Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"New estimates from a Norwegian research project show meeting targets for minimizing global warming may be more achievable than previously thought.
After the planet’s average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in a statement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”
The findings also show the effect of reduced airborne particulates from burning coal, which may decrease the cloud cover that cools the earth, probably has less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling than originally projected."
I find it interesting that the article you give the link to does not actually imply that global warning is a lie, and the study referred to in the article also does not say that global warming is a lie. What the authors of the study say is: “If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”
Notice they say "if confirmed." Average folks have a tendency to jump on a single set of findings then jump to conclusions about an entire realm of research. Creationists, for example, consistently do this, claiming that evolution must be wrong because some study fails to confirm some particular evolutionary thesis. Your reaction to this article follows the same sort of logic (or lack thereof). Luckily, scientists themselves generally know better than to do this. You need to look at multiple findings and multiple independent lines of research.
But even if the study is widely confirmed, none of this implies that global warming is a "lie." Nobody denies that natural cycles exist, and in addition to rhythmic cycles, data from natural systems generally contain a great deal of random fluctuation. The most qualified people to judge the significance of climate data in light of all of this are the climatologists, and climatologists are still very much concerned about the possibility of global warming.
And, BTW, I'd be curious to know if you could provide a list of actual climatologists who believe that global warming is a lie. I'd be curious to see these names and read some of their arguments.
IMHO...I think climatologists are more interested in their paychecks...no global warming fear...no paychecks!!!
Yes. It's a big ruse by 98% of climate scientists to become rich. Why study to work in an honest place like wall street, a big bank, big tobacco or even the oil industry when everyone knows the really big bucks are in researching the climate...damn you climatologists!
Anyone who still believes that carp is the dumbest of the dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
And, BTW, I'd be curious to know if you could provide a list of actual climatologists who believe that global warming is a lie. I'd be curious to see these names and read some of their arguments.
There are plenty. It's up to you to do your own research.
IMHO...I think climatologists are more interested in their paychecks...no global warming fear...no paychecks!!!
Perhaps you are right. Is this your way of saying that you can't give me a list of climatologists? Ok, then, do you happen to have any statistics showing that scientists, in general, believe that global warming is a lie? Presumably biologists, physicists, etc. have no vested interests in global warming (or do they?). I know that you can provide a few names of non-climatologists who want to "debunk" global warming, and I know that in any realm of controversy, a majority can be wrong, but personally I don't see any good reason to think that global warming is a lie.
I also have to ask: Might the anti-global warming folks have any vested interest in proving that global warming is a hoax? If we are going to go the conspiracy-theory route, couldn't there just as well be a conspiracy to downplay global warming? Couldn't we question the motives of those who get into the public limelight by opposing a major scientific theory?
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-28-2013 at 10:26 AM..
Mr. XXX - I have my own ideas about global warming, but I do have a question that I need answered. What do you think is the NEGATIVE aspect of scientists posting evidence that the world has undergone global warming due to the effects of humans pouring noxious substances out there?
Yes. It's a big ruse by 98% of climate scientists to become rich. Why study to work in an honest place like wall street, a big bank, big tobacco or even the oil industry when everyone knows the really big bucks are in researching the climate...damn you climatologists!
I never said they're becoming rich...where else can you sit down and do nothing but make up "BS" and get paid for it...Oh I forgot about "Obama"...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
