Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[Guided Missile]

Cull – to reduce the population by selective slaughter.

Not exactly:

 

In the breeding of pedigreed animals, both desirable and undesirable traits are considered when choosing which animals to retain for breeding and which to place as pets. The process of culling starts with examination of the conformation standard of the animal and will often include additional qualities such as health, robustness, temperament, color preference, etc. The breeder takes all things into consideration when envisioning his/her ideal for the breed or goal of their breeding program. From that vision, selections are made as to which animals, when bred, have the best chance of producing the ideal for the breed.

Edited 13 January, 2014 by Guided Missile
Link added

[Sheaf Saint]

Before anybody throws their support behind Cameron's fracking bribe scheme, I suggest you have a good read of this...

 

http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EA_FrackingNumbers_scrn.pdf

[Guided Missile]

Anyone who wants to understand why America has the lowest energy costs in the world, without environmental damage, read this.

[badgerx16]

Not exactly:

 

The applicable definition depends on whether you are controlling a captive bred herd or a wild population.

[badgerx16]

Anyone who wants to understand why America has the lowest energy costs in the world, without environmental damage, read this.

 

Err, no :

"These operations can result in a number of potential impacts to the environment, including:

• Stress on surface water and ground water supplies from the withdrawal of large volumes of water used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing;
  
• Contamination of underground sources of drinking water and surface waters resulting from spills, faulty well construction, or by other means;
  
• Adverse impacts from discharges into surface waters or from disposal into underground injection wells; and
  
• Air pollution resulting from the release of volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gases
  

 

Because natural gas development is increasing rapidly in many regions, prudent steps to reduce these impacts are essential now even as further research to understand potential risks continues. "

 

"As the number of shale gas wells in the U.S. increases, so too does the volume of shale gas wastewater that requires disposal. Wastewater associated with shale gas extraction can contain high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), fracturing fluid additives, metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials. In partnership with states, EPA is examining the different disposal methods employed by industry to ensure that there are regulatory and permitting frameworks in place to provide safe and legal options for disposal of flowback and produced water."

 

"...no comprehensive set of national standards exists at this time for the disposal of wastewater discharged from natural gas extraction activities."

Edited 13 January, 2014 by badgerx16

[Polaroid Saint]

Because it's relevant ? If the population of the 3rd world become as consumer obsessed as the 'civilsed' countries, all sorts of resources will be in short supply, China has already distorted minerals and metals markets. Demand for better diet, ( or in some cases a simple demand for food of any sort ), will drive the human population increasingly to encroach into 'wild' areas - after all isn't that what's driving jungle deforestation ? So on one level Packham is correct.

 

This is great. Exactly the sort of intelligent response I was after from GM. And look, Badger has made their point without needing to cut n paste some 'facts' (read opinion piece) from t'internet.

 

It is possible that the 'Third World's' rapid transition to matching, and soon exceeding, 'First World' resource demand, might, eventually, be a benefit to solving global climate issues. In that they may be forced to explore other energy production means, perhaps more suited to their resources. This will promote innovation and drive down costs.

 

Africa will be key and as its population levels out and begins to demand better services and facilities, a 'western' existence if you like, the demand for resources WILL rise. I believe (maybe 'hope' is better) that the technology and resources available to many Africa nations as they 'mature' will allow them to avoid a carbon fuel based economy (okay, I am talking mostly solar, I admit it, damn!). But also communications and welfare and education are improving across the continent.

 

Health care is so so important: As soon it is not necessary to have five children just in case two die and one cannot work, people start only having two children. It happened in Europe, is happening now on the sub-continent and will happen in Africa. Populations DO reach stable points, right up until the next great upheaval of course!

 

Talking of upheavals: I think it is absolutely right to worry about short term population increases (next twenty years or so) as the infrastructure isn't in place (as you say food or even water) and we are still set up, as a society and a species, to devour and consume whatever we can for short term gain. Hence Packham's (and billions of other people's) concern for the other inhabitants and habitats of this planet.

 

Our little island led the Industrial Revolution as we have coal and iron and the right men at the right time, and that's a fact. Who's to say (given probability, not just blind faith) that the next great leap forward isn't coming from a need, a necessity, facing the growing African population?

 

Some of the best solar tech is coming out of China, some of the most innovate electrical storage tech is being developed in India, some for the best medical tech is happening in South America. These are global solutions to common problems. Why can't population boom lead to innovation, after all it always has done in the past!?

[TopGun]

I was at Drax Power Station today - the largest CO2 emitter in the UK and western Europe. Nevertheless it generates about 7% of the UK's electricity and if it was shut now there would be power cuts in the UK.

 

The management at Drax have no doubt that CO2 contributes to global warming / climate change. They have all the expertise that they have hired in. That's why Drax is trying to change.

[Hokie]

Anyone who wants to understand why America has the lowest energy costs in the world, without environmental damage, read this.

 

Oh really? http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/west-virginia-water-emergency-nears-fifth-day-with-no-end-in-sight/2014/01/12/9d0959bc-7b88-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html

[Halo Stickman]

As soon it is not necessary to have five children just in case two die and one cannot work, people start only having two children. It happened in Europe, is happening now on the sub-continent and will happen in Africa.

 

Whilst I agree this is a factor, I’m not convinced it’s an overriding one.

 

There seems to have been only two factors limiting the number of my ancestors’ children: 1) death of a parent; 2) menopause of the mother. My ancestors shelled out children at an alarming rate, regardless of how many lived or died. The only thing that changed this was the introduction of readily available and reliable birth control. Unlike 1.2 billion of today’s population, they were not Catholics.

 

On a broader point, Britain’s population remained fairly static for several centuries, rising and falling from about 3.5 million to 6 million – limiting factors included disease, famine, wars and infanticide. From about 1750, enhanced food production, medical advancements and increasing industrialisation helped fuel a population explosion in Britain – 10 million in 1800, 37 million in 1900, 63 million in 2011.

 

Might not something similar happen in developing countries?

[Whitey Grandad]

Whilst I agree this is a factor, I’m not convinced it’s an overriding one.

 

There seems to have been only two factors limiting the number of my ancestors’ children: 1) death of a parent; 2) menopause of the mother. My ancestors shelled out children at an alarming rate, regardless of how many lived or died. The only thing that changed this was the introduction of readily available and reliable birth control. Unlike 1.2 billion of today’s population, they were not Catholics.

 

On a broader point, Britain’s population remained fairly static for several centuries, rising and falling from about 3.5 million to 6 million – limiting factors included disease, famine, wars and infanticide. From about 1750, enhanced food production, medical advancements and increasing industrialisation helped fuel a population explosion in Britain – 10 million in 1800, 37 million in 1900, 63 million in 2011.

 

Might not something similar happen in developing countries?

 

Doing my family history research it was obvious that women would have a baby every two years until they got to their late thirties. Whilst they were breast-feeding they didn't get pregnant again. Death rate amongst children was typically 1 in 2 in the cities and 1 in 3 in the country. 10 to 12 children was common, except for my wife's great-grandmother who was German and used a piece of sponge on the end of a string (don't try this at home). She only had two children.

[buctootim]

my wife's great-grandmother who was German and used a piece of sponge on the end of a string . She only had two children.

 

Im not surprised, it would put you right off.

[bridge too far]

Whilst they were breast-feeding they didn't get pregnant again. .

 

That's actually a fallacy

[Polaroid Saint]

 

On a broader point, Britain’s population remained fairly static for several centuries, rising and falling from about 3.5 million to 6 million – limiting factors included disease, famine, wars and infanticide. From about 1750, enhanced food production, medical advancements and increasing industrialisation helped fuel a population explosion in Britain – 10 million in 1800, 37 million in 1900, 63 million in 2011.

 

Might not something similar happen in developing countries?

 

Yes I believe this explosion of growth is happening NOW in Africa, but has happened and the rate of growth (not growth itself) is already dropping in the rest of the developing world, as Education and access to Health Care (birth control) spreads across the populations.

 

The introduction of birth control is a cultural and educational as well as medical thing - and you understandably mention Catholicism, although recent progression is being made on that by the Vatican itself and, well, people do ignore such things when education allows: for instance, I believe Europe was also mostly Catholic during the centuries of mass population boom!

 

I must admit I am getting most of my 'knowledge' on this subject from just a couple of lectures and essays by the marvellous Hans Rosling.

 

He puts things in such a clear and positive way it is a bit daft me trying to paraphrase!

 

I done a quick web search and here is a neat article that introduces the man and his work:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10431350/Hans-Rosling-the-man-who-makes-statistics-sing.html

 

And I believe his latest lecture on Population Growth is still available on BBC iPlayer. I cannot recommend higher, it's brilliant and slightly humbling.

[Zurichsaint]

I must admit I am getting most of my 'knowledge' on this subject from just a couple of lectures and essays by the marvellous Hans Rosling.

 

He puts things in such a clear and positive way it is a bit daft me trying to paraphrase!

 

I done a quick web search and here is a neat article that introduces the man and his work:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10431350/Hans-Rosling-the-man-who-makes-statistics-sing.html

 

And I believe his latest lecture on Population Growth is still available on BBC iPlayer. I cannot recommend higher, it's brilliant and slightly humbling.

 

I haven't seen the iplayer one, but he's also done some excellent TED presentations. Here is the one on population growth:

 

You're right - his way of explaining things through imagery and statistics is very educational. I'm also a big fan

[Halo Stickman]

Yes I believe this explosion of growth is happening NOW in Africa, but has happened and the rate of growth (not growth itself) is already dropping in the rest of the developing world, as Education and access to Health Care (birth control) spreads across the populations.

 

The introduction of birth control is a cultural and educational as well as medical thing - and you understandably mention Catholicism, although recent progression is being made on that by the Vatican itself and, well, people do ignore such things when education allows: for instance, I believe Europe was also mostly Catholic during the centuries of mass population boom!

 

I must admit I am getting most of my 'knowledge' on this subject from just a couple of lectures and essays by the marvellous Hans Rosling.

 

He puts things in such a clear and positive way it is a bit daft me trying to paraphrase!

 

I done a quick web search and here is a neat article that introduces the man and his work:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10431350/Hans-Rosling-the-man-who-makes-statistics-sing.html

 

And I believe his latest lecture on Population Growth is still available on BBC iPlayer. I cannot recommend higher, it's brilliant and slightly humbling.

 

I’m quite a fan of statistics myself – that’s an interesting link, thanks for posting.

 

The main gripe I have about the population debate is people resorting to disingenuously emotive language, as GM did yesterday when he talked about Chris Packham and others wishing to ‘cull’ Africans. Sadly, I see Rosling uses phrases such as ‘holocaust’ and preparing ‘the intellectual ground for killing people.’

 

No right-minded person is advocating eugenics or social-Darwinism to address rising population! They are simply suggesting ways to limit its growth by ensuring reliable contraception is readily available to anyone who wants it.

Edited 14 January, 2014 by Halo Stickman
Eliminate possible ambiguity

[Whitey Grandad]

Im not surprised, it would put you right off.

 

What, being German?

 

That's actually a fallacy

 

There was definitely a two-year gap between births across a very large number of mothers. What are the other suggested causes?

 

Edit: I've just had a quick look: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/natural-family-planning.aspx

 

 

Lactational amenorrhoea method (LAM)

Women don't have periods while they're breastfeeding (this is known as lactational amenorrhoea), so breastfeeding can be used as a form of contraception. This is known as the lactational amenorrhoea method (LAM).

 

 

Not to be recommended as a reliable method, mind you.

Edited 14 January, 2014 by Whitey Grandad

[Guided Missile]

The main gripe I have about the population debate is people resorting to disingenuously emotive language, as GM did yesterday when he talked about Chris Packham and others wishing to ‘cull’ Africans.

Explain this quote from your messiah, then...

 

Sending food aid to famine-stricken countries avoids the more fundamental problem of population growth, Sir David Attenborough has said, as he called for more debate about population control. "What are all these famines in Ethiopia? What are they about?" he said. "They're about too many people for too little land. That's what it's about. And we are blinding ourselves. We say, get the United Nations to send them bags of flour. That's barmy."

Starving a few Ethiopians should do the trick.....

 

A certified mental case, IMHO and you have the nerve to call me disingenuous and emotive...

[Polaroid Saint]

I think Rosling only repeats those phrases in an effort to highlight the idiocy of those who coined them? I may be wrong, would need to double check the context. He is certainly not an advocate of such things himself.

[Halo Stickman]

Explain this quote from your messiah, then...

 

 

Starving a few Ethiopians should do the trick.....

 

A certified mental case, IMHO and you have the nerve to call me disingenuous and emotive...

 

Disingenuous emotive language, again.

[Halo Stickman]

There was definitely a two-year gap between births across a very large number of mothers. What are the other suggested causes?

 

Edit: I've just had a quick look: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/natural-family-planning.aspx

 

 

Lactational amenorrhoea method (LAM)

Women don't have periods while they're breastfeeding (this is known as lactational amenorrhoea), so breastfeeding can be used as a form of contraception. This is known as the lactational amenorrhoea method (LAM).

 

 

Not to be recommended as a reliable method, mind you.

 

Although the fertility of breast-feeding mothers is often reduced, as many women from time immemorial have found out, it is certainly not a reliable form of contraception! Tragically, especially in former times, the arrival of new-born babies to mothers still breast-feeding an older child sometimes had fatal consequences.

 

I shall preface what I say next by clearly stating that I’m not suggesting the following in any way explains the reason for the 2 year gap between your ancestors’ children.

 

Any anthropologist will confirm that infanticide has been practiced, on every continent and by every kind of society, from stateless tribes-people to advanced civilisations, throughout the ages – in some places, up to and including the present day. There are many reasons for infanticide; the arrival of new-born babies to mothers still breast-feeding an older child is one of them. A mother finding herself in this situation faced a difficult conundrum: how to share scarce resources between two young babies? Sometimes the evitable answer was that something or someone had to be sacrificed; invariably it was the new born baby.

 

From our cosy 21st century modern Britain perspective, this seems abhorrent and unnatural; the latter adjective is, however, a misnomer: in the natural state, faced with a lack of resources, animals commonly sacrifice one or more of their offspring.

 

Like I said, WG, I’m not implying that any of this applies to your ancestors! I’m sure there’s a much more mundane reason for the 2 year age gap; for instance, perhaps the parents didn’t feel like having sex because they already had to put up with one screaming baby.

[buctootim]

Interesting item about a possible lull in sun activity and what implications that will have for climate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

[Whitey Grandad]

http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/page/2/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24851-sleepy-sun-thickens-the-slow-solar-wind.html#.UtsVoH-QGK0

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/cern-scientist-says-another-maunder.html

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2131&category=Science

[Saint George]

Interesting item about a possible lull in sun activity and what implications that will have for climate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

 

ahh....So you maybe on the verge of finally getting it?....What the hell took you so long?

[Hokie]

ahh....So you maybe on the verge of finally getting it?....What the hell took you so long?

 

Interesting articles regarding solar activity influencing regional cooling. What is the argument you would like to make regarding global warming/climate change that we should "get"? I can only speculate, and don't want to speak for you.

[Saintandy666]

No-one should be shocked that more things influence our temperature than the greenhouse affect which already raises Earth's temperature by 33 degrees centigrade. The greenhouse effect is an extremely significant influence on our temperature and not one we should ignore.

[Whitey Grandad]

No-one should be shocked that more things influence our temperature than the greenhouse affect which already raises Earth's temperature by 33 degrees centigrade. The greenhouse effect is an extremely significant influence on our temperature and not one we should ignore.

 

I quite agree. The problem I have is that none (not one) of the climate models takes into account the effect of solar high-energy activity. Not surprising really since there is no science to cover it, but it is there.

[Saint George]

No-one should be shocked that more things influence our temperature than the greenhouse affect which already raises Earth's temperature by 33 degrees centigrade. The greenhouse effect is an extremely significant influence on our temperature and not one we should ignore.

 

You say that like there is some kind of set datum for the Earths temperature........Some kind of set in stone reference point that's been around since the very first day the Earth was formed.

[aintforever]

You say that like there is some kind of set datum for the Earths temperature........Some kind of set in stone reference point that's been around since the very first day the Earth was formed.

 

Why do you think this last decade has been the warmest on record whilst the sun is going through an unusually inactive phase?

[Whitey Grandad]

Why do you think this last decade has been the warmest on record whilst the sun is going through an unusually inactive phase?

 

'Warmest on record'? How far back do these 'records' go?

[aintforever]

'Warmest on record'? How far back do these 'records' go?

 

The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, that started in 1659. The longest-running quasi-global record started in 1850.

 

The point is something has made the last decade warmest on our records whilst the sun is cooling. What do you think the reason is?

[Whitey Grandad]

The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, that started in 1659. The longest-running quasi-global record started in 1850.

 

The point is something has made the last decade warmest on our records whilst the sun is cooling. What do you think the reason is?

 

That's England, what about the rest if the world?

 

Actually the sun is not cooling, it's just getting 'quiter'.

[aintforever]

That's England, what about the rest if the world?

 

Actually the sun is not cooling, it's just getting 'quiter'.

 

But quieter periods usually mean lower temperatures. What is your explanation for the recent warming?

[Saintandy666]

You say that like there is some kind of set datum for the Earths temperature........Some kind of set in stone reference point that's been around since the very first day the Earth was formed.

 

I really do not understand your point. Where do I say that there is a set reference point for temperature on earth? Of course there isn't. Earth's temperature is influenced by many things, and one of those things is the greenhouse effect which as I said in my last post has an extremely large impact raising the temperature of our surface already by 33 degrees.

 

Adding further greenhouse gas into the atmosphere will lead to a tendency for increase in the temperature on earth. Such increase will be disruptive to present life on earth as the fast change in circumstance will be too quick for a lot of organisms to keep up with. It is within our interests not to let this happen for a whole host of reasons you can look up yourself (species are already going extinct at an alarmingly high rate although that has a lot to do with many other human caused factors as well).

[Hokie]

'Warmest on record'? How far back do these 'records' go?

 

Do you mean direct temperature measurements or proxy measures? Inferences of temperatures from things such as tree rings and ice cores that can go back a thousand years, and other techniques based on trace concentrations of chemicals and elements going back tens of thousands. Granted each comes with a debatable accuracy, but there are estimates that scientists have justified in the published literature as to their merits.

[buctootim]

ahh....So you maybe on the verge of finally getting it?....What the hell took you so long?

 

Can you not tell the difference between heating your house and insulating it?

[Saint Paul C]

A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all 'climate con' scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

 

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, released (January 19, 2014) his telling study of the officially adjusted and homogenized US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to 'prove' our climate has been warming dangerously.

 

Goddard reports "I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode." His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the 'raw' thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the 'adjusted' temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the 'raw' thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists "turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend" says the astonished Goddard.

 

Goddard's plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

 

[buctootim]

Google Stephen Goddard. You'll be embarassed you posted that.

[Hokie]

Google Stephen Goddard. You'll be embarassed you posted that.

 

An independent data analyst with his own Wordpress blog publishing under a pseudonym? Looks legit to me!

[Saint Paul C]

Google Stephen Goddard. You'll be embarrassed you posted that.

 

Hey, I've not made an assertion on the "accuracy etc.. " of the published article only to post on here for consideration.

 

I find all of this debate really interesting. As a left leaning, POM living in Aus, working in the Coal Seam Gas industry and with a strong understanding of Statistics, Analytics, forecasting and the application of these and seeing some of the utter rubbish posted on both sides here is amusing. I'm a firm believer in responsible consumption, the application of technology to reduce our environmental impact and that climate change is a constant we cannot control - no matter how much tax you ask people to pay.

 

[Guided Missile]

Google Stephen Goddard. You'll be embarassed you posted that.

Google ab hominem. You'll be embarassed you posted that.

[saintbletch]

Google ab hominem. You'll be embarassed you posted that.

 

Ab hominem: A debating style characterised by dismissing the position of the other side through irrelevant attacks on their stomach muscles.

[buctootim]

Ab hominem: A debating style characterised by dismissing the position of the other side through irrelevant attacks on their stomach muscles.

 

Some flabby arguments on this thread f'sure.

[Minty]

and that climate change is a constant we cannot control - no matter how much tax you ask people to pay.

 

Not picking on you inparticular here, but this is one the things I find the hardest to overcome... separating the discussion about climate change and whether man has influenced it or not - and the fact that it has led to taxes, both direct and indirect, in various forms, to supposedly help deal with it.

 

To deal with the former properly, it needs to be done completely independently of the latter, because there are lots of people whose opinion rests significantly on what it costs them personally, rather than judging the situation with a more open mind.

 

Of course, this is not helped by the fact that some governments have levied carbon taxes or similar, but then don't actually put that money towards research or mitigation for the effects of climate change at all... it just goes into the pot.

 

Frankly, IMO, this issue is doomed because so many people the world over have made their minds up based on factors like taxes, rather than scientific research. Add to this the fact that the media, and improved access to current affairs, has created a world of judgemental knee-jerkers who increasingly think less and less for themselves and are unable to debate anything healthily (look at this thread) and we're heading into a pretty selfish world where no one cares about anyone other than themselves and being right. But I digress... :-)

[buctootim]

Google ab hominem. You'll be embarassed you posted that.

 

I'll make a deal with you GM. You post up some credible evidence from qualified and current or recently retired climate scientists or astrophysicists published in reputable science journals and I'll respond to the points made. You post up the bedroom thoughts of randoms with no qualifications or experience related to climate change and I'll point out their lack of credibility.

Edited 23 January, 2014 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

I'll make a deal with you GM.

 

Pick the bones out of these two, you intellectual pygmy:

 

A world class astrophysicist

 

“Those people are so out of their minds!’’ exclaimed Soon, a solar researcher at the prestigious Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in Cambridge. He assailed former vice president Al Gore, among others, for his views on climate change, calling predictions of catastrophic ocean tides “crazy’’ and scornfully concluding: “And they call this science.’’

 

A world class physicist

 

The climate models used to forecast what will happen as we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are unreliable, Dyson claims, and so, therefore, are the projections. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, his first since the Times article appeared, Dyson contends that since carbon dioxide is good for plants, a warmer planet could be a very good thing.

[buctootim]

Pick the bones out of these two, you intellectual pygmy:

 

A world class astrophysicist

 

A world class physicist

 

Well done, you have found somebody with a Phd who is a climate change sceptic. How are you getting on with the "credible evidence from qualified and current or recently retired climate scientists or astrophysicists published in reputable science journals" part?

[Guided Missile]

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry’s at recent US Senate hearing:

 

• ‘Attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile’ – UN IPCC now making ‘a weaker case for anthropogenic global warming’
  
• UN IPCC: 'The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for the current hiatus in warming'
  
• Sea Level: 'The data does not seem to support the IPCC’s conclusion of a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.'
  
• Ice: 'The increase in Antarctic sea ice is not understood and is not simulated correctly by climate models. Further, Arctic surface temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies.'
  
• Conclusion: 'The science of climate change is not settled, and evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries'

[Window Cleaner]

Well done, you have found somebody with a Phd who is a climate change sceptic. How are you getting on with the "credible evidence from qualified and current or recently retired climate scientists or astrophysicists published in reputable science journals" part?

 

 

To be fair Willie Soon is just one of many highly qualified men of science who argue that climate change is a result of natural phenomena, I'm sure that there's a list of them somewhere. Perhaps GM didn't pick the most shining example amongst them though because Willie , well he's taken a lot of grant money from fossil fuel companies. That's not to say that he doesn't believe what he maintains to be correct though.

[Guided Missile]

Oh look, an Industrial Engineer...

[Guided Missile]

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

 

Scientists in this section have made comments 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.

 

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
  
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
  
• 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).
  
• 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 ANU
  
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
  
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
  
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
  

 

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely 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, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
  
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
  
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
  
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
  
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
  
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
  
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
  
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
  
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
  
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
  
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
  
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
  
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
  
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
  
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
  
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
  
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
  
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
  

 

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

 

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
  
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
  
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
  
• 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.
  
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
  
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
  
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
  
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
  

 

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

 

• 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
  
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
  
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia