Another Scientist Dissents against Anthropogenic Global Warming

[Snowlover123]

This is interesting. A Climate Scientist/Palaeotologist decided to voice his skeptical voice, which makes Dr. Geoff Deacon yet another dissenting scientist. He is proud about his skepticism, and isn't afraid to state his opinion on Climate Change.

Article Wrote:The palaeontologist sat back and watched as climate change and rising sea levels rapidly became a part of the public psyche, but he remains adamant that the rising sea is not a result of man-made global warming.

"In the aspect of anthropogenic global warming I'm a sceptic and proud...I would argue that every scientist is actually a sceptic," Dr Deacon says.

Dr Deacon says that by determining the temperature and carbon dioxide levels at which fossils first formed, "we see that actually the patterns that have occurred in the distant past are not really any different from what's happening now."

Unlike many environmental scientists who look back hundreds of years, Dr Deacon's research goes back hundreds of millions of years.

"Our earliest atmosphere had no oxygen in it and actually had carbon dioxide levels of about 10%," he says of Cambrian times some 600 million years ago.

Today's current carbon dioxide levels are at 0.038 %, "in geological terms the lowest level that we've actually had of carbon dioxide in earth's history."
Dr Deacon contends that humans increased production of carbon dioxide is making the world warmer, in fact scientific research shows that "as the earth warms, usually through natural causes, the carbon dioxide levels follow."

[Climate Realist]

Yes, this is the proper way to view climate, over hundreds of millions of years, not a few decades!

[Snowlover123]

(06-10-2011 12:56 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Yes, this is the proper way to view climate, over hundreds of millions of years, not a few decades!

I agree! And if we look over that timeframe, we can see that CO2 and temperature have no correlation at all, because bigger, more powerful natural cycles are at work.

---

A German Geology Professor rejects Mann's Sea Level Hysteria...

Quote:Detailed evaluation of temperature data shows a completely other picture: In many parts of the globe a rewarming took place after 1700, after the Little Ice Age, and has reached its peak in the mid 1990s. During this long period a number of warming and cooling phases took place, and were earlier often much stronger; the last pronounced warming phase took place in the first half of the 20th century, before man made carbon emissions; and since 1998 a new cooling phase has started in many regions of the earth, and is still taking place and is at times quite stark.

[Snowlover123]

And an Aussie Physicist now dissents against Man-Made Global Warming...

[Climate Realist]

We will see more scientists dissent as the false AGW theory from an alleged "greenhouse effect" unravels.

[Snowlover123]

(07-25-2011 12:54 PM)Climate Realist Wrote:  We will see more scientists dissent as the false AGW theory from an alleged "greenhouse effect" unravels.

Here's another one!

Climate Scientist Professor Murry Salby.

Quote:He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.

“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”

He also talks about something interesting that Dr. Spencer talked about earlier... that almost all of the rise in CO2 is natural. Dr. Salby indicates that 96% of the observed CO2 increase is from natural sources.

[Scpg02.]

(08-03-2011 09:16 PM)Snowlover123 Wrote:  

(07-25-2011 12:54 PM)Climate Realist Wrote:  We will see more scientists dissent as the false AGW theory from an alleged "greenhouse effect" unravels.

Here's another one!

Climate Scientist Professor Murry Salby.

Quote:He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.

“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”

He also talks about something interesting that Dr. Spencer talked about earlier... that almost all of the rise in CO2 is natural. Dr. Salby indicates that 96% of the observed CO2 increase is from natural sources.

The politics was settled but never the science though there was chosen science to support the desired political policy.

As for the CO2 increase, I agree with Ferdinand Englebeen on this one. Humans are responsible for the increase. I don't see that as lasting though.

[Climate Realist]

Don't be so sure even on humans being responsible for the increase! That has not been proven either!

[Scpg02.]

(08-04-2011 02:17 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Don't be so sure even on humans being responsible for the increase! That has not been proven either!

No I understand that and it all has to do with isotope ratios. I get it that man's contribution over all is small. I have a link to Ferdinand's work.

[Sunsettommy]

(08-04-2011 08:37 AM)Scpg02. Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 02:17 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Don't be so sure even on humans being responsible for the increase! That has not been proven either!

No I understand that and it all has to do with isotope ratios. I get it that man's contribution over all is small. I have a link to Ferdinand's work.

The problem is that Nature can produce the same isotopes we are blamed for emitting.Separating how much of it between Nature and man,being emitted is not established.

[Sunsettommy]

And right on cue,

Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans


Selected Excerpt:

Quote:Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.

Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

================================================================================​=============================================================

Ferdinand has been wrong for years.Now we have a science paper affirming the opposite position to Mr. Engelbeen.

He has posted a comment indicating that he believes DR. Salby is wrong.Despite that he has not yet read the UNPUBLISHED paper.



Biased?

In my forum are a few links that explains WHY Ferdinand is wrong.Maybe you have interest in what Alan Siddons and Joe D'Aleo has to say in one of the links.

[Scpg02.]

(08-04-2011 02:45 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 08:37 AM)Scpg02. Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 02:17 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Don't be so sure even on humans being responsible for the increase! That has not been proven either!

No I understand that and it all has to do with isotope ratios. I get it that man's contribution over all is small. I have a link to Ferdinand's work.

The problem is that Nature can produce the same isotopes we are blamed for emitting.Separating how much of it between Nature and man,being emitted is not established.

I disagree to a certain extent. I have to say that Ferdinand makes a very convincing case. Course he and Richard have gone around and around over this. I tended to tune out the argument.

---

(08-04-2011 03:45 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  And right on cue,

Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans


Selected Excerpt:

Quote:Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.

Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

================================================================================​=============================================================

Ferdinand has been wrong for years.Now we have a science paper affirming the opposite position to Mr. Engelbeen.

He has posted a comment indicating that he believes DR. Salby is wrong.Despite that he has not yet read the UNPUBLISHED paper.



Biased?

In my forum are a few links that explains WHY Ferdinand is wrong.Maybe you have interest in what Alan Siddons and Joe D'Aleo has to say in one of the links.

If I was interested in the argument I would have paid attention to what he and Richard were going on about. Doesn't interest me and I think it is a moot point anyway.

[Snowlover123]

I'm not actually sure if Professor Salby's 96% number is correct or not, because if his numbers were correct, then this is bascially the "death" of the AGW Theory, right here, so I'm naturally skeptical, since this is an extreme position that Dr. Salby is taking.

Something had to produce the temperature increase, which produced the increase in CO2. The answer? Cloud Changes due to GCRs.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry said that if he is correct, the whole AGW theory would have to be "revolutionized" which is pretty strong wording from her.

The IPCC would also have to revise their radiative forcing for anthropogenic CO2.

[Sunsettommy]

Wait until his paper is published.

[Sunsettommy]

Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases

I have more like this HERE