deduce what. that temperature drives CO2. that sunspots drives temperature that proximity to the sun drives temperature. I am asking you... show us science which is consistent with the fact that when the earth warms CO2 accumulates and when the earth cools it dissipates. I am asking you for science... if you have speculation fine... I might agree with your speculation... but stop acting like you have science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming this is a partial list.... 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 [9] Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10] 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 (1999â2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11] 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[12] Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13] Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14] 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[16] Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19] Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22] William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23] William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26] Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27] Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29] Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30] Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32] Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33] Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36] Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37] Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38] Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40] 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[41] Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42] Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43] 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[44][45] Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46] Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47] David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48] Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49] 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 [50] Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[51] Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[52]
The evidence is that I've got more cognitive ability in my little finger than you possess altogether. Yeah, I'm an engineer and I call guys like you when I need someone to go under the main house to work work among the rodent turds. Haven't gotten my hands dirty in 32 years futurecurrents. I use my head for a living and pass between engineering and financial institutions as easily as you pick up a six pack of Old Milwaukee on the way home from your last carbon emitting installation. You are an ignorant liberal putz and if you keep trying to ruin the lives of others based on your religious zeal you may find yourself facing those who will not put up with it much longer. I only hope you are unable to contaminate the gene pool but frankly don't think that is an issue as I doubt that any woman who isn't wearing her lunch down the front of her shirt would put up with you. I'll let you know when I need my AC recharged. Short of that you haven't anything interesting to say and you certainly don't deal in the truth.
In addition to the previous list I presented a page ago... this is the real state of science. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The lack of warming for more than a decadeâindeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projectionsâsuggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. ...
From the same article... and this has been my point all along...and the same with most conservatives here on et. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
No. You don't cognitive ability. If you did you would agree with the 97% of climate scientists that DO have cognitive ability. No, all you have is your feverish rabid rigid right ideology and a stubborn stupidity. You are judging science by politics, which is dumb.
http://www.examiner.com/article/who...n-t-believe-global-warming-and-why-don-t-they Here we start with obama loving, natural resource loving liberal - and scientific genius Freeman Dyson... read the article and move on to the next ones.
NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html Is NASA playing fast and loose with climate change science? That's the contention of a group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts. On March 28 the group sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., blasting the agency for making unwarranted claims about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, Business Insider reported. "We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data," the group wrote. "With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled." The group features some marquee names, including Michael F. Collins, Walter Cunningham and five other Apollo astronauts, as well as two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. The letter included a request for NASA to refrain from mentioning CO2 as a cause of global warming in future press releases and websites. The agency's "Global Climate Change" webpage says that "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change."
The lack of warming for more than a decadeâindeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projectionsâsuggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. Your WSJ article nails it, jem.