Sea Change coming in Global Warming Opinions

Seems the tide is changing as shown by these former climate researchers who have reversed their positions with regard to the extent and dangers of antropogenic global warming.

epw.senate.gov...

If you plan to post here simply to denounce the source of the article or the credentials of the "reformed" scientists, please don't. These attacks are very predictable.

If you'd like to comment on any other aspect of the story, please do.

Some more common sense....

Czech president calls for rational debate on global warming, rejects "current hysteria"

The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
PRAGUE, Czech Republic: Czech President Vaclav Klaus on Wednesday called for a rational debate on global warming, rejecting what he called "hysteria" driven by enviromentalists.

"Let's bring the debate to whether the 0.6 (degree Celsius warming over the last century) is much or little, how much Man has contributed to the warming and ... if there is anything at all Man can do about it," Klaus said when presenting his book "Blue, Not a Green Planet."

Full Article

And to balance all the treads about whacky weather and it's linkage to Global Climate change caused by human carbon dioxde emissions......

UNITED STATES
Climate Summary
April 2007

The average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

I briefly glanced through the list of scientists and will read more when I get the chance. From what I read these scientists are saying what I thought all along (not claiming to be an expert). There is no truth to the "Inconvenient Truth". Global warming or rather global cooling as I will attest to as it is FREEZING cold here today, is caused by the sunspot cycles and not by the activities of man.Am I correct in this assumption?I have no qualms about your source.

I agree in general with your Sun ideas. Not just Sun spots though, also variations in irradiance and CMEs (coronal mass ejections) NASA and ESA are spending alot of funds, and launching alot of solar observation missions. I think this is very interesting. Nothing in nature is stable over long periods, why would we expect Sol to be a stable, unwaivering constant?

IMO, there is no greater potential contributor to global cataclysm than The Sun.

The Sun giveth...The Sun taketh away.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

If you plan to post here simply to denounce the source of the article or the credentials of the "reformed" scientists, please don't. These attacks are very predictable.

Sorry, that`s a load of crap.

One of these "scientists" has a university affiliation listed as his main credential - despite the fact that his contribution to the university has been limited to day-long courses on home renovation and woodlot management in the adult education faculty.

I mean, seriously - you may as well start posting the names of people you met down at the pub who have had a change of heart on GM foods.

You posted the article for discussion - perhaps you can explain why his change of heart should be given more weight than any one of the tens of thousands of climatologists who disagree with him.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Seems the tide is changing as shown by these former climate researchers who have reversed their positions with regard to the extent and dangers of antropogenic global warming.

epw.senate.gov...

If you plan to post here simply to denounce the source of the article or the credentials of the "reformed" scientists, please don't. These attacks are very predictable.

I'm sorry, but if you plan to claim "the tide is changing based on 'these' scientists", then I don't particularly care how predictable you claim questioning the source and the scientists involved is.... That's fair ground in my opinion.

For example, many may not catch that the site you link to is actually a blog written by Marc Morano. You'll forgive me, if in the first instance, I'm suspicious of the honesty and motivations of the guy (with his past) who works for Inhofe- someone who has said some pretty remarkably stupid things about environmental issues...

Originally posted by darkbluesky
If you'd like to comment on any other aspect of the story, please do.

As time permits, I'll assess the rest.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Some more common sense....

Czech president calls for rational debate on global warming, rejects "current hysteria"

In principle, that statement alone is very sound... I have no objections to that sentiment.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
And to balance all the treads about whacky weather and it's linkage to Global Climate change caused by human carbon dioxde emissions......

The average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

I'm not sure what point you think this shows? To admittedly provide an extreme analogy... If I witness you breathing while you're bleeding to death, is the mere fact that I witness you breathing sufficient to conclude you'll live?

Plucking a single month’s worth of data demonstrates nothing.


[edit on 17-5-2007 by loam]