Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[fozzie 41]

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.

"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."

The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.

A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.

"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1965

"It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal" = the new scientist.

New Scientist drew criticism from the writer Greg Egan, who distributed a public letter stating that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged those reading his letter to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of "squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides" for genuine science education. The letter was endorsed by mathematical physicist John C. Baez and posted on his blog

The reply of New Scientist's editor defends the article, saying New Scientist is "an ideas magazine - that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories"

Debunked!

[GaryC 7]

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.

"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."

The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.

A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.

"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1965

"It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal" = the new scientist.

New Scientist drew criticism from the writer Greg Egan, who distributed a public letter stating that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged those reading his letter to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of "squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides" for genuine science education. The letter was endorsed by mathematical physicist John C. Baez and posted on his blog

The reply of New Scientist's editor defends the article, saying New Scientist is "an ideas magazine - that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories"

Debunked!

Yet another example of discrediting the messenger while the message is ignored.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The global warming believers don't want open discussion. They see it as an open and shut case. So sad. Is this 1933 Germany?

Edited March 12, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is ample evidence that the same companies, like Exxon-Mobil, that stand to lose profits from greater restrictions on emissions are the ones that are funding the anti-GW "science" and giving huge cash prizes for studies that cast doubt on GW.

Indeed - you need only look at the tobacco industry for an example of that sort of behavior. Decades (and millions of dollars) worth of research narrowly interpreted, selectively released and generally covered up (to the point where scientists were threatened with legal action not to reveal their findings).

[mmarlo 1]

The global warming believers don't want open discussion. They see it as an open and shut case. So sad. Is this 1933 Germany?

I'm not sure this is a fair characterization of the situation. It's sortof (but not quite) like casting doubt on Evolutionary Theory by calling it "just a theory" (in lay terminology, not scientific terminology) and saying that science is about having open discussion and debate about controversial issues. Well, fine, science is about that. But there is a difference between debate about questions that are open questions and debate about questions where there is overwhelming scientific evidence for one position over another. I mean, yes, there is some controversy over the particular interpretation of some of the GW results, but the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that GW is real--see the releases I mentioned above from the scientific academies of all of the G8 countries, plus several other major countries, and the recent findings of the UN. Debates will probably continue for some time among scientists about details of the interpretation of the results and refining our understanding of the phenomenon with further studies, but denying that GW exists is like stepping back and questioning whether the Earth is round. We're way past that point in our history of the understanding of the universe.

[dalegg 143]

I've got to tell you that I really am suprised at most of the attitudes people on this forum take towards the minority view.

I'm not going to go as far as Gary there and say that I believe global warming is a myth, because from what I've seen the data certainly points that way. I'll concede that there is a very strong arguement that humans have sped up the process too. But what is so suprising is how people dismiss the minority viewpoint and accept everything because "almost every scientist in the world agrees". Okay. So what if that's true? I'm not going to be cliche' and start pointing out other scientists in history whose viewpoints were contrary to the majority viewpoint of the day who turned out to be correct, because you all should remember that.

I don't need to do that, because I'm sure you can all relate to just the way life is. How many of you don't find that out of 100 people in any room, 95 of the people in the room are idiots? In most cases, there are only a few people who really understand things, and the vast majority are sheep. So, I'm sorry. The statement "The vast majority of scientists agree" just doesn't mean that much to me. I want to hear what every expert has to say about this, and I want what each of the them has to say to be refuted by hard science, not by accusations that they are in the minority viewpoint.

Global Warming not politicized? Uh, okay. Tell me something. Why is it that most of the people who support whole heartedly that humans are the cause of Global Warming do not know that human activity actually contributes less than 5% of the CO2 in the athsmosphere? That's not a right wing spin. It's an irrefutable fact. You will find it on responsible reports that still say humans are the cause of the mass climate changes. So, why in Al Gore's film did that never come up? This is not because he doesn't know it, it's because he knows that if he says it, people will be less likely to buy the idea that we can do anything to reverse the affects. Not very convenient for his arguement I guess.

Look at the numbers, and you tell me if the Kyoto protocal can really make any difference. Explain to me what the estimated expected results will be, and why. Kyoto is political becuase it actually does nothing that will help the situation. It does however create a vehicle to allow underdeveloped nations to catch up to the U.S. I call it sort of a world wealth redistribution protocal, but it has no real ability to solve global warming.

And why is it not important that Al Gore be called out for his "Carbon footprint"? In that movie, he told us that we can seriously reduce our Carbon output, "In fact, we can even reduce it to zero". I remember he said that, but I sure don't remember him telling us how. And if he can't even give us an Ed Bagely attempt at it, why should I believe it's possible?

[GaryC 7]

I've got to tell you that I really am suprised at most of the attitudes people on this forum take towards the minority view.

I'm not going to go as far as Gary there and say that I believe global warming is a myth, because from what I've seen the data certainly points that way. I'll concede that there is a very strong arguement that humans have sped up the process too. But what is so suprising is how people dismiss the minority viewpoint and accept everything because "almost every scientist in the world agrees". Okay. So what if that's true? I'm not going to be cliche' and start pointing out other scientists in history whose viewpoints were contrary to the majority viewpoint of the day who turned out to be correct, because you all should remember that.

I don't need to do that, because I'm sure you can all relate to just the way life is. How many of you don't find that out of 100 people in any room, 95 of the people in the room are idiots? In most cases, there are only a few people who really understand things, and the vast majority are sheep. So, I'm sorry. The statement "The vast majority of scientists agree" just doesn't mean that much to me. I want to hear what every expert has to say about this, and I want what each of the them has to say to be refuted by hard science, not by accusations that they are in the minority viewpoint.

Global Warming not politicized? Uh, okay. Tell me something. Why is it that most of the people who support whole heartedly that humans are the cause of Global Warming do not know that human activity actually contributes less than 5% of the CO2 in the athsmosphere? That's not a right wing spin. It's an irrefutable fact. You will find it on responsible reports that still say humans are the cause of the mass climate changes. So, why in Al Gore's film did that never come up? This is not because he doesn't know it, it's because he knows that if he says it, people will be less likely to buy the idea that we can do anything to reverse the affects. Not very convenient for his arguement I guess.

Look at the numbers, and you tell me if the Kyoto protocal can really make any difference. Explain to me what the estimated expected results will be, and why. Kyoto is political becuase it actually does nothing that will help the situation. It does however create a vehicle to allow underdeveloped nations to catch up to the U.S. I call it sort of a world wealth redistribution protocal, but it has no real ability to solve global warming.

And why is it not important that Al Gore be called out for his "Carbon footprint"? In that movie, he told us that we can seriously reduce our Carbon output, "In fact, we can even reduce it to zero". I remember he said that, but I sure don't remember him telling us how. And if he can't even give us an Ed Bagely attempt at it, why should I believe it's possible?

Sorry Dalegg, I guess you and everyone else is misunderstanding me. Global Warming isn't a myth. It's been going on in cycles with Global Cooling for millions of years. I am saying MAN-MADE global warming is a very dubious idea.

[dalegg 143]

Sorry Dalegg, I guess you and everyone else is misunderstanding me. Global Warming isn't a myth. It's been going on in cycles with Global Cooling for millions of years. I am saying MAN-MADE global warming is a very dubious idea.

Well, I knew you were saying something like that. You haven't bought on to the idea that man is at all responsible. My opinion is slightly different. I believe man has probably sped up a process that was going to happen anyway. I certainly don't believe we can do anything to stop it.

I'm thinking about taking an ice cube out of my freezer and putting it into a pot of water. I keep the heat on the pot at a very slow steady rate until the ice cube begins to melt. Then once it begins to melt, I turn off the heat. The ice cube does not stop melting, because the water has already warmed and the mass of the ice is too small to offset the mass of water. Unless I put the pot of water in the freezer, the ice will melt. We cannot refreeze the ice caps, even if we did cause them to melt- which I agree is depatable, so they are a gonna melt.

When I look at the carbon to temperature graphs I always wonder why the warming and the melting started in the 1800s if it is man made.

What the heck were we doing in the 1800s that even remotely compares to what we are doing now? I've never really heard the explanation.

[GaryC 7]

Sorry Dalegg, I guess you and everyone else is misunderstanding me. Global Warming isn't a myth. It's been going on in cycles with Global Cooling for millions of years. I am saying MAN-MADE global warming is a very dubious idea.

Well, I knew you were saying something like that. You haven't bought on to the idea that man is at all responsible. My opinion is slightly different. I believe man has probably sped up a process that was going to happen anyway. I certainly don't believe we can do anything to stop it.

I'm thinking about taking an ice cube out of my freezer and putting it into a pot of water. I keep the heat on the pot at a very slow steady rate until the ice cube begins to melt. Then once it begins to melt, I turn off the heat. The ice cube does not stop melting, because the water has already warmed and the mass of the ice is too small to offset the mass of water. Unless I put the pot of water in the freezer, the ice will melt. We cannot refreeze the ice caps, even if we did cause them to melt- which I agree is depatable, so they are a gonna melt.

When I look at the carbon to temperature graphs I always wonder why the warming and the melting started in the 1800s if it is man made.

What the heck were we doing in the 1800s that even remotely compares to what we are doing now? I've never really heard the explanation.

That is really my whole point. It may be true that global temps are rising. But this has happend many times in the past. I don't understand why people think that this time it's our fault. I find it rather interesting that when something bad happens some people always want to blame humans. It's like they have some sort of a self-hatred. Sometimes things happen. Sometimes they are our fault and sometime it isn't. This time IMO it isn't. Of course there are some that try to take advantage of our own collective guilty conscious. Those are the ones I really hate. The others are simply either uninformed or mislead by the ones that are taking advantage.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I've got to tell you that I really am suprised at most of the attitudes people on this forum take towards the minority view.

I'm not going to go as far as Gary there and say that I believe global warming is a myth, because from what I've seen the data certainly points that way. I'll concede that there is a very strong arguement that humans have sped up the process too. But what is so suprising is how people dismiss the minority viewpoint and accept everything because "almost every scientist in the world agrees". Okay. So what if that's true? I'm not going to be cliche' and start pointing out other scientists in history whose viewpoints were contrary to the majority viewpoint of the day who turned out to be correct, because you all should remember that.

I don't need to do that, because I'm sure you can all relate to just the way life is. How many of you don't find that out of 100 people in any room, 95 of the people in the room are idiots? In most cases, there are only a few people who really understand things, and the vast majority are sheep. So, I'm sorry. The statement "The vast majority of scientists agree" just doesn't mean that much to me. I want to hear what every expert has to say about this, and I want what each of the them has to say to be refuted by hard science, not by accusations that they are in the minority viewpoint.

Global Warming not politicized? Uh, okay. Tell me something. Why is it that most of the people who support whole heartedly that humans are the cause of Global Warming do not know that human activity actually contributes less than 5% of the CO2 in the athsmosphere? That's not a right wing spin. It's an irrefutable fact. You will find it on responsible reports that still say humans are the cause of the mass climate changes. So, why in Al Gore's film did that never come up? This is not because he doesn't know it, it's because he knows that if he says it, people will be less likely to buy the idea that we can do anything to reverse the affects. Not very convenient for his arguement I guess.

Look at the numbers, and you tell me if the Kyoto protocal can really make any difference. Explain to me what the estimated expected results will be, and why. Kyoto is political becuase it actually does nothing that will help the situation. It does however create a vehicle to allow underdeveloped nations to catch up to the U.S. I call it sort of a world wealth redistribution protocal, but it has no real ability to solve global warming.

And why is it not important that Al Gore be called out for his "Carbon footprint"? In that movie, he told us that we can seriously reduce our Carbon output, "In fact, we can even reduce it to zero". I remember he said that, but I sure don't remember him telling us how. And if he can't even give us an Ed Bagely attempt at it, why should I believe it's possible?

All good points but that bold bit bugs me. Al Gore can and should go off the grid to set the example. Instead he buys carbon credits from a company he started. He's all talk.

He pays someone else (himself) so he can pollute more.

The sun contributes more heating to this planet than anything else. Was it even mentioned in his movie?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The global warming believers don't want open discussion. They see it as an open and shut case. So sad. Is this 1933 Germany?

That's not true. But geez louise, can we leave scientific debate to the scientific community? If not, let's eagerly wait for the next theory to be published in scientific journals so we can pounce on it with the same ferocity. Damn those bloody scientists and their agenda loaded theories! It's only a matter of time before they come up a theory that our uncle was a monkey. My Uncle Chris had a hairy back but he was no monkey - he was LDS.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.

Hypothesis: All swans must be white.

Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.

Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."

Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.

Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The global warming believers don't want open discussion. They see it as an open and shut case. So sad. Is this 1933 Germany?

That's not true. But geez louise, can we leave scientific debate to the scientific community? If not, let's eagerly wait for the next theory to be published in scientific journals so we can pounce on it with the same ferocity. Damn those bloody scientists and their agenda loaded theories! It's only a matter of time before they come up a theory that our uncle was a monkey. My Uncle Chris had a hairy back but he was no monkey - he was LDS.

But the GW debate is more politics than science at this point.

I actually think my uncle was a monkey... but I don't want to derail this thread.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The real truth is that GW is not real.

He isn't? It's just a bad dream? Really?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The global warming believers don't want open discussion. They see it as an open and shut case. So sad. Is this 1933 Germany?

That's not true. But geez louise, can we leave scientific debate to the scientific community? If not, let's eagerly wait for the next theory to be published in scientific journals so we can pounce on it with the same ferocity. Damn those bloody scientists and their agenda loaded theories! It's only a matter of time before they come up a theory that our uncle was a monkey. My Uncle Chris had a hairy back but he was no monkey - he was LDS.

But the GW debate is more politics than science at this point.

I actually think my uncle was a monkey... but I don't want to derail this thread.

What debate? Are there conferences of climate scientists from around the world debating over the science of Global Warming? This is getting so silly. Scientists have been doing research and then publishing their findings on the theory of evolution since Darwin, but it doesn't mean that the theory itself is up for disproof. What is your definition of a scientific theory? Do we all get to come up with our own definition of such terms?