One PhD Says Global Warming is Man Made, Another PhD says it's caused by the Sun. Who do you believe?

Question

A. The one that works for Exxon?

B. The Professor Emeretis with Alzheimer's?

C. The judge on the Nobel Prize committee?

i'm having a hard time with this one.

i see that D. Jello is also.

but i can't see his answers, because he doesn't like the truth.

Answer 1

the sun guy, but with your answers i will never pick A because he is just trying to get more cash maybe C because the B guys are trained with medics

Answer 2

The one that has thousands of peers (scientists) that agree with his or her science.

The one who has had several of those peers, people far more familiar with the underlying science and basis for the particular research being presented than us, review the work and stake their reputations and careers on the new paper being accurate.

The one who is educated, smart and informed enough to know that all trends of the sun have been studied and are negative (cannot have caused the bulk of current warming).

The one who is supported by all of the data (except short ter, local weather, which is irrelevant).  

The one that does not stoop so low as to misrepresent weather as climate.

The one that doesn't deny things for a living, who hasn't made a living for the past 16 years denying that cigarettes are addictive, that nicotene isn't addictive, that second hand smoke isn't harmful, that a little more mercury won't hurt our children all that much (so don't filter out poisonous coal power plant emissions).

The one that doesn't need to rely on fanciful tales of conspiracies in order to recruit a few similarly paranoid supporters.  Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel!

The person who has all of these indicators on his/her side.  That's who I believe.

I have curiosity, not faith.  I generally oppose the stereotype of my political party on this issue, although both the Republican and Democratic parties here in the States now acknowledge global warming.  As for which side has more numbers, I challenge you to show a second side... one that has peer-reviewed papers by qualified, working scientists (not professional deniers or oil/coal industry shills).  Social group?  No, they're content to consume Fox News' entertainment.  Within a dozen years or so the arctic ice cap will be gone, Colorado River reservoirs will have become unusable, the Northwest and Southeast will be starved for water as well, and the United States will suffer a depression as water and food costs skyrocket (gasoline will have skyrocketed years earlier).  As it affects their daily lives in major ways, they'll be forced to think about the preponderence of the data and they'll start to get it.  

Which "reputable scientist has done the research and came to the conclusion that the Sun, not man, is causing global warming"?  Show one peer-reviewed paper please.  I believe that you're either grossly mistaken or dishonest.  A link might easily prove me wrong on both counts, but I don't think you can produce one.

I'm calling your bluff.  Here's my link disproving the thoroughly debunked sun theory.  Provide one peer-reviewed paper published in a credible scientific journal supporting the sun as a primary (greater than 50%) cause of current warming.

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...

"There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/...

"blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation. "

Quirin Schiermeier

German Correspondent

Nature

Answer 3

You have to look closer at who funds these people. a lot of scientists are paid off by oil companies to keep  the debate alive and try and get people to keep buying gas.

I think the best choice is just to assume it's man made. cause the risk of NOT acting far outweighs the risk of acting needlessly.

Answer 4

i belive that global warming is caused by people  polluting the earth...

Answer 5

Non profit organisations tend to represent who ever makes donations.  Why would the nobel prize committee be any different.

Exxon really doesn't care about the global warming cult.  They've seen environmental alarmism before.  No world leader is actually going to behave like catastrophic AGW is remotely possible.

Answer 6

The way that man has caused it is by removal of the oil from the earth causing the earth to warm by allowing the magma in the earth to rise to the top.  So the idea of man causing global warming is wrong, but man allowing the warming to take place is 'yes, they have.'  Can we start pumping oil like substances back into the earth to cause the teperature to cool down?  That may be the solution.

Answer 7

I believe the retired professor.  (Saying that retired professors have Alzheimer's shows how biased you are. )   They do  have a financial stake in AGW, but yet their years of experience means they can check the methodology to see if they have arrived at the proper conclusion.

Edit:  Wow!!!  What a typing error!!!  I should have said they do NOT have a financial stake

Answer 8

Ever though that maybe they are both rite.  In a way.

Approximately 20% of scientist believe that global warming is based on green house gases exclusively.  

Most of them are climatologists.  

Most solar scientist believe that global warming is influenced by poorly understood solar cycles.  

The Nobel Prize does not always prove validity only importance of ones work.  

Regardless sound policy in decreasing carbon emissions is beneficial.  It cannot be bought on by doom and gloom mob mentality.  It must be perused with careful deliberation or the unintended consequences will be worse.

Answer 9

CRAZY - this is part of your link...

**************************************...

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

**************************************...

ZEEBUS - Why don't you go out and send us all links of data that show ALL the planets and their moons warming. For some reason I don't think you will be able to prove your assertion.

Answer 10

crazy_crats - The right isn't backing down:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

The warming on Mars is due to gigantic dust storms, not the Sun.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/researc...

"While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2583...

TELLER - Agreed.  But not many accuse the National Academy of Sciences of bias.

Answer 11

Ignore the people, follow the evidence....now, where's the evidence?

Edit:  I guess some people don't like using evidence...wonder which side of the debate these thumbs came from...

Answer 12

i agree with the one that's right.

carbon dioxide has been proven to not increase temperature.  the opposite is true - temperature increases carbon dioxide.  

the fact that other planets in our solar system are also heating up tells me one thing: either there are aliens driving SUV's all over those planets, or there really IS something to the argument that the sun is the cause.

What bothers me the most is that global warming n***s refuse to listen to the "deniers" because they've already made up their minds or have been brainwashed because they're dim-witted chimps who do whatever Al Gore and media tell them.

Answer 13

How about the person witha relevant PhD? The lefties keep using people with PhDs in things like socialogy and women's studies to pretend to know anything about science.

Even the radical left are backing away from man made global warming lies:

Answer 14

Deniers often complain that scientific 'skeptics' are always dismissed as being biased.

What do you expect when they're funded by the George Marshall Institute, ExxonMobile, can only get their papers published in a biased journal like Energy & Environment, or have PhDs...in chemistry!?

Jello actually makes a valid point.  Not all PhDs are equally qualified to speak intelligently about global warming.

Firstly it's critical to have an education in a relevant field to climate science, like physics or atomspheric sciences.  Meteorology, geology, and chemistry just don't cut it.

Secondly, it's important for the scientist to be doing current research in the field.  Some 80-year-old retired professor who hasn't done any research in decades is probably not qualified to speak about the current state of climate science.

Thirdly, it's important that the scientist have solid scientific evidence to support his position.  If it's some random Russian scientist who's claiming the Sun is responsible for the current warming despite there being not one single scientific study to defend this claim, I don't find him believable, for example.

One problem with deniers is that they tend to think all scientists are equal, except the ones who are skeptical are automatically more believable, and 'alarmists' are automatically biased.  They don't seem to evaluate the 3 criteria listed above, and thus come to incorrect conclusions (i.e. Inhofe's list of 400 skeptical scientists is valid and disproves the consensus).

Answer 15

both are true. the Sun infrared radiation heated earth up with infrared radiation, and human helped it reflecting those infrared radiation on our atmosphere through greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide, thus the radiation stays on earth rather than being reflected back to the outer space.