Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

reply to post by mc_squared


Now take those graphs you have showing CO2 rising the same as the temperature, and then consider this:

Since of the Earth's atmosphere is out-of-balance with the conditions expected from simple chemical equilibrium, it is very hard to say what precisely sets the level of the carbon dioxide content in the air throughout geologic time. While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time

That's from UCSD - Here

So even if CO2 has anything to do Global Warming, our earth has had much more of it from natural causes all throughout the planet's history. Levels have been 20 times higher than now, and guess what? We're still here

I just grabbed a few of the more prominent scientists that are sticking to the actual data and not making fear-mongering statements. I've got plenty of more scientific sources -- We can do this all week bratha

Edit to add the following:

BTW - a sourcewatch.org entry doesn't mean they have connections to any organization or that research is flawed.

Case in point -->

Here is the entry for Tim Peterson:

Dr. R. Tim Patterson is a Professor of Geology, Department of Earth Sciences, at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He uses sediments, microfossils and geochemistry to study evidence of past and present climate change in lake and oceanic sediments, his CU biography states. [1]

Patterson is a member of the Science Advisory Board for Friends of Science and appeared in the FoS anti-Kyoto video entitled "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled". He is also a member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian non-profit group, including a number of leading climate change sceptics, that was launched October 12, 2006. [2]

Patterson partcipated in the Kyoto's Fatal Flaws Revealed press conference, organized by Tom Harris of APCO Worldwide and held in Ottawa on November 13, 2002, along with other climate change sceptics including Fred Singer and Tim Ball.

Patterson also delivered remarks at the Risk: Regulation and Reality Conference, co-hosted by Tech Central Station, and held on October 7, 2004 in Toronto, ON.

Patterson says that he "has never received any funding whatsoever from any non-governmental agency" (as stated in a section, written by himself, in a previous version of this article).
Contents

Patterson on CO2 levels and global warming

In 2005, "US paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson told a congressional committee ... that there was no meaningful correlation between carbon dioxide levels and Earth's temperature during this geologic time frame.

"'In fact, when carbon dioxide levels were over 10 times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half-billion years,' Patterson said." [3]

Profiles

Carleton University

According to his Carleton University biography, last updated October 14, 2005, Patterson "received both a B.Sc. in Biology (1980) and a B.A. in Geology (1983) from Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1986 with Dr. Helen Tappan Loeblich and late Dr. Alfred R. Loeblich. After brief stints at the University of Southern California and University of California at Berkeley he joined Carleton University in 1988 as an Assistant Professor. He was promoted to Full Professor in 1999.

"He is Canadian leader of the International Geological Correlation Program Project IGCP 495 'Quaternary Land-Ocean interactions' and is Principal Investigator of a Canadian Foundation For Climate and Atmospheric Sciences project studying high-resolution Holocene climate records from anoxic fjords and coast lakes in British Columbia.

"Other areas of research interest include the use of marsh foraminifera to identify neotectonic and paleo-sea level changes in coastal British Columbia and New Brunswick, the further development of arcellacea as a new class of paleolimnological indicators, and to determine whether the methods of non-linear dynamics are applicable in the study of evolutionary phenomena."

Research

Patterson is "Principal Investigator for two major research initiatives: a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Strategic Project studying the effect of past climate change (on scales varying from seasonal to millennia) on fish populations that are important to the North American west coast fishing industry; and a Canadian Foundation For Climate and Atmospheric Sciences that is investigating climate cyclicity as recorded in the varved sediments preserved in anoxic fjords along the coast of British Columbia. Other areas of research interest include the use of foraminifera to identify neotectonic and paleoceanographic phenomena on the west coast of Canada, the further development of arcellacea as a new class of paleolimnological indicators, and to determine whether the methods of non-linear dynamics are applicable in the study of evolutionary phenomena."—Staff Bio, Palaeontologia Electronica. [4]

*Please excuse the long quote, but it was necessary to prove a point.

- So since you are implicating each scientists I quote as being some kind of lobby for denying human caused Global-Warming, I felt it necessary to show that this isn't the case. Each of the scientists I quoted are prominent and renowned within their field.

- And as everyone can plainly see, there is NOTHING from your supposed source that should take away from this man's (or other of the others) work.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by mc_squared


Since you obviously like pretty pictures, here's one for you:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b791183fe01a.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by mc_squared


And dude, John Christy works with the IPCC and has compiled numerous reports for IPCC - So is the guy a double agent now?

reply to post by misinformational


Trust you??

After all the wrong information you've already posted on this thread I'm supposed to just "trust you" now?

Seriously - instead of spouting off a bunch of useless conjecture and arrogantly acting like you already know everything, take some time and actually learn something ok? There is FAR more evidence than just CO2 and warming going up at the same time - it's ALL in those links. Skimming over it and jumping to conclusions isn't gonna cut it. And the parallel between CO2 & Warming in the 20th century is critical anyway, because it's not something we just happened to notice after Al Gore pointed it out. It was predicted OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. If you know anything about how the Scientific Method works you'll understand that fact alone makes it a very important piece of empirical evidence, one that doesn't just get debunked by scientists shrugging their shoulders and going "meh - CO2 was higher in the past, I wouldn't worry about it."

JUST READ THE INFORMATION and then come talk to me. Because otherwise I'm not going to keep trying to spoonfeed this to people who clearly refuse to even humour an opposing idea, since all they wanna do is nitpick whatever little detail they can find that helps them protect their already made up minds and "win".

So I have no interest in engaging in another pointless pissing contest with one of you. You want to throw all these denier myths at me about how:
- "oh it's natural"
- "all the planets are warming up"
- "CO2 lags temperature"
- blah blah blah

Save yourself the trouble. I've heard every one of these claims a million times by now. And I already tried to tell you - they are distorted climate denier myths, peddled by people like Joanne Nova and Pat Michaels. They can ALL be debunked if you just stop being so hard-headed and look at the actual science.

And that goes for this too:
Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

If you're going to learn one thing about BOTH SIDES of climate science, it should be that things are not as obvious as they seem.



And same deal for the whole "follow the money" thing. You think it's such a clear-cut one way street huh?

Then I DARE you to try this:

Instead of repeating this automaton claim like every other lazy tin-foil pavlovian muskrat on here - why don't you try something profound:
ACTUALLY FOLLOW IT.


Just ONCE I would like to see one of you respond in a calm rational manner that shows you're willing to use your head, instead of always acting like it's about to explode so you have to immediately run for cover behind more lies, distortions & safety blanket explanations that just stick it that much further in the dirt.

reply to post by mc_squared


If you post ONE BIT of evidence (read: empirical data or empirical observation) that proves that CO2 causes global warming - then I will concede every post I've made on the thread and bow down...

Until then, you are using the EXACT same rhetoric as the fear-mongers that you parrot.

[edit - grammar]

edit to add: Every post I've made has been rational. And to imply that you are aware of my manner (i.e. not calm) via a text submission, then perhaps we've got much more to discuss than I thought

P.P.S - Don't take my all CAPS words for screaming - its not - its simply emphasis


[edit on 17-8-2010 by misinformational]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by misinformational]

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by mc_squared

 

And dude, John Christy works with the IPCC and has compiled numerous reports for IPCC - So is the guy a double agent now?

Nope. I could use that sort of rhetorical logic and ask you - if he's a well known climate skeptic and the IPCC are supposedly an iron-fisted boys club that stifle and reject all opposing opinions: why's he being included in the reports?

reply to post by misinformational


I told you it's ALL THERE: laboratory measurements of CO2's ability to trap heat. Empirical satellite observations of less outgoing radiation and more coming back. These are all indicators of a human caused warming, not some natural cycle. I'm not spoonfeeding it to you - just read the links/watch the video.

reply to post by mc_squared


I never said he was a well known skeptic - I said he was a prominent and renowned scientist that has refuted the fear-mongering - He has not refuted the data.

reply to post by mc_squared


You are right - They are indicators. Indication does not equate proof.

reply to post by mc_squared


Alright then, let's follow your logic. It has been PROVEN that CO2 levels have been at least 10x (probably 20x) higher than they are now. Following your fear-mongering supposed science, if we had 20x the amount of CO2 now, what should the temperature of the earth be?

But wait - that period where CO2 levels were 10 - 20x as high was during the COLDEST ICE AGE in the planets history.

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by mc_squared

 

You are right - They are indicators. Indication does not equate proof.

There's no such thing as proof.

But when all the evidence and all the indicators start adding up to the same conclusion - it comes pretty damn close.

reply to post by mc_squared

So I have no interest in engaging in another pointless pissing contest with one of you. You want to throw all these denier myths at me about how:
- "oh it's natural"
- "all the planets are warming up"
- "CO2 lags temperature"
- blah blah blah

I was under the impression that one posted a thread on this site expecting intelligent debate over the it. I suppose my expectations are not aligned to yours.

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by mc_squared

 

Alright then, let's follow your logic. It has been PROVEN that CO2 levels have been at least 10x (probably 20x) higher than they are now. Following your fear-mongering supposed science, if we had 20x the amount of CO2 now, what should the temperature of the earth be?

But wait - that period where CO2 levels were 10 - 20x as high was during the COLDEST ICE AGE in the planets history.

Again read the science:

Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined net effect from CO2 and solar variations are shown in Figure 2. Periods of geographically widespread ice are indicated by shaded areas.

Like I said - things are not as obvious as they seem. You need more than just logic. Logic is important, but it can also fool you if you get too cocky with it. It's more important to have diligence and the patience and humility to examine ALL the evidence before making a conclusion.

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by mc_squared

 

I was under the impression that one posted a thread on this site expecting intelligent debate over the it. I suppose my expectations are not aligned to yours.

I have been over this waaaay too many times with other members to care anymore. You want to see my response to these things go through my post history. Or just read the link I left you - like I said the informations all in there - sourced and linked to actual data/papers.

reply to post by mc_squared

There's no such thing as proof.

But when all the evidence and all the indicators start adding up to the same conclusion - it comes pretty damn close.

The Scientific Method would like a word with you

Skeptics lying to you to push a 'big oil' agenda

Or

People pushing global warming to steal even more money from you through various schemes


Both as bad as each other, let's not hate on the global warming skeptics without looking at the other side too.

It's funny, one secretly hiding an agenda that will damage the environment, and another trying to profit off their very opponents' lies.

Either way, the common man (us) will get screwed over

Look man, no where have I said that global warming is absolutely not man-made. I can't come to that conclusion, because we don't have enough empirical data or observation to do so.

Should we stop using fossil fuels as our primary energy source: YES - For a lot of reasons.

The fact remains that no one has ever directly linked global warming to human causes. There's hypothesis that we do. Hell, there's even data suggesting that we may - But we cannot draw a conclusion upon implications or suggestions.

As soon as I am presented with with verifiable empirical data and/or observation that proves we are causing global warming, I'll be arguing this just as vehemently as you. Until then, I will remain a skeptic and question all the information I am presented. Is the skeptical view the wide-stream one? NO. But if look at at community's the intelligently analyze data (like ATS) you will find a much larger percentage that will be skeptical of the global-warming fear-mongering we've been presented by-and-large.

And before you start, I'm not saying that ATS is qualified to make a conclusion about such, but neither are you nor I. I will question what I read or view, and so far that does not directly link global warming and human causes.

reply to post by AR154

Skeptics lying to you to push a 'big oil' agenda

Or

People pushing global warming to steal even more money from you through various schemes


Both as bad as each other, let's not hate on the global warming skeptics without looking at the other side too.

It's funny, one secretly hiding an agenda that will damage the environment, and another trying to profit off their very opponents' lies.

Either way, the common man (us) will get screwed over

Amen. Cheers to that!

Originally posted by Aristophrenia
You see this is what is so utterly ridiculous about denialists - - random quotes, no context, no links, and above all NO DATES. The only dates available are inside the quotes and these generally appear to be from 20 years ago - all copy and pasted do doubt from some template response of 6 quotes which are all that are needed in the face of almost universal and total agreement on this issue - even from the most ardent denialists - absolutely mind numbingly ridiculous.

The denialists are people like yourself who apparenlty think Climate Change started with the appearance of mankind...

You are the ones denying NATURAL Climate Change has been occurring...

and btw...in case you didn't know in this website you can only post some excerpts, you can't excerpt an entire book...but the "NATURAL Climate Change denialists", like you, love to find any excuse to dismiss the facts...

reply to post by mc_squared

Like I said - things are not as obvious as they seem. You need more than just logic. Logic is important, but it can also fool you if you get too cocky with it. It's more important to have diligence and the patience and humility to examine ALL the evidence before making a conclusion.

I unequivocally agree with this paragraph...

From all that I've read and researched (which, as a non-scientist, has been extensive) I cannot take the culmination of all the data and make an intelligible conclusion - In fact, I see some gleaming contradictions to the human-caused global-warming theory. Most of the scientist I quoted say the same. None of the them are saying that global warming is 100% not man made or that humans can't have a positive impact on the climate. They are saying that climate change has happened throughout the history of the planet and the evidence suggests our climate has been much much warmer and much much colder... Likewise there has been much much more CO2 present and that wasn't during a warm climate.

Obviously, we should do whatever we can to ensure a stable and healthy planet. We shouldn't knowingly pollute our planet wherever possible and resources utilized would ideally be renewable. I am completely behind any projects with transparent aims towards such. It's people and projects with agendas that I'm against. They're easy to spot, because they all want one of two common goals - money or control.

No matter the theory or hypothesis, anytime you observe anyone stating that they have drawn a conclusion without empirical data and observation directly linking the cause to the reaction - you should question what agendas may be had.