Posted on 05/01/2012 10:27:05 AM PDT by reaganaut1
LAMONT, Okla. — For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.
Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.
Yet in recent years, the climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.
They acknowledge that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm. But they assert that clouds — which can either warm or cool the earth, depending on the type and location — will shift in such a way as to counter much of the expected temperature rise and preserve the equable climate on which civilization depends.
Their theory exploits the greatest remaining mystery in climate science, the difficulty that researchers have had in predicting how clouds will change. The scientific majority believes that clouds will most likely have a neutral effect or will even amplify the warming, perhaps strongly, but the lack of unambiguous proof has left room for dissent.
“Clouds really are the biggest uncertainty,” said Andrew E. Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M. “If you listen to the credible climate skeptics, they’ve really pushed all their chips onto clouds.”
Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day. His stature in the field — he has been making seminal contributions to climate science since the 1960s — has amplified his influence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk. “
Scientists who disagree are no longer working, perhaps?
Fixed it.
I missed the barf alert. ;-)
The article reminds me of the article written earlier this month defending Dan Rather on the forged documents. It LITERALLY dug up the same lame arguments from 2004 that were categorically debunked.
And the evidence today blows all the AGW models out of the water. It’s not happening like they thought it would. It is THEM, not the deniers, that are in trouble.
And Europe and the NYT are pissed.
BS they do...
The 97% comes from scientists polled a a global warming convention. Like all GW statistics, it is fake.
Pray for America
I heard this a long time ago and I think needs to be repeated as often as possible to the left.
If climate change is so serious, why would you rely on wind, solar, algae as your primary source of energy?
Stopped reading right there. Obvious, outright bias on display and not even a paragraph into the piece!
Mr. Gillis needs to go back to journalism school to be reminded how to reports the FACTS. This is a puff piece.
There is absolutely ZERO prevailing science propping up AGW. I bet if you asked where he got his facts, one reference would be "An Inconvenient Truth."
*spit*
consensus is science- ask anyone in a poll!
“Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working scientists now see that the Sun orbits the Earth.” - New York Times Editorial in Response to Geocentric Deniers such as Galileo Galilei, 1615.
“Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters”
There are no skeptics on climate change. Everybody acknowledges that climate has changed in the past and it will continue to change.
The skepticism is over the human contribution to global warming, if it is even occurring, and if it what the consequences (good and bad) are, and how quickly they would occur.
Now it’s been about twenty years or more since they’ve been making all types of catastrophic predictions with none of them coming true, even though the amount of CO2 in the air has increased significantly with the industrialization of India, China, Brazil etc. THAT is the warmists biggest problem. Even Lovelock (the founder of Gaia) has come to accept that reality.
How long before the knuckleheads of the NYT come to that realization? I won’t hold my breath, because for the NYT it’s about politics not science.
Forget the clouds for a moment. What about the ice cores that debunked the CO2 increases predates global temperature increases? No. Not good enough to spur doubt?
How about we go back to the climate models from the 1980s and 1990s that Hanson presented to Congress. The global temperatures, ocean temperatures and sea levels are all WAY below his “Best case scenario” if we would have taken draconian measures to counter global warming back then.
We now have 30 years of data post the invention of “climate modeling.” Every single prediction of 10, 20 and 30 years dating back to 2000 is proved horrifically wrong. They are all off by more than 100%. Still not enough to say there is reason for debate?
The global temperatures measure by satellites put in orbit in the 1980s to measure global temperatures have been recording some pretty significant and consistent data. I would ask Hanson and corp to provide me a report of this data and an explanation for why the earth has almost completely stopped warming while the CO2 emissions have gone up even more than they predicted back when the satellites were put in orbit to monitor the global temperatures.
There is a simple case to be made for challenging the science. There is a strong case that their computer modeling schemes are false. There is absolute empirical proof that more money, regulation and taxation will not affect or prevent the warming of our planet.
“...Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence...”
Bull Obama, craven, idiot journalists.
Show me the math.
They can’t, and you mere writers can barely count page numbers.
Shove it up your collective Obamas.
Ho hum....
And 97% of contemporary Marine Engineers confirmed that the RMS Titanic was “unsinkable”.
But no one told the iceberg...
Ho hum....
And 97% of contemporary Marine Engineers confirmed that the RMS Titanic was “unsinkable”.
But no one told the iceberg...
They say Climate Change now because Global Warming is inoperative.
Would that be the tampered with East Anglia evidence?
Or the real historical data that East Anglia destroyed?
Or the falsified NASA evidence?
Or the faulty NOAA evidence?
Or the fabricated "hide the decline" Penn State statistical evidence?
"97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk."
Headline from the 1930's - '40's:
"Lysenko Vindicated! ...97% of working Soviet biologists see plant genetics as a reactionary bourgeois plot."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.