I'm not sure even the actual data and facts will be able to stop the radical marxist enviromentalists and Congress from forcing the cap and trade BS on America and the world.

The only hope is for enough people of prominance (scientists, AND politicians) to come out strongly against the massive hoax that is being perpetrated by the MSM.

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

I believe science greatly overestimates its ability to impact global warming, as well as the negative impact of warming on the planet and it’s societies.

However, it is extremely difficult to find serious scientific people who do not regard global warming as real. The consensus is so strong, I don’t think that it can be regarded only in political terms.

Gore lied?! I am shocked!

“However, it is extremely difficult to find serious scientific people who do not regard global warming as real. The consensus is so strong, I don’t think that it can be regarded only in political terms.”
>>>>>>>>

Yes, only 31,000 signed the Declaration saying it was all nonsense.

There are any number of highly qualified dissenters. Its just that, as with anything negative about Obama, the press is ignoring them.

Here is just one (taken from another thread here) -

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855

Anyone concerned about excess CO2 in the atmosphere need only pop open a nice cold one to see exactly how soluble CO2 is in water. If you aren’t convinced, shake it a bit first. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is not going to change much no matter what we do. Any modeling of the effects of CO2 will need to take into account the ability of the ocean to store and ‘digest’ CO2.

And there are a hell of a lot more people exhaling now than there were in those days. Somebody needs to kick the Goracle’s ass.

Hey Codger... wake up and smell the data.

I don’t know where you find your information. I am an active scientist at a major university with wide international contacts. The significant majority of the folks I know (who have thought about the subject at all - many haven’t) believe the whole global warming bit is either a natural phenomenon or a red herring. Why don’t they say so more loudly? They have no incentive to do that. To the contrary almost all have a strong counter-incentive. Many, or their friends, are living fat off “climate” money. Virtually all live off government money in some form, and the bureaucracy that controls the purse strings has both a stated position on global warming, and a long memory for anyone who crosses it.

“However, it is extremely difficult to find serious scientific people who do not regard global warming as real. The consensus is so strong, I don’t think that it can be regarded only in political terms.”

I am a serious scientific guy. I go to Earth Sciences conferences several times a year. I speak at them and people take notes when I speak. I’m one of the authors of a graduate level textbook on modeling that is used at universities all over the world.

It’s actually hard to find folks at Earth Sciences conferences who believe a decent case has been made for CO2 induced global warming.

I make my living building data driven models for businesses and the DoD that actually make useful predictions on data they were not calibrated on. IMHO, the AGW climate models do not make accurate predictions when they are tested on data that they were not calibrated on. That is the sine qua non of proper modeling.

If I provided models to customers that perform as badly as the AGW models, I would have gone out of business years ago.

It could turn out the AGW modelers are right. They have a scientific hypothesis. It is their burden to show their hypothesis is correct. In a proper scientific process, you state your hypothesis, you make predictions and then you test the predictions. The tests that validate the model must be replicable by other researchers. So the AGW folks build computer models. But they have conspicuously refrained from testing the accuracy of their models’ forecasts. In fact, when their models goof (which they have done repeatedly), they just go back and revise the models. That’s exactly how the Copernicans tried to hold off the Heliocentric model of the solar system. Ultimately, they failed because the Heliocentric model was correct and much simpler.

As of right now, here is the status of what happens when their models are tested against reality:

1. The AGW models failed to predict the leveling or falling of temperatures in the past ten years—badly.

2. The AGW models, when initialized at time x and are then asked to predict temperature and precipitation x plus one month, x plus one year and x plus thirty years out do pretty well one month out. They are completely worthless one or thirty years out (See Journal of Hydrology).

3. The AGW models predict that there should be an equitorial hot spot. That is a footprint of CO2-based warming according to the models. Satellites have been searching for that hot-spot for about a decade now and there is no evidence that it exists.

4. A very recent journal article tests the AGW models against actual temperature records and concludes that the “positive feedback” parameter in the models has been greatly overestimated and that the actual data is consistent with NO positive feedback. (In non-scientific terms, that means that the big scare is just a scare). Lord Monckton came to the same conclusion in his recent study.

5. The AGW models predict that glacier retreat should have coincided with the modern increases in CO2 levels. In fact, the glacier retreat started 100 years before that and the rate of the retreat of glaciers did not increase when CO2 levels began increasing.

These are just some of the instances in which a prediction of the AGW models is not verified by testing against reality. If their hypothesis is correct, it should make predictions that are validated by reality. Einstein’s theory of relativity is a great example. He predicted that light would be bent by a large gravity source. Years later, when scientists were able to test that prediction, it turned out it was and it bent in exactly the amount he had predicted. AGW has yet to achieve any comparable result.

None of these results individually is conclusive—one can argue about the data, the interpretation of the data, whether we have tried hard enough to find the hotspot etc. But collectively, they raise very serious questions about whether the AGW models are useful in any sense except as scientific curiousities. To date, the AGW models have failed almost every attempt at empirical validation.

In the face of this evidence, I would not deliver such a model to a customer if the customer was going to make important economic decisions based on the model. If I made a practice of that, I would start losing customers right and left.