Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[homersapien 11,428]

AUcivE09:

$10 Homer does not even understand that long copy/paste post on the previous page.

I'll take that bet. Pick a part for me to explain to you. And I'll pick a different part for you to explain to me.

Even if you spell it out for this guy he will just go to google and paste a page he thinks debunks whatever you said - and agree with whatever the author of the day said.

You guys are making technical arguments and arguments from authority. If I simply rebutted these sort of arguments off the top of my head you would ridicule my posts as just "opinion'. That fact that people like me have already published referenced analysis

of such bogus arguments (none of them are new) is not my problem, it's yours. If you had the slightest scientific literacy on the subject you would have already found these very sites by testing your argument.

I am not going to apologize for using material from the internet unless you start apologizing for your own sources, which come from the internet, talk radio and Fox cable.

You cant argue with a last word slut in the age of the internet.

Now you've done it. My initial problem with you was your stating "....not a shred of evidence". Such an absurd statement coming from a (presumably) AU Engineering grad shocked and dismayed me. And it triggered a lot of past experiences with young engineers who often tend to be somewhat arrogant and very narrowly educated. Granted, maybe I shouldn't have taken it literally, but you have come back with some even more absurd analogies and arguments. I have come to realize you are serious and actually believe in the merit of your arguments.

Even so, I was starting to feel a little guilty about being so hard on you. But now you call me a "last word slut", I am taking the gloves off.

Ive said my piece and those who blindly follow their group will not change their mind. Even when someone who has an actual understanding and works in the field can show solid cause of why this witch hunt against CO2 is beyond bogus (at least at this point).

You don't have understanding of climatic science and you don't "work in the field" anymore than I do. Working on incinerators or refiners or whatever process you are involved with that emits CO2 does not make you an expert in climatology. Hell, apparently it doesn't even make you an expert in CO2 chemistry based on some of the arguments you have made. You aren't even a legitimate "scientist". You are an engineer.

I avoid making things personal but I am making an exception in your case because you started it and I will never "walk away" from a scientific topic. The "last poster" part of your insult was true.

What you do is not work Homer. More like political postering. Lets say CO2 is the devil - what is your solution for this without killing our economy, Homer? I am just curious if you see beyond the end of your nose......now go google something.

That's emotional gibberish. It certainly doesn't merit a response. Now excuse me while I go back and start working on your previous post..

[homersapien 11,428]

AUcivE09

The biggest problem with all of this - and from both sides - is the willingness to turn every debate into a question of credit. We all have our own motivations.

Of course is it a question of "credit" (perhaps you meant "credibility").

People who think AGW is a hoax base their feelings on the natural resistance to change and the incessant drumbeat of misinformation generated by people with a vested interest in denying it, either economic and/or religious/political. That position ultimate rejects science. A society that rejects science will not endure.

My intent is to refute these arguments using the actual facts. The only way to get to the facts is via science.

We cannot (and I stress the word CANNOT) prove either way if CO2 really affects the earth's atmosphere.

Nonsense. We can prove that CO2 affects the earth's atmosphere. Not necessarily by a given experiment, but that's hardly unusual. The overall body of multidisciplinary research has convinced every major national and global scientific organization to say it's "fact".

What we can't do is demonstrate or prove the ultimate consequences of this warming. We can only predict that.

What we do know is that NOx, CO, and particulate matter (PM) are all very real problems and contribute to the increased surface temperatures.

So you simply deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Absurd. (Or incredible I guess I should say. )

Aside from the "concrete jungle" effect that most large cities have you also end up with a regional haze that forms from the pollutants mentioned above. Aside from ruining the view, this PM finds its way to our lungs (PM2.5 as it is referred to). Freight trucks are a major concern and the increased traffic all contribute to this greatly.

All true but a relatively small part of AGW.

Just from my perspective - I am willing to agree with a chart showing an increase in "surface temperatures". However, these are averages over time. Nothing seems to account from hotbed areas like LA, Bham, ATL, etc. I am certain areas like this show an increase in surface temp.

What is your point?

AGW theory encompasses all aspects and sources of temperature change. Nothing you are pointing out refutes AGW. You seem to be mostly interested in partitioning out CO2 from the dynamics. Why is that?

I would argue that Obama did something right. He mandated better efficiency from cars. I believe it got a bit out of control and destroying all of the cars was a dumb idea, but IMO more good than bad. We should work towards solving the problems we already know we have. These pollutants are orders of magnitude more harmful towards us and our environment.

Have you ever heard of the phrase the "dose is the poison"? You are making qualitative arguments while ignoring the quantitative. You are also changing the subject from warming to toxicity. Two different problems.

Plant life loves CO2 - we breathe in more CO2 than O2 - it is the building block of life.

Again this is a very ignorant perspective in several ways. (Sounds great to the scientifically illiterate though.)

First, you obviously cannot "judge" the overall "goodness" or "badness" of elements or compounds by a given reaction they may participate in. Salt is pretty important to biological life but sodium and chlorine are pretty nasty poisons in the elemental state.

Secondly, you again ignore the quantitative side of the dynamic. You will quickly die in a CO2 atmosphere. And the fact that carbon is the basis of organic chemistry has nothing to do (directly) with AGW, other than providing the source of most of atmospheric CO2.

(Speaking of biology, where do you get that we "breathe in more CO2 than O2"?? You do know the composition of air don't you? )

Lets work on the problems we have only half fixed. California emission controls for all highway legal vehicles wouldn't be a bad idea. Youre not supposed to be racing out there anyway. PM filters for freight trucks is another good idea. More than any of this - we would have to get China and India to buy in as well. The problems in other parts of the world outweigh the overall good we can do here. Many people just do not understand how good we really have it over here - no matter who is in charge.

Nothing about the above that I would disagree with. Congratulations, I didn't think it was possible.

But, working on one problem doesn't mean we should ignore others.

Keep in mind that we already track all CO2 emissions from facilities across the nation. We have to take into account CO2 emissions when a facility applies for a modification or constructs a new facility. The only reason we are not charging for these emissions is because of one little hold up ------- we haven't proven global warming or climate change (take your pick).

The only reason a carbon cap and trade (flr example) is not in place is because the body political doesn't understand or accept the science. This is largely because of well-funded, special-interest efforts to deny the science, which works very well when people are already fearful and resistant to change by nature.

I have already provided the scientifically-based response to such statements and have demonstrated the scientific consensus on AGW. Do I really need to repeat those posts?

This is a very large money making tool for the government. Make of it what you will. I believe washington is currently chasing the money more than truly looking out for the environment without bias.

:bs:

Most remedies, such as cap and trade, would be revenue neutral to the government. There is nothing inherent about any of the proposed remedies that would be particularly profitable to the government. It's simply a matter of how programs are designed.

Besides, the government is "We The People". We pay taxes to the government for obvious reasons, including for environmental research and regulation.

Why would government revenue from a regulatory source be less desirable than revenue from personal taxes? Is it more fair to assess taxes from everyone to cover environmental costs being generated by a particular industry or activity? Would it not be more fair for the greatest beneficiaries of that environmental pollution pay the greatest share of the costs? (Such as fuel taxes for example)

Your "gov't money making" plan is not well thought out at all. (Surprise surprise ) But if you want to start discussing what we do about AGW, that's fine with me. It means we have passed the "it's a hoax" stage.

[AFTiger 282]

If you believe the warming man caused, then the lack of warming is man caused. Declare victory and go home.

[Weegle777 78]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

[TheBlueVue 177]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

[homersapien 11,428]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money.....

[Weegle777 78]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money..... :laugh:/>

I spoke the truth. What is funny about that?

[homersapien 11,428]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money..... :laugh:/>

I spoke the truth. What is funny about that?

What's funny is the false proposition that scientific findings are a direct result of paying the (global) scientific community for generating certain outcomes.

You might as well say science does not exist.

[japantiger 4,051]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money..... :laugh:/>

I spoke the truth. What is funny about that?

What's funny is the false proposition that scientific findings are a direct result of paying the (global) scientific community for generating certain outcomes.

You might as well say science does not exist.

Your premise is crap Homer. What he says is "human nature is human nature; and so called scientists are not immune to self serving avarice". Because they are scientists does not make them above self interests, vanity and/or other human failings....if we believed in your premise; then no priest would ever commit a crime because they are above it all.

[homersapien 11,428]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money..... :laugh:/>

I spoke the truth. What is funny about that?

What's funny is the false proposition that scientific findings are a direct result of paying the (global) scientific community for generating certain outcomes.

You might as well say science does not exist.

Your premise is crap Homer. What he says is "human nature is human nature; and so called scientists are not immune to self serving avarice". Because they are scientists does not make them above self interests, vanity and/or other human failings....if we believed in your premise; then no priest would ever commit a crime because they are above it all.

We are not talking one or two scientists.

Go back and look at my responses to the "there isn't a consensus" questions.

We are talking hundreds - if not thousands - of scientists who work in various disciplines, along with the dozens of professional associations that represent them.

To suggest they all are being "bought" by U.S. Government grant money in some sort of "publish-for-pay" scheme is absurd. The very idea the government has some sort of motivation to execute such a hoax is absurdly paranoid.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money..... :laugh:/>

I spoke the truth. What is funny about that?

What's funny is the false proposition that scientific findings are a direct result of paying the (global) scientific community for generating certain outcomes.

You might as well say science does not exist.

Science has nothing to do with it, sir. Science is simply the observation of nature. These guys would be credible if their game hadn't been exposed multiple times. What we're talking about here is applied science and that is ALWAYS about the money.

[homersapien 11,428]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money..... :laugh:/>

I spoke the truth. What is funny about that?

What's funny is the false proposition that scientific findings are a direct result of paying the (global) scientific community for generating certain outcomes.

You might as well say science does not exist.

Science has nothing to do with it, sir. Science is simply the observation of nature. These guys would be credible if their game hadn't been exposed multiple times. What we're talking about here is applied science and that is ALWAYS about the money.

What do you mean we are talking about "applied science". You are clearly confusing the science of AGW with whatever commercial and political efforts exist to promote responses.

The question on the table is validity of the AGW theory - specifically, is it real science, or is it a "hoax"?

To suggest that virtually all scientists conducting basic research are being paid to produce proscribed results is to say an honest, professional, scientific community does not exist. In other words, (real) scientists do not exist. Without scientists to practice it, science does not exist. That is why one might as well say that science would no longer exist.

Any grant funding addressing the basic question goes to basic research, not to product or process development, which is what "applied science" is. While there may be various grants or subsidies for commercial technology development, they certainly don't drive the basic research. The very idea that entrepreneurs would prefer to have a biased and false rationale to justify their investment of time and fortune is ludicrous. I know because I have worked with such companies.

You sir, on the other hand, don't sound like you really know all that much about the subject.

[douggwilliams 61]

So we can all agree unbiased Science is great, but we rarely get to see it (or at least know the outcome of it).

Im just kidding, I dont understand what you guys are talking about.

[Strychnine 1,803]

Considering the subject at hand, and its potential ramifications, why is no one asking "what do we actually know about the subject?" Not "What do we think?" or "What are our theories?". If the issue were settled enough to be rationally acted upon, no one would be debating the issue's existence itself. A theory's validity is always a question on the table. It has to be. However, the more important question on the table is why is it relevant? Is it because individuals or groups propose action based on the theory in question? How can one propose a rational course of action, when the cause isn't even fully understood?

[TheBlueVue 177]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money..... :laugh:/>

I spoke the truth. What is funny about that?

What's funny is the false proposition that scientific findings are a direct result of paying the (global) scientific community for generating certain outcomes.

You might as well say science does not exist.

Science has nothing to do with it, sir. Science is simply the observation of nature. These guys would be credible if their game hadn't been exposed multiple times. What we're talking about here is applied science and that is ALWAYS about the money.

What do you mean we are talking about "applied science". You are clearly confusing the science of AGW with whatever commercial and political efforts exist to promote responses.

The question on the table is validity of the AGW theory - specifically, is it real science, or is it a "hoax"?

To suggest that virtually all scientists conducting basic research are being paid to produce proscribed results is to say an honest, professional, scientific community does not exist. In other words, (real) scientists do not exist. Without scientists to practice it, science does not exist. That is why one might as well say that science would no longer exist.

Any grant funding addressing the basic question goes to basic research, not to product or process development, which is what "applied science" is. While there may be various grants or subsidies for commercial technology development, they certainly don't drive the basic research. The very idea that entrepreneurs would prefer to have a biased and false rationale to justify their investment of time and fortune is ludicrous. I know because I have worked with such companies.

You sir, on the other hand, don't sound like you really know all that much about the subject.

Not what Im saying. Im saying the scientists have convinced the left...you know, those most inclined to be influenced by militant greenies and who can continue to finance their research... that their "models" reflect predictable outcomes over time and that they are man made. Their data collection methods have been called into question as having been bogued up on more than one occasion. They've "produced" the results that best abets their efforts to maintain the income streams that supports their bogus ass research

[homersapien 11,428]

Considering the subject at hand, and its potential ramifications, why is no one asking "what do we actually know about the subject?" Not "What do we think?" or "What are our theories?". If the issue were settled enough to be rationally acted upon, no one would be debating the issue's existence itself. A theory's validity is always a question on the table. It has to be. However, the more important question on the table is why is it relevant? Is it because individuals or groups propose action based on the theory in question? How can one propose a rational course of action, when the cause isn't even fully understood?

The "debate" is pretty much over within the scientific community. That's why all of the major international scientific associations have issued definitive position statements.

What we are witnessing now is not a debate on the theory as much as a political effort by those who feel financially threatened by proposed responses.

As far as the body politic acting "rationally" there will always be significant segments of the population who simply reject the truth for reasons of their own. Look at the so called "Intelligent Design" movement for example.

[AFTiger 282]

If science is so pure, why do climate scientists try to suppress unfavorable data?

Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

Leaked documents obtained by The Associated Press show there are deep concerns among governments over how to address the issue ahead of next week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Climate skeptics have used the lull in surface warming since 1998 to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are cooking the planet by burning fossil fuels and cutting down CO2-absorbing forests.

The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations.

'I think to not address [the slow down] would be a problem.'

- Alden Meyer, of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists

"I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying, 'Look the IPCC is silent on this issue,"' said Alden Meyer, of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists.

In a leaked June draft of the report's summary from policy-makers, the IPCC said the rate of warming in 1998-2012 was about half the average rate since 1951. It cited natural variability in the climate system, as well as cooling effects from volcanic eruptions and a downward phase in solar activity.

But several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled, in comments to the IPCC obtained by the AP.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.

Many skeptics claim that the rise in global average temperatures stopped in the late 1990s and their argument has gained momentum among some media and politicians, even though the scientific evidence of climate change is piling up: the previous decade was the warmest on record and, so far, this decade is even warmer. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice melted to a record low last year and the IPCC draft said sea levels have risen by 7.5 inches since 1901.

Many researchers say the slowdown in warming is related to the natural ocean cycles of El Nino and La Nina. Also, a 2013 study by Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research found dramatic recent warming in the deeper oceans.

Stefan Rahmstorf, a German climate scientist, said it was possible that the report's authors were feeling pressured to address the warming slowdown because it's received so much attention recently.

"I think a lot of the interest in this topic in the science community has been triggered by the public debate about it," said Rahmstorf, who was a reviewer for the report's chapter on sea levels.

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC, declined to comment on the content of the report because it hasn't been finalized, but said it would provide "a comprehensive picture of all the science relevant to climate change, including the thousands of pieces of scientific research published since the last report in 2007 up to earlier this year."

The IPCC draft report says it's "extremely likely" that human influence caused more than half of the warming observed since the 1950s, an upgrade from "very likely" in the last IPCC report in 2007.

The panel also raised its projections for sea level rise to 10-32 inches by the end of the century. The 2007 report predicted a rise of 7-23 inches.

Continued carbon emissions at or above current rates "would induce changes in all components in the climate system, some of which would very likely be unprecedented in hundreds to thousands of years," the IPCC said in the draft. A final version will be presented at the end of the panel's meeting in Stockholm next week.

The IPCC's conclusions are important because they serve as the scientific underpinnings of U.N. negotiations to rein in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A global climate treaty is supposed to be adopted in 2015.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/20/warming-lull-since-18-haunts-climate-change-authors/#ixzz2fS25Cq7K

[homersapien 11,428]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money..... :laugh:/>

I spoke the truth. What is funny about that?

What's funny is the false proposition that scientific findings are a direct result of paying the (global) scientific community for generating certain outcomes.

You might as well say science does not exist.

Science has nothing to do with it, sir. Science is simply the observation of nature. These guys would be credible if their game hadn't been exposed multiple times. What we're talking about here is applied science and that is ALWAYS about the money.

What do you mean we are talking about "applied science". You are clearly confusing the science of AGW with whatever commercial and political efforts exist to promote responses.

The question on the table is validity of the AGW theory - specifically, is it real science, or is it a "hoax"?

To suggest that virtually all scientists conducting basic research are being paid to produce proscribed results is to say an honest, professional, scientific community does not exist. In other words, (real) scientists do not exist. Without scientists to practice it, science does not exist. That is why one might as well say that science would no longer exist.

Any grant funding addressing the basic question goes to basic research, not to product or process development, which is what "applied science" is. While there may be various grants or subsidies for commercial technology development, they certainly don't drive the basic research. The very idea that entrepreneurs would prefer to have a biased and false rationale to justify their investment of time and fortune is ludicrous. I know because I have worked with such companies.

You sir, on the other hand, don't sound like you really know all that much about the subject.

Not what Im saying. Im saying the scientists have convinced the left...you know, those most inclined to be influenced by militant greenies and who can continue to finance their research... that their "models" reflect predictable outcomes over time and that they are man made. Their data collection methods have been called into question as having been bogued up on more than one occasion. They've "produced" the results that best abets their efforts to maintain the income streams that supports their bogus ass research

Not to change the subject, but the rejection of science is exactly why the GOP is failing as a political party.

The reality of AGW is not politically driven. It is scientifically driven.

Politics come into play only because the ramifications of AGW can only be projected (predicted) so the potential costs of remediation are difficult to justify. The opportunity potential is even more difficult to anticipate. But if a significant shift from carbon-based to renewable energy is required, not to mention simple conservation measures, there will be those who profit by developing the technologies. As some have mentioned, the rest of the world, most notably China and India will be consumers of this technology. It would be nice if a lot of it came from the U.S.

[homersapien 11,428]

If science is so pure, why do climate scientists try to suppress unfavorable data?

Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

Leaked documents obtained by The Associated Press show there are deep concerns among governments over how to address the issue ahead of next week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Climate skeptics have used the lull in surface warming since 1998 to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are cooking the planet by burning fossil fuels and cutting down CO2-absorbing forests.

The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations.

'I think to not address [the slow down] would be a problem.'

- Alden Meyer, of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists

"I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying, 'Look the IPCC is silent on this issue,"' said Alden Meyer, of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists.

In a leaked June draft of the report's summary from policy-makers, the IPCC said the rate of warming in 1998-2012 was about half the average rate since 1951. It cited natural variability in the climate system, as well as cooling effects from volcanic eruptions and a downward phase in solar activity.

But several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled, in comments to the IPCC obtained by the AP.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.

Many skeptics claim that the rise in global average temperatures stopped in the late 1990s and their argument has gained momentum among some media and politicians, even though the scientific evidence of climate change is piling up: the previous decade was the warmest on record and, so far, this decade is even warmer. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice melted to a record low last year and the IPCC draft said sea levels have risen by 7.5 inches since 1901.

Many researchers say the slowdown in warming is related to the natural ocean cycles of El Nino and La Nina. Also, a 2013 study by Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research found dramatic recent warming in the deeper oceans.

Stefan Rahmstorf, a German climate scientist, said it was possible that the report's authors were feeling pressured to address the warming slowdown because it's received so much attention recently.

"I think a lot of the interest in this topic in the science community has been triggered by the public debate about it," said Rahmstorf, who was a reviewer for the report's chapter on sea levels.

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC, declined to comment on the content of the report because it hasn't been finalized, but said it would provide "a comprehensive picture of all the science relevant to climate change, including the thousands of pieces of scientific research published since the last report in 2007 up to earlier this year."

The IPCC draft report says it's "extremely likely" that human influence caused more than half of the warming observed since the 1950s, an upgrade from "very likely" in the last IPCC report in 2007.

The panel also raised its projections for sea level rise to 10-32 inches by the end of the century. The 2007 report predicted a rise of 7-23 inches.

Continued carbon emissions at or above current rates "would induce changes in all components in the climate system, some of which would very likely be unprecedented in hundreds to thousands of years," the IPCC said in the draft. A final version will be presented at the end of the panel's meeting in Stockholm next week.

The IPCC's conclusions are important because they serve as the scientific underpinnings of U.N. negotiations to rein in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A global climate treaty is supposed to be adopted in 2015.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2fS25Cq7K

You need to point out exactly where anyone is proposing to "suppress unfavorable data" in that article. I failed to see it.

[Strychnine 1,803]

Considering the subject at hand, and its potential ramifications, why is no one asking "what do we actually know about the subject?" Not "What do we think?" or "What are our theories?". If the issue were settled enough to be rationally acted upon, no one would be debating the issue's existence itself. A theory's validity is always a question on the table. It has to be. However, the more important question on the table is why is it relevant? Is it because individuals or groups propose action based on the theory in question? How can one propose a rational course of action, when the cause isn't even fully understood?

The "debate" is pretty much over within the scientific community. That's why all of the major international scientific associations have issued definitive position statements.

What we are witnessing now is not a debate on the theory as much as a political effort by those who feel financially threatened by proposed responses.

As far as the body politic acting "rationally" there will always be significant segments of the population who simply reject the truth for reasons of their own. Look at the so called "Intelligent Design" movement for example.

I'm not really concerned with anyone's position statements, as I have yet to see anything definitive. What they choose to accept does not make it true, nor does it have any bearing on the matter. For example, science cannot presently tell me definitively what actually caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. I would consider that something far more simple to establish and prove than global climate history. My point being, we presently lack the ability to definitively say that any warming or cooling is not completely normal, that "climate change" is not a normal cycle that we are within, or that it has more to do with carbon dioxide than solar activity (yet another thing that we do not really understand). It is irrational to act on the premise that it is true.

At present, I am not even remotely concerned with AGW, and no one else should really be either. Fukushima is much more important, where the immediate and lasting effects of substantial radiation release are well known. The fact that much of China is frequently covered in a layer of smog so thick that you could slice it and butter your toast with it is much more important. There's no need to discuss the pollution levels in their rivers. You could argue that China is a big part of AGW, but it really doesn't matter. We don't need AGW to tell us that much pollution is a bad idea.

[TheBlueVue 177]

meanwhile, back to reality, the arctic ice mass has more than doubled, polar bear population is much more than just robust, global temperatures dont support the theories and scientists are still selling man made global warming. I dont need to read articles written by those selling the man made global warming theories. They're selling it. To assume that unequivocal conclusions can be drawn from a couple hundred years of weather related data collection...much of it tainted..is supremely arrogant. Republicans have not dismissed science but they have sufficient evidence to call into question the methods scientists have employed to portray their theories and, frankly, conclude that a lot of it was bogued up because its been proven that it was.

[japantiger 4,051]

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth heals and regulates itself. Problem solved. Why the worry?

because the scientists selling this bill of goods might lose their government funding. Its always about the money...class dismissed >:D/>

Bingo, we have a winner.

You guys are funny. Always about the money..... :laugh:/>

I spoke the truth. What is funny about that?

What's funny is the false proposition that scientific findings are a direct result of paying the (global) scientific community for generating certain outcomes.

You might as well say science does not exist.

Your premise is crap Homer. What he says is "human nature is human nature; and so called scientists are not immune to self serving avarice". Because they are scientists does not make them above self interests, vanity and/or other human failings....if we believed in your premise; then no priest would ever commit a crime because they are above it all.

We are not talking one or two scientists.

Go back and look at my responses to the "there isn't a consensus" questions.

We are talking hundreds - if not thousands - of scientists who work in various disciplines, along with the dozens of professional associations that represent them.

To suggest they all are being "bought" by U.S. Government grant money in some sort of "publish-for-pay" scheme is absurd. The very idea the government has some sort of motivation to execute such a hoax is absurdly paranoid.

Homer, there is money at the end of the rainbow for all of them...the fact that there are thousands of them means nothing. There are 2B Muslims...are you saying that because there are 2B of them; they must be right? That means then that the 1B Christians are wrong? No, they can't be, there's 1B of them...oh wait, they can't both be right....your so gullible. This is religion; not science. They are looking for a cause...and of course our money to support it.

[homersapien 11,428]

Considering the subject at hand, and its potential ramifications, why is no one asking "what do we actually know about the subject?" Not "What do we think?" or "What are our theories?". If the issue were settled enough to be rationally acted upon, no one would be debating the issue's existence itself. A theory's validity is always a question on the table. It has to be. However, the more important question on the table is why is it relevant? Is it because individuals or groups propose action based on the theory in question? How can one propose a rational course of action, when the cause isn't even fully understood?

The "debate" is pretty much over within the scientific community. That's why all of the major international scientific associations have issued definitive position statements.

What we are witnessing now is not a debate on the theory as much as a political effort by those who feel financially threatened by proposed responses.

As far as the body politic acting "rationally" there will always be significant segments of the population who simply reject the truth for reasons of their own. Look at the so called "Intelligent Design" movement for example.

I'm not really concerned with anyone's position statements, as I have yet to see anything definitive.

So why should we care about what you think?

[homersapien 11,428]

Considering the subject at hand, and its potential ramifications, why is no one asking "what do we actually know about the subject?" Not "What do we think?" or "What are our theories?". If the issue were settled enough to be rationally acted upon, no one would be debating the issue's existence itself. A theory's validity is always a question on the table. It has to be. However, the more important question on the table is why is it relevant? Is it because individuals or groups propose action based on the theory in question? How can one propose a rational course of action, when the cause isn't even fully understood?

The "debate" is pretty much over within the scientific community. That's why all of the major international scientific associations have issued definitive position statements.

What we are witnessing now is not a debate on the theory as much as a political effort by those who feel financially threatened by proposed responses.

As far as the body politic acting "rationally" there will always be significant segments of the population who simply reject the truth for reasons of their own. Look at the so called "Intelligent Design" movement for example.

For example, science cannot presently tell me definitively what actually caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/dinosaurs/asteroid.html