In light of recent discussions, some of you may be interested in this article.

[LizzyBee]

Article on global warming by a research scientist from the University of Maryland:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html

[Peek a Boo]

the thing is, if you disagree w/ the subjective statement of "leading climate scientists" then the article is worthless and proves nothing except that a "small percentage" is voicing a dissent.

 

For some, it will boil down to a numbers game: how many scientists do I have on my side vs your side.

 

others won't bother reading the article cuz it's Fox, lol.

[Mx5]

the thing is, if you disagree w/ the subjective statement of "leading climate scientists" then the article is worthless and proves nothing except that a "small percentage" is voicing a dissent.

 

For some, it will boil down to a numbers game: how many scientists do I have on my side vs your side.

 

others won't bother reading the article cuz it's Fox, lol.

 

Just clicking on the links inside the Fox article yields some very interesting websites, with the hard numbers of climatologists who don't believe as the general public does regarding climate change. So if folks can get past the Fox aspect, they may be interested to find out how many experts truly are on the proverbial fence regarding man-induced climate change.

 

Example: There's a link in the Fox article for the recently occurring 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, and here's what the opening speaker had to say:

 

<i>A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

 

* 82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

 

* 56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only

 

* 35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.

 

 

Only 27 percent believed “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years.â€

 

That’s a long ways from “consensus.â€It’s actually pretty close to what the American public told pollsters for the Pew Trust in 2006:

 

* 70 percent thought global warming is happening,

 

* only 41 percent thought it was due to human causes,

 

* and only 19 percent thought it was a high-priority issue.</i>

[LizzyBee]

Actually, I liked the article because there is more to it than just xx number of scientists disagree with the others. I like the way he raised important points and questions that should be considered in the debate. Of course, it's not an in-depth analysis, but it raises some interesting counterpoints to the current popular arguments that make me want to read more.

[Peek a Boo]

A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany...

 

yeah, and the next questions would be:

who are these two guys -Bray and von Storch?

who's funding the research?

Which scientists did they ask?

which scientists did they NOT ask?

that was 5 years ago --what about now, with all our current research?

 

...and that's just on one statement, w/o even taking issue w/ the numbers or questions presented.

[Storm Bay]

Well, I was irritated from the get-go by 3 politicans from 2 different parties (so this is not a slam against any political party!!!) who claim to be concerned about global warming but support the global economy, so I'll go back and read the article once I calm down and can read it rationally;) The global economy is contributing huge emissions from countries with low or non-existant pollution controls and the 90,000 ocean liners. I quote:

 

"Over 90,000 commercial vessels crossing the oceans are responsible for more carbon dioxide than 29 industrailzed nations combined. " p. 320 How Americans Can Buy American. He cites Business Week from April 2, 2007 for his info.

 

Since the first quote exceeded 25 words, he also says of these ships:

CO2 emission--more than 29 industrialized countries combined

suphur dioxide--more than all the earth's trucks, cars, buses combined

make 1/6 of the atmosphere's nitrogen oxide.

 

No one regulates the oceans, and how can they?

 

So, right off the bat my ire was raised.:mad: I'm not even going to touch the economic misery so many are suffering because of the global economy.

 

Peek a boo made some good points, but honestly, these politicians are an example of people who are all hepped up on global warming but not addressing some of the chief causes.

[Perry]

Looking at his links casts doubt on his credibility. He links to a blog by Michael Asher, but there isn't any information about who that is. The graph on this blog shows a large one year drop in temperature, but that is meaningless in the big picture. I'm not a climatologist, but I know that no credible scientist would ever use this one data point to claim "evidence of significant cooling". There are normal year to year variations in temperature, and it probably has something to do with El Nino or La Nina or some other recurring weather pattern.

 

I recognize that there is disagreement among credible climatologist about global warming. But I wouldn't get my information from this guy.

[Perry]

Here is a link to his blog. The article was just posted today. The comments section should be interesting to watch.

[Claire]

I much prefer to read Scientific American articles. At least then I know that the published articles have been peer-reviewed! One of the problems noted in scientific circles is that people often feel free to comment on global warming issues that are outside their area of expertise. Even scientists will do this. Unfortunately, being a professional in one area of science does not make one an expert in all areas of science.

 

The article linked is not about science, but rather economics. The author offers an opinion, but offers nothing but an argument to support his opinion. To me, this is not about global warming. It's about politics.

[SFP]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/

[Mx5]

The vid. is on Google Video and apparently was a CBC special from 2004 where climatologists were interviewed. I found it fascinating, especially the guy who was in charge of the ice bore samples, as well as the astrophysicist woman.

 

The vid is 43 minutes long and was produced by Canada's CBC news.

 

Not Fox.

 

Not funded by Exxon (as far as I know).

 

When I listen to experts who have serious and logical questions, especially relating to the computer models upon which the IPCC bases its conclusions, I seriously doubt that what everyone is worried about is able to be controlled by mankind. This is where I get mad... the fear mongering by nations based on models rather than observation.

[Diana in OR]

When I listen to experts who have serious and logical questions, especially relating to the computer models upon which the IPCC bases its conclusions, I seriously doubt that what everyone is worried about is able to be controlled by mankind. This is where I get mad... the fear mongering by nations based on models rather than observation.

 

I'm not a scientist, but I don't really think that humans caused the climate change that is happening. However, what is different this time around (as opposed to previous climate-change cycles), is that humans have added a lot to then environment in terms of air and water pollution.

 

I believe humans DO have an effect on the environment, just not sure to what degree. I remember horrible smog and pollution and the acid rain from the 70s-all human caused.

[Claire]

Just clicking on the links inside the Fox article yields some very interesting websites, with the hard numbers of climatologists who don't believe as the general public does regarding climate change. So if folks can get past the Fox aspect, they may be interested to find out how many experts truly are on the proverbial fence regarding man-induced climate change.

 

Example: There's a link in the Fox article for the recently occurring 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, and here's what the opening speaker had to say:

 

<i>A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

 

* 82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

 

* 56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only

 

* 35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.

 

 

Only 27 percent believed “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years.â€

 

That’s a long ways from “consensus.â€It’s actually pretty close to what the American public told pollsters for the Pew Trust in 2006:

 

* 70 percent thought global warming is happening,

 

* only 41 percent thought it was due to human causes,

 

* and only 19 percent thought it was a high-priority issue.</i>

 

Did you see what this website had to say about the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change? I think it's important to look at sources of information, especially since this whole topic has become so politicized. That's why I prefer getting my information from peer-reviewed journals.