How or Why we will reverse global warming

[ghi]

Traffic in Beijing this week;

[Zimme83]

Imagine 7-11 billion people with a car...

[Brooke]

Here you go boys: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/

This is the Approved manual.

Awesome! 

[bustr]

We will reverse global warming by exposing the garbage computer models predicting the event. Then expose the nutz using it to control populations by exposing the paid liars who agree to be a consensus about the next Eco-Rapture dooming the planet in 85 years.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/10/07/press-ignoring-news-global-warming-true-believers-will-find

[NatCigg]

This is good to hear.  Now we can start planting trees.

Remember ozone and cfc's?  Did not banning those products result in rapid ozone regeneration?  I just do not hear about it anymore.   

[Zimme83]

The degeneration of ozone has pretty much stopped, levels are still low but predictions is that they will start to increase within a decade or so.

[bustr]

So the computer modeling the UN has been basing the end of the world on, which translates into redistribution of moneys from the 1st world have been highly inflated. The end of the world warming by 2100 is 5x-10x over inflated along with CO2's real ability to cause said warming due to "errors" in the computer programs. Which result in over inflating the effect of CO2 and the worldwide temperature on average by 2100.

When the UN championed the global warming computer generated modeling as fact. The 1st world economy was changed to funnel more money and power into the hands of governments and companies who agreed with the modeling. All the while those instigating the change ultimately using the UN's position, based entirely from computer models, as their moral authority when challenged. The UN is not god, nor does the UN have a track record of success about much of anything. Unless it's creating panels and initiatives to fleece the 1st world of it's money by declaring the end of the world over things that never come to pass.

Pollution is a real problem which the USA and EU do a nice job of mitigating locally. Global warming, you need a global army to hold a gun to the heads of all countries to force the massive reduction in CO2 values the garbage computer models describe by 2100. It's also an excellent way to control populations and who they will vote for without having to put a gun to their head. Anyone noticed that countries are not meeting their CO2 emissions goals while one after the other are discovering the will go broke trying?

[BaldEagl]

I went to school for a science major (chemistry).  Left with a quarter to go (12 credits short) to go to work in a record store.  Ended up in a highly compensated executive position in the music industry.  Napster came along... poof.  Adapt and change.  Now I'm in the financial services industry.  Along the way I've been a buyer, a salesperson, a marketer, an operations manager, a head of IT and a myriad of other functions.  As long as you have initiative you can do whatever you want to, degree or not.  At this point I'll probably never get back where I was from an income standpoint and I don't care because I've found a level of comfort where I am and it's good enough for now.

As to global warming my scientific training leads me to believe there's a strong likelihood it's real based on the ever growing consensus of the scientific community.  It was the politicians who poo-poo'd the idea for a long time and now even they are coming around.  The scientific community has been wrong before.  They, like everyone else once thought the world was flat.  They've also been right before, creating most of the technological advances known to mankind (and possibly helping to lead us to this point along the way).

While the world wont burn up during my lifetime (and I have no children of my own), if there is a likelihood it's real are we willing to let it go and leave it to the next generation (your kids) when it may be too late?  It's interesting observing the balance between greed, responsibility and morality.

[WWhiskey]

75 out of 77 hand picked from a pool of around 3400 is a growing consensus of scientists ?

[Zimme83]

75 out of 77 hand picked from a pool of around 3400 is a growing consensus of scientists ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

[WWhiskey]

 
By Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer

The myth of the climate change 97%

What is the origin of the false belief that nearly all scientists agree about global warming?

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is an article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists, and claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree.” Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer “yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

To read the rest of their article, go to http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

[Zimme83]

Edit: Better link http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

[WWhiskey]

Edit: Better link http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

nobody pays anyone to write anti MMGW papers!
Their are many noted, "named" scientists that hold a position against MMGW tho

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[18][unreliable source?][19]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[20][21][22][23]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [24][25]
Madhav Khandekar, former Environment Canada government scientist, member of Friends of Science[26][27][28]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[29][30]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[31][32][33][34]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[42][43]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[44][45]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[46][47][48][49]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[50]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[51][52]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[53][54]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [55][56]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[57][58]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[59][60]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[61]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[62][63]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[64][65][66]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[67][68][69]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[70][71]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[72][73]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[74][75]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[76][77]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[78][79]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[80][81]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[82][83]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[84][85]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[86][87]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[88][89]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[90][91]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[92][93]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[94][95]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[96][97][98]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[99][100]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[101][102]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[103][104]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[105][106][107]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[108][109]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[110][111]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[112][113][114][115]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[116][117]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[118][119]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[120][121]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[122][123]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[124][125]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[126][127]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[128][129]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[130][131]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[132][133]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[134][135][136]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[137][138]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[139][140]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[141][142]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[143][144]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[145][146]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[147][148]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [149][150]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[151][152]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[153][154]

PS-- a consensus does not have any effect on science!

[Zimme83]

I have never said their isnt. I know it is, many of them paid by the oil industry but i guess its irrelevant.

[Zimme83]

First you were impying that there is no concesus and when I show you that there is, then concesus means nothing. You are also assuming that all scientist but those who are against MMGW are bought and have an agenda to hide the truth from the people. But that argument can as easily be used the other way around..