Wow, how to they expect to even make a somewhat accutate prediction when you omit something as profound as the medieal period...... If thats the case why dont they disregard the last 20 years, because its doesnt fit with the normal climate pattern?

IN science isnt "fact" relivitve to a certain point? A lot of things that were "fact" have changed dramaticaly. IT was fact that the earth was flat. IT was fact that god put is here. It was fact that the sun revolved around the earth. Sure there are definelty things that have generaly havnt changed since weve discovered them, but have come more clear, such as physics and quantum theory, which help to explain eachother, especialy when you add string theory. to say something is a theory, leaves more open to change. IT doesnt seem as final as saying " so and so is fact, this is how it is"

Part of that is our fault, lots take almsot everything that is said in news or by scientists as fact, without actualy investigating it ourselves. On the other hand, when we see new "facts" that shatter our current paradigm, we usualy totoaly disregard it. A good example is chlorine in our water supply. A group of scientists led by some woman discovered, and had more then enough evidence to proove chlorine lowers sperm count, and decreases brain function, yet she was fired and has not been able to get any grants for work.

I think thats the thing too paul. Just look at the facts stated, and research those facts. You dont have to be a scientist to reaserch, as long as you can back up your facts with enough well percieved evidence.

Jesse,
go for it and report back to us:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Tim: sources?
--Erik
Edit: Jesse, let me help you get started. Begin with Box 6.4 in this part
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1
then read other parts as needed to help you understand that section.

This is how I see it:

Theres more then enough evidence to say that the climate is changing ( generaly most people way warming). There is no real argument about that. Like ive said the real agument is the reasons why, and how. Even a bit of common sence can figure some things out.

The climate is generaly warming, since the beginning of the industrial revolution. As far as Im aware, this is a generaly accepted point, or at least well researched. Almost everything we use that is motorized or industrialized emits carbon dioxide. There are billions of cars alone on the roads, and many dont have any ommision standards at all ( cars in china and India for example). Not to mention power plants. ITs safe to say that we are pumping co2 into the atmosphere without any reagard as to the effects. Carbon dioxide as beel labeled a greenhouse gas for a long time. We know that an excess of it in the atmosphere causes heat to stay in the atmosphere, rather then drift our into space.

Now what is the planets best way of removing carbon dioxide? Trees and plants. The forests removed the bulk of the carbon dioxide that the animals and earth release ( of course precipitation, and the ocean plays a part as well ). What do we have less then half of now? Forests.

Who created cars? Who burns fossil fuels? Who cuts down the forests?? We do. To say we have nothing to do with climate change is naive, old school thinking. To say its totaly because of us, is just as naive i think. I think if anything, its a naturaly occuring warming trend, that our burning of fossil fuels and destruction of forests is enhancing...

Ive been doing it for 20 years eric 😛

And please please its JESSE no "I", thats the girls spelling 👿

I should also point out that there are also 'scientists' like him in my field... These are the people who say things like: Monoculture is fine...

Why are they like him, I dont think so. He showed a broader range of weather patterns, weather past and showed there has been weather patterns similar to what we are having today (without man caused carbon). He did not try and hide that the weather has been warming or that it would not do harm if it kept warming, he simply said the weather we are seeing today is nothing unusual if you look at the weather from the past.

PS. Show me one PHD that that has said monoculture is fine. Of cource there can be exeptions for everything. A city is more or less a monoculture of humans, are works well for our us. Even though I support backyard wildlife programs, it will never be a good idea to reintroduce bison to downtown Denver. 😆

Who created cars? Who burns fossil fuels? Who cuts down the forests?? We do. To say we have nothing to do with climate change is naive, old school thinking. To say its totaly because of us, is just as naive i think. I think if anything, its a naturaly occuring warming trend, that our burning of fossil fuels and destruction of forests is enhancing...

I agree.

I should also point out that there are also 'scientists' like him in my field... These are the people who say things like: Monoculture is fine...

PS. Show me one PHD that that has said monoculture is fine. Of cource there can be exeptions for everything. A city is more or less a monoculture of humans, are works well for our us. Even though I support backyard wildlife programs, it will never be a good idea to reintroduce bison to downtown Denver. 😆

You expect too much from a lot of hired scientists.

For the record, I am a PhD (c) and I think that monoculture is fine. It is perfectly all right with me if my bacterial samples are a monoculture on their plate, or in solution!

I should also point out that there are also 'scientists' like him in my field... These are the people who say things like: Monoculture is fine...

PS. Show me one PHD that that has said monoculture is fine. Of cource there can be exeptions for everything. A city is more or less a monoculture of humans, are works well for our us. Even though I support backyard wildlife programs, it will never be a good idea to reintroduce bison to downtown Denver. 😆

You expect too much from a lot of hired scientists.

For the record, I am a PhD (c) and I think that monoculture is fine. It is perfectly all right with me if my bacterial samples are a monoculture on their plate, or in solution!

And I'm trying for monoculture in my palm seed starting trays. 😆

For the record, my PhD is in "environmental science" and while I do not do CC research, I apply it in my studies and teach it. If anyone has really good sources I can have my students discuss, please share them.

I'm sorry if I came across as grumpy above. We are somewhat cold today, when I had a day off I hoped to use tidying up the palm garden and putting away winter protection stuff. Puts me in a bad mood. 😳
--Erik

Thanks for the link Eric.... id rather read stuff like that then most novels 😀

For the record, I am a PhD

Sorry, I should have been more clear. 😐

You expect too much from a lot of hired scientists.

Why what should I expect from them? So if you get hired by a privite firm we cant trust you either? The Gov hires privite firms all the time to do research and contracts. 🙄

You expect too much from a lot of hired scientists.

Why what should I expect from them? So if you get hired by a privite firm we cant trust you either? The Gov hires privite firms all the time to do research and contracts. 🙄

Aaron,
since I've already acknowledged I'm grumpy today (about the cold weather), can I ask you to be explicit?
Specifically, are you accusing Paul and I of being paid shills for (e.g.) Chinese solar power companies?
(Now you know where we got those really cool Trachy seeds from....)
Seriously, I am tired of the conspiracy/"hoax" rhetoric. If I'm guilty, and my senator Inhofe is correct that I am part of a "hoax", ask Sen. Inhofe to call the local cops. Despite the fact that this has already been to the U.S. supreme court. --Erik

If I get hired by a private firm, I hope that I can maintain my integrity... I'll be lucky to get hired at all, truth be told!

Government funded research, though, is not the same as research done by a company in search of profits. If someone is doing research funded by oil-companies, and they specifically pick out abnormal trends or even falsify data (this does happen in legitimate research too, just look at the recent news about the link between vaccines and mental health, which was a major scandal), it is quite different than a government giving money to a research firm. There is a bias when you are getting paid by a company to specifically find x INSTEAD of y (or to pick certain data to make it look like you found x instead of y)... Rather than a contract which is awarded to find out whether there is a link between x and y.

FYI- My funding comes directly from the university which employs me. Our lab is supported by grants from both the University and the government. We are free to spend the money as we see fit, as long as it is pursuant to the goals of the research stated on our grant applications.

I need to get writing here. Though I must say procrastinating is quite a bit easier!

Aaron,
since I've already acknowledged I'm grumpy today (about the cold weather), can I ask you to be explicit?
Specifically, are you accusing Paul and I of being paid shills for (e.g.) Chinese solar power companies?
--Erik

Absoluty not, I'm not accusing Paul or you of anything. 😉

If I get hired by a private firm, I hope that I can maintain my integrity... I'll be lucky to get hired at all, truth be told!

You'll do good, keep trying. 😀