignorant or is deliberately trying to mislead people.''

.

many here fit this description

''Someone claiming that volcanic emissions of CO2 exceed human emissions is not a climate sceptic:
he/she is either ignorant or is deliberately trying to mislead people.''

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 07-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle British Geological Survey, 2005. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432 This gives similar figures: Human caused emissions of CO2 = c. >30 Gigatons/year Volcanic (both terrestrial and submarine) = c. 0.3 Gigatons/year ie. volcanic emissions of CO2 are about 1% of anthropogenic emissions. Someone claiming that volcanic emissions of CO2 exceed human emissions is not a climate sceptic: he/she is either ignorant or is deliberately trying to mislead people.'' . many here fit this description ''Someone claiming that volcanic emissions of CO2 exceed human emissions is not a climate sceptic: he/she is either ignorant or is deliberately trying to mislead people.''

oops again. no listing of emissions while erupting.. totally different than the "active volcano emmissions..
again facts.. we'll just leave some out.

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: oops again. no listing of emissions while erupting.. totally different than the "active volcano emmissions.. again facts.. we'll just leave some out.

Human caused emissions of CO2 = c. >30 Gigatons/year
Volcanic (both terrestrial and submarine) = c. 0.3 Gigatons/year

ie. volcanic emissions of CO2 are about 1% of anthropogenic emissions.


Those are the only relevant numbers in this argument.

It's about long-term climate change, caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

It has nothing to do with the short-term changes that occur during and immediately after any single volcanic eruption.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Human caused emissions of CO2 = c. >30 Gigatons/year Volcanic (both terrestrial and submarine) = c. 0.3 Gigatons/year ie. volcanic emissions of CO2 are about 1% of anthropogenic emissions. Those are the only relevant numbers in this argument. It's about long-term climate change, caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with the short-term changes that occur during and immediately after any single volcanic eruption.

oh ok.. you do know that volcano's erupt 100's of times a year..
ya, that don't matter..

Let's not forget that plants eat CO2. Elevated CO2 causes increased plant growth, which in turn creates more Oxygen.

It is all cyclical and relative. Mankind has been trying to control weather ever since the invention of the rain dance.

It just can't be done. What we can do, however, is use prudent birth control for the masses.

What scientists don't care to mention is the CO2 emitted by humans and animals. The more population the more CO2

That said, CO2 does not cause global warming. It is a result of global warming. (Remember we are exiting an ice age)

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: ..... That said, CO2 does not cause global warming. It is a result of global warming. (Remember we are exiting an ice age) Arn

yes - that is a "chicken/egg" problem, isnt it?
as the oceans warm - the lose the ability to contains gasses - like CO2, which the algea consumes and makes O with. so, the warmer it is - the less the ocean can scrub CO2 - and the oceans ARE the #1 CO2 scrubbers on earth.

Global warming doesn't matter...

Nemesis will get us all in the end and the Earth will reset and start all over again...

[This message has been edited by Rallaster (edited 07-30-2012).]

I don't disagree with everything that you've said here, but referring to an "ex-climate change skeptic" as "so called" makes it sound as though you are throwing out anything that doesn't coincide with your preconceived notions.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Said it before, I work in a research facility and have personally heard certain researchers state that for guaranteed funding you have to be able to tie your research somehow to either: 1) global warming, or 2) gas and oil. As long as you are doing research into these areas you WILL get funding no matter what. That being said, could it simply be that this so called "Ex-Climate Change Skeptic", being that times are tough and it is hard to get funding right now (yes I do know, the money is not coming like it use to), simply changed his perspective ONLY in order to secure some funding for his work? If anything we are in an extended "ice age" - the "cooler" temperatures that we are now seeing have been around a lot longer than any other period in the complete global temperature history, not some small time frame that the certain element of today would have you believe (in which case, yes the temp has increased, but is still no where's near where it 'normally' has been in the past). That being said, we as a collective do need to clean up our act, not because it is creating global warming, but because we are starting to live like a bunch of pigs (use in a very loose term) and just throwing everything out and causing pollution. As they say in this song:

quote Originally posted by dratts: I don't disagree with everything that you've said here, but referring to an "ex-climate change skeptic" as "so called" makes it sound as though you are throwing out anything that doesn't coincide with your preconceived notions.

I say "so called" because, did he really change? Does he now really believe in man made global warming, or just saying it for funding?

To borrow a quote from Ghostbusters:

quote Winston Zeddemore: Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.

I'm still more willing to believe what the vast majority of scientists working in their field of expertise have to say over the know it all's on the internet.

I still haven't seen many university scientists and researchers getting super rich off doing their studies, though I see people in the oil industry doing quite well, I am a little more suspect when they back research and websites. As I've said before it reminds me of the doctors who testified and did studies for the tobacco giants when they said there was no link to cancer or other health problems.

Of course it doesn't hurt to be skeptical of what either side says but IMO the evidence is clear which is true.

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm still more willing to believe what the vast majority of scientists working in their field of expertise have to say over the know it all's on the internet. I still haven't seen many university scientists and researchers getting super rich off doing their studies, though I see people in the oil industry doing quite well, I am a little more suspect when they back research and websites. As I've said before it reminds me of the doctors who testified and did studies for the tobacco giants when they said there was no link to cancer or other health problems. Of course it doesn't hurt to be skeptical of what either side says but IMO the evidence is clear which is true.

please that group will say the sky is falling if it gets them funding..
follow the money..
take thy blinders off

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: please that group will say the sky is falling if it gets them funding.. follow the money.. take thy blinders off

OK let's follow the money. Who has more the Oil industry or the research community?

quote Originally posted by newf: OK let's follow the money. Who has more the Oil industry or the research community?

oil.. but not by volume..