There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming

SF Examiner ^ | July 12, 2006 | Richard S. Lindzen

[freedumb2003]

Listening to clips of Gore on his silly movie reminds me of Pat Paulson having a plank to create a toupee for Mount Baldy.

[Hunble]

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

umm. . . doesnt that show an increasing tendency? Or am I looking at it incorrectly.

[Mike Darancette]

My favorite is that advancing glaciers in Greenland are a sign of global warming while while retreating glaciers in Alaska are also a sign of global warming.

[palmer]

Of course, now all of the usual suspects will flame me and bombard me with junk science links etc. You can save your fingers.

Unfortunately it's those junk science links that harden your already hardened attitude. I am a skeptic and I am very open-minded. I think the most conservative yet scientific approach to this problem is to recognize that science is still a few decades (at most) away from knowing the answers and that "tipping points" and other proclamations are not scientific although they might sound conservative. If I knew that CO2 was NOT logarithmic or if I believed that weather has no or little negative feedbacks, then I would worry about tipping points myself.

[aligncare]

Like almost every issue in today's politically charged environment, the truth is whatever a 'majority' says it is...Objectivity and rationality are subjugated to the emotional impact that a particular issue has. Fear that our modern lifestyle will be the death of civilization carries a pretty strong emotional impact, I'd say.

Save the planet!...Yes, let's all save the planet - by voting democrat. /sarc

[metmom]

Continuing to deny and failing to lead on this issue is going to cost conservatives dearly.

Doesn't look like it from THIS article:
COLD ON WARMING: DEM VOTERS DON'T REALLY CARE

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1665608/posts

Twenty years is spit in the geologic time frame. You can't get global warming from 20 years. Meteorologists can't even get tomorrow's forecast right sometimes.

There is a complete scientific consensus and it has been building for 20 plus years.

The only consensus that I've ever got from the other meteorologists that I've known, is that there is no global warming. I haven't met one yet that believes it. Delude yourself, if you will, but that's all you're going to be getting from the libs and media.

[metmom]

Thanks for the link. That is good and I passed it on.

[metmom]

My favorite is that advancing glaciers in Greenland are a sign of global warming while while retreating glaciers in Alaska are also a sign of global warming.

In line with the *colder winters in the northeast are a sign of global warming*. So what would warmer winters be a sign of? The new ice age? Wonder what they're smoking?

[JoeGar]

Big ping

[Always Right]

1-How have you come to rule out natural climate change as a possible cause?

By minipulating the data to show our climate has been constant for the last 2000 years and ignoring written history that clearly shows we have had a warming period and a mini-ice age. Even if their highly selective data and minipulated graph was true, it would still not be conclusive proof.

[Mike Darancette]

Wonder what they're smoking?

Exactly, if there is a theory to global warming they should be able to say if x (the temp goes up) then y should happen. What we have here is z happening then the logical acrobatics trying to prove that z follows from x.

[Hunble]

In the raw temperature data plot that I provided (see post 22) there was a secondary graph of carbon dioxide.

I should have payed closer attention to that graph, and I am sorry for providing false raw data.

Obviously, any CO2 measurements prior to 1960 were computer generated, and not factual information.

This debate is complex enough, without people introducing false information.