@Mirrorkisser

While some [often pharmaceutical] companies do engage scientists - but with very limited terms of reference so as to enhance their products, what's more common is not the result of the research but rather the decision not to publish the results which cross their table but do not serve the company's needs.

The tobacco industry, after trying this technique to prove smoking is not harmful, failed in their forays into science, but still managed to limp along selling cigarettes for another 20 or more years, claiming instead that there as "doubt" as to whether smoking caused cancer.

The Global Warming Denial industry have been accused of exactly the same tactics.

Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories

(relevant to this discussion for reasons which will become evident)

by University of Kent psychologists Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton in a paper entitled “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories,” published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science this past January. [2012]

From By Michael Shermer, Scientific Americain

The authors begin by defining a conspiracy theory as “a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal” that is “notoriously resistant to falsification … with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.” Once you believe that “one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy, [it] suggests that many such plots are possible.” With this cabalistic paradigm in place, conspiracies can become “the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system.”

The authors suggest there is a higher-order process at work that they call global coherence that overrules local contradictions: “Someone who believes in a significant number of conspiracy theories would naturally begin to see authorities as fundamentally deceptive, and new conspiracy theories would seem more plausible in light of that belief.” Moreover, “conspiracy advocates' distrust of official narratives may be so strong that many alternative theories are simultaneously endorsed in spite of any contradictions between them.” Thus, they assert, “the more that participants believe that a person at the centre of a death-related conspiracy theory, such as Princess Diana or Osama [bin] Laden, is still alive, the more they also tend to believe that the same person was killed, so long as the alleged manner of death involves deception by officialdom.

Now, does this not set any bells ringing? State-subsidised research into Climate Change being a [sinister plot revenue-earning scenario], etc etc? >

As Alex Jones proclaimed in Conspiracy Rising: “No one is safe, do you understand that? Pure evil is running wild everywhere at the highest levels.” On his Infowars.com Web site, Jones headlines his page with “Because There Is a War on for Your Mind.” True enough, which is why science and reason must always prevail over fear and irrationality, and conspiracy mongering traffics in the latter at the expense of the former.

Comment on this article at ScientificAmerican.com/sep2012

@Walker pulling the 'conspiracy nut' card now? As if your previous ad hominem attacks weren't enough. Stick with reason - the labelling of others as nuts, idiots, paranoids etc. won't do you any favours. Makes you sound like a red guard shouting 'beware - counter revolutionaries!'

@BlackLegSanji The temperature records are reconstructed from various sources of data depending on their length of record and quality of data. Obviously direct measurement is best, but the best satellite data is only about 30 years old and much of the early data was pretty crude. Before that, manual temperature readings were done, before that, tree-ring proxy data is used and before that, ice coring. That can take you back several thousand years with VERY careful work.

I'm going to attempt to link to nothing BUT research work being done by credible universities or professionals since a number of previous posts seem to skip over factual data and attempt to insinuate (poorly) that my links are not worthy of reading and also insinuating that I've linked to profiteering websites of people who secretly work for "The Man" somehow.

Since someone was stating that there were no papers, none, that dispute global warming, Here is a lengthy paper from Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank of The Gutenberg University, the Swiss Federal Research Institute, Finnish Forest Research Institute and Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research that clearly shows that temperatures were warmer 1000 years ago and again 2000 years ago:

http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Esper_etal.2012_GPC

With a graph pulled out for your viewing convenience:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/esper_2012_fig4.png?w=640&h=206

I've already linked to ice coring data that shows that CO2 increases follow temperature increases over the millennia, with pretty boring results. Up, down, up, down, the cycle goes, we just happen to be on the tip of an up cycle. That seems to have been completely overlooked in this thread, but I'm not surprised one bit. Opinions die hard and even plain data isn't enough to convince people who are emotionally invested in an idea.

However, since NOAA data is being cited but not really shown, here is a Greenland ice core that shows a number of things. One of which is that yes, there is an uptick in temperature in the last100 years. However, it also shows that in the last 1000 years, temperatures were MUCH warmer than they are now. Going back 5000 years, it shows that temperatures were MUCH warmer than the spike 1000 years ago, going back 10000 years shows that the temperature cycle over time is actually cooling, and going back 500000 years in Antarctica, shows a very clear cycle in the earth's climate.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

500 years graphed from the ice core data provided by NOAA:

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo61.png

1000 years:

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo5.png

5000 years:

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png

10K years:

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png

500K years (from Antarctica):

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png

Do these graphs make it clear yet?

The other problem is that even the most careful scientist can fall victim to his own bias (confirmation bias) and foul up his data reconstruction as was the result in Michael Mann's hockey stick graph or Ken Briffa's tree ring data, both shown to be inaccurate when compared to actual data.

Mann's hockey stick is alone in leaving out the Medieval Warm Period, which shows that temperatures were likely warmer than they are today, not to mention relying heavily on NWS surface station data that appears to be flawed (more on the surface station later):

A vehemently skeptical Australian website explains what happened to create the "hockey stick" graph that people use as "proof" of global warming:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

Mann backtracking on his work saying that it shouldn't have been taken as seriously as it was after his graph was proven to have grand flaws:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7849441/Michael-Mann-says-hockey-stick-should-not-have-become-climate-change-icon.html

Paywalled paper showing MWP being warmer than now, but you can still see a number of graphs:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212003926

Briffa's tree ring proxy data seems to be cherry picked featuring a single tree, but I'm not totally sold that he did this on purpose, however the Hadley Climate Research Unit has taken his data off their webpage and I'm having trouble finding a suitable link showing his result. I'll leave the other data to speak for itself:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/whats-going-on-cru-takes-down-briffa-tree-ring-data-and-more/

Whereas others have reconstructed tree ring proxy data and found the earth COOLING over time (from Nature, since others in this thread only seem to think magazine articles are worthy due to their peer review):

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1589.html

Or this one, from NOAA which shows that the same Yamal tree ring data that Briffa used showed completely flat results:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/hantemirov2002/hantemirov2002.html

So lets talk about some modern surface stations. The problem is that stations that were once situated properly are now too close to buildings, roads, airports and so forth, which biases their temperature readings upwards because all these man made objects either emit heat or trap natural heat and radiate it. You can read all about it and the VOLUNTEERS who check up on the stations when the NWS refuses to admit failure to adhere to their own standards for station siting here:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Once you take a look at the work these folks are doing, you'll see that much of the modern meteorological temp data is biased upwards and no attempt is made to unbias it, which results in a false sense of warming if you are only looking at raw data.

So there. Tons and tons of research being done by credible universities, professionals and volunteers that refute tons of the hear-say and rather dogmatic topics that many have brought up. I've attempted to bring a fact-driven argument to the table, so lets see who actually cares enough to review the data I've posted and engage in a fact-based discussion and who will continue to resort to emotional opinion and underhanded insults rather than post their own facts.

Oh and for good measure, here is a link to a list of 250 PEER REVIEWED skeptical papers on Climate Change:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

ok lets end this thread and all agree on: there is no global warming, no overfishing of the seas, no extinction of a dozen species everyday, no shrinking rainforrests, no racism, no lobbyism, bill clinton never got a bj by lewinsky, no starvation in the 3rd world, no radioactive radiation in fukushima and last but not least, just to repeat myself as you do: there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and we need guantanamo to defend our freedom!

and capitalism in its strongest form and hardcore neoliberalism are the tools to help the poor man, because the money works its way down to the bottom, thats why every american can have a decent life on one fulltimejob. and we should go on and make more and more debts, companies like the good people of halliburton need our money, so its best to ship taxes to the companies that do the best lobbyism, those honest folks deserve it!

palin for president!

@svart and please, you have hardly read anything that anybody here posted that contradicts your opinion. this thread died a long time ago, as nobody including you was able to discuss without emotions and nobody moved a single inch. @jrd was right. there is no point in posting the most convincing data in the world, you would not even read it and would not be willing to move one inch, so why bother...

three links just to make a short selection which show the dominant agreement among scientists and governments:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/08/science/earth/record-setting-heat-across-the-us-in-2012.html?ref=globalwarming&_r=0 warmest summer ever

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5911/240.short food shortage due to global warming

what would actually be the benefit of all those governments achknowledging global warming? all those debt ridden countries, who would prefer to invest their budgets in other areas.

@svart: good thing that those stations in the states might be influenced by other factors and dont give the real temperatures. i am sure the same applies for east africa, with its similiar infrastructure than the united states, all those buildings, airports and gas stations.... http://globalwarming.markey.house.gov/impactzones/eastafrica.html

Gonna throw my completely opinion driven non scientific hat into the ring just for fun. Do I believe that the Earth's Climate is slowly becoming Warmer? Yes

Do I believe that this will have several harmful side effects for Humans and Animals? Yes Do I think pollution is bad and that looking for Alternate sources of energy is good? Yes

Do I think that the Climate would not be changing if not for the industrial revolution? No.

Global Warming is inevitable, as is Global Cooling, the Earth's Climate has been changing since the beginning of the Earth. Super Volcanoes that erupt every 5 million years or so spew more C02 and other harmful gasses into the air in a few seconds than mankind has created since the 1800's, but the Earth recovers. (Albeit not without time and devastating loss of life.) My only real point is that while I believe ManKind's pollution does have an effect on the Earth, Some other problem will probably wipe us all out long before we destroy the planet, maybe we'll clean up our act and natural Climate Change will occur anyway. There have been Several Mass Extinctions since the dawn of the Earth, way before Man existed, so whether we cause it or not is silly to argue over.

Sources: Science Classes, Kindergarten - College Geology

The arguments over the science obviously won't be resolved here, unambiguous though the data is, but there's one argument adopted by the skeptics/deniers which is very puzzling: the claim that the U.S. government, in a conspiracy with the environmental movement, is promoting this huge global warming scam.

If you actually examine U.S. policy, foreign and domestic, the U.S. government is one of the major impediments, world-wide, to getting any real reduction in fossil fuel emissions. All it does is issue pious, insincere exhortations to Brazil and China, to make the sacrifices we ourselves won't make, because Exxon-Mobil's lobbyists won't let us.

I would also think you guys would be swayed by the ultimate arbiters of reality: the insurance industry. As has been pointed out, insurance companies believe in global warming (it's already showing up in your policy rates) and they have the data to prove it. And internal analyses at the Dept. of Defense regard global warming as a serious threat to national security.

But what the hell. As has also been pointed out, species last on average 100,000 years before heading for extinction, and we're overdue by that measure. Besides, with the increasing disparities in wealth, low wages and the growth of corporate power, people are more miserable than ever, and movies won't restore happiness.

I've quoted quite a few Wikipedia items, partly because, like academic papers, it's a peer-reviewed kind of shambolic academic paper. (Yeah yeah yeah we know what Wikipedia is).

But, since some of us may well have something to contribute , why don't we jump onto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and just edit out whatever we disagree with and replace it with our own?