Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News5 mins ago
Global warning again
11 Answers
Can you dismiss these comments made by a meteorologist, Augie Auer, from New Zealand so lightly?
Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is so small, almost ineffective, it will be a joke in 5 years time. Misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype and political spin has created hysteria.
Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is so small, almost ineffective, it will be a joke in 5 years time. Misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype and political spin has created hysteria.
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hugh Spencer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well Hugh I tend to agree with the sentiments, here is a recent discussion on the subject, instigated by me:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question40 1641.html
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question40 1641.html
Augie Auger in the blue corner
In the red:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -
American Geophysical Union (AGU):
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
American Institute of Physics (AIP):
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
This is not media spin these are heavyweight scientists
Why is there not one reputable scientific organisation backing him up?
Why do his past employers dissassociate themselves from him?
Do you really expect people to believe that there's a global conspiracy of scientists lying to the world about this - just to get a bit more grant money?
In the red:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -
American Geophysical Union (AGU):
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
American Institute of Physics (AIP):
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
This is not media spin these are heavyweight scientists
Why is there not one reputable scientific organisation backing him up?
Why do his past employers dissassociate themselves from him?
Do you really expect people to believe that there's a global conspiracy of scientists lying to the world about this - just to get a bit more grant money?
Further to my entry above, a number of AB's have questioned why scientists have agreed with the official statements about global warning. I have read and heard where they have been threatened - withdrawing funding for some scientific research, unpleasant things can happen to their present circumstances and generally making it uncomfortable for them, and these scientists put their names to their statements not hiding behind a public announcement from a group of a hundred or so meeting somewhere at a conference.
I see this whole global warming band wagon as an excuse to raise taxes. At least here in UK
You see with global warming its an on going thing, so the oportunities for for raising taxes are endless, especially when you have a tax-happy socialist government, like Labour.
Go on Gordon, give us another tax rise - I know you want to!
You see with global warming its an on going thing, so the oportunities for for raising taxes are endless, especially when you have a tax-happy socialist government, like Labour.
Go on Gordon, give us another tax rise - I know you want to!
Where have you read and heard this Hugh?
the Telegraph? the "great Global Warming Swindle?"
This is silly gossip and whispers. There have been "scientific swindles" before cold fusion, korean genetic research etc.
They are always marked by people making breakthroughs that nobody else can replicate.
If we were talking about one or two organisations you might have a point - but we're not, we're talking about dozens of world famous institutions, thousands of scientists and the idea that they're all toeing some sort of party line in a global conspiracy is pure Dan Brown.
Exactly how many scientists will it take to convince you? All of them?
What will it take to convince you?
the Telegraph? the "great Global Warming Swindle?"
This is silly gossip and whispers. There have been "scientific swindles" before cold fusion, korean genetic research etc.
They are always marked by people making breakthroughs that nobody else can replicate.
If we were talking about one or two organisations you might have a point - but we're not, we're talking about dozens of world famous institutions, thousands of scientists and the idea that they're all toeing some sort of party line in a global conspiracy is pure Dan Brown.
Exactly how many scientists will it take to convince you? All of them?
What will it take to convince you?
I'm still waiting to be shown the evidence that an increase in carbon dioxide results in an increase in world temperature. As I've said before, historically, from fossil records, it's always been the other way round.
And Jake, don't knock cold fusion yet - there's been recent upheld evidence about some curious effects on materials used in experiments. This appear to show that something is going on at an atomic level. This evidence is sufficient for the US government to put some money into the research for the first time.
And Jake, don't knock cold fusion yet - there's been recent upheld evidence about some curious effects on materials used in experiments. This appear to show that something is going on at an atomic level. This evidence is sufficient for the US government to put some money into the research for the first time.
If the whole furago of global warming collapsed, there would be an awful lot of people out ofa job -Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist.
The IPCC produced untrue facts. It censored evidence provided by the contributing scientists.
Scientists who speak out against global warning have a lot to lose, ongoing research funding has been stopped and reputations have been ruined - Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA.
and
Death threats..................Professor Tim Ball, Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg, Canada.
The IPCC produced untrue facts. It censored evidence provided by the contributing scientists.
Scientists who speak out against global warning have a lot to lose, ongoing research funding has been stopped and reputations have been ruined - Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA.
and
Death threats..................Professor Tim Ball, Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg, Canada.
Heathfield I spent a number of years working as a physicist for the UK Atomic energy authority on tokamak fusion experiments at Culham.
I do actually a bit about fusion and if it's all right with you I will knock cold fusion because It's science's Loch Ness monster. Every now and again someone sees some neutron emmission or something "funny" they can't explain and nobody can repeat it - this has been going on for 20 years.
If you think that's credible science but Global warming is not then heaven help us
Despite a background in professional physics I do not consider myself competent to judge the data in climate science.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing you don't have a scientific background but somehow think you are competent to judge the evidence
The Royal Society has a great page on climate change you'll find your issue on temperature leading CO2 under misleading argument 2
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229.
I do actually a bit about fusion and if it's all right with you I will knock cold fusion because It's science's Loch Ness monster. Every now and again someone sees some neutron emmission or something "funny" they can't explain and nobody can repeat it - this has been going on for 20 years.
If you think that's credible science but Global warming is not then heaven help us
Despite a background in professional physics I do not consider myself competent to judge the data in climate science.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing you don't have a scientific background but somehow think you are competent to judge the evidence
The Royal Society has a great page on climate change you'll find your issue on temperature leading CO2 under misleading argument 2
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229.
Global temperatures are rising and C0� emissions are blamed. By observing the arguments, (no, Jake, not my own, but those of eminent scientists and meteorologists from both sides), I conclude that the pro-C0� lobby have not fully made their case.
Why do so many of them run around shouting 'heretic!' to describe any who query their views? If there is anything worse than a scientist who falsifies research results, it is one who will point blank cast scorn on any hint that there may be an explanation different to their own.
The pro-CO� people and the IPCC have formed a powerful lobby that is stifling alternative research into other possible causes of global warming, and are blackmailing scientific journals into refusing papers from anyone who queries their views. Such behaviour makes me highly suspicious of the validity of their arguments.
Jake - your Royal Society link quite simply declares (in paragraph 2) that CO� 'is almost certainly responsible' for global warming. It's the word 'almost' that gives the game away. It means 'we're not 100% sure'. I admire the RS for this admission. Many others are far less honest in deliberately leaving that word out of their reports and statements. The link further says, 'much evidence...no evidence to the contrary'. An amazing statement - it dismisses all the historical and fossil records at a stroke.
More,,,
Why do so many of them run around shouting 'heretic!' to describe any who query their views? If there is anything worse than a scientist who falsifies research results, it is one who will point blank cast scorn on any hint that there may be an explanation different to their own.
The pro-CO� people and the IPCC have formed a powerful lobby that is stifling alternative research into other possible causes of global warming, and are blackmailing scientific journals into refusing papers from anyone who queries their views. Such behaviour makes me highly suspicious of the validity of their arguments.
Jake - your Royal Society link quite simply declares (in paragraph 2) that CO� 'is almost certainly responsible' for global warming. It's the word 'almost' that gives the game away. It means 'we're not 100% sure'. I admire the RS for this admission. Many others are far less honest in deliberately leaving that word out of their reports and statements. The link further says, 'much evidence...no evidence to the contrary'. An amazing statement - it dismisses all the historical and fossil records at a stroke.
More,,,
And the suggestion that I may not be a scientist is specious. I don't have to be a Blue Riband chef to decide whether a meal has been well prepared or not. While this isn't the place to post my full CV; suffice it to say that I have been a subscriber to 'New Scientist' for very many years, (and have followed reports on the several Takama projects with interest).
I remain unconvinced over CO�, but wish to heavens that open minds and inter-disciplinary co-operation would become the norm in the scientific community, so that this and many other issues might be fully resolved. Cold Fusion
I remain unconvinced over CO�, but wish to heavens that open minds and inter-disciplinary co-operation would become the norm in the scientific community, so that this and many other issues might be fully resolved. Cold Fusion
Hi Heathfield,
As you have had contact with the New Scientist magazine, what do make of Nigel Calder's remarks that 'if the whole furore of global warning collapsed there would be an awful lot of people out of a job' ? For those who are unaware, Nigel Calder was a former editor of the New Scientist and made strong remarks against the hysteria of manmade CO2 being the cause of global warming in the Channel 4 programme.
As you have had contact with the New Scientist magazine, what do make of Nigel Calder's remarks that 'if the whole furore of global warning collapsed there would be an awful lot of people out of a job' ? For those who are unaware, Nigel Calder was a former editor of the New Scientist and made strong remarks against the hysteria of manmade CO2 being the cause of global warming in the Channel 4 programme.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Technology20 mins ago