View Full Version : No more global warming?
Furunculus
04-07-2010, 13:11
what do you mean i am one of the biggest sceptics here?
there are plenty of people who have taken a much less sympathetic view of AGW than myself since the release of the climate-gate emails.
i have been a long-term sceptic for several years before November 2009*, so perhaps i loom large in the backroom consciousness, but that means i am consistent sceptic, and possibly even a credible sceptic, but not the the biggest (read: most extreme) sceptic.
* https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?122329-No-more-global-warming&p=2352391&viewfull=1#post2352391
^ bump ^
Furunculus
04-07-2010, 15:32
more evidence that orbital eccentricity plays a significant role in climate change:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18071
I was waiting for this to appear in this thread, but alas, it was too much to ask.
http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15905891
A place in the sun
The scientists in “climategate” did not fudge the data, a report finds
RON OXBURGH, breezily pushing his bicycle through a clot of journalists outside the press briefing he had just given, is a busy man happy to hurry. Critics of his investigation into the scientific probity of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia will hold that haste against him. In his time Lord Oxburgh has been head of the earth sciences department at Cambridge, chief scientific adviser to Britain’s defence ministry and, briefly, chairman of Shell. In March he was asked to lead an inquiry into the CRU’s main scientific findings, a matter of much debate ever since apparently hacked e-mails from the unit were made public less than five months ago. That he has reported so soon, and in a way that supports the CRU researchers, will be seen by many critics as de facto evidence of a whitewash.
Lord Oxburgh and his colleagues were not concerned with whether CRU’s scientific findings, which are based on records of temperature change from instruments and natural proxies, were correct. They were looking to see if the analysis had been biased and manipulated.
The inquiry panel looked at 11 CRU publications from the past 20 years, spent days talking to the researchers and looking at other documentation, and concluded that if there was any malpractice at CRU they probably would have found it. They found no such thing. Instead they found “dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers ill-prepared for public attention”.
The panel did express considerable surprise at the fact that the unit did not collaborate closely with professional statisticians. This is despite the fact that their work was “basically all statistics”, as one member of the panel, statistician David Hand, of Imperial College, London, put it. The report found that the CRU scientists would, had they been more statistically au fait, have done some things differently. The panel doubted that better methods would have materially changed the results.
Bloggers and others, mostly outside academia, who criticise CRU’s work and other climate science tend to lay much stress on statistical shortcomings. Dr Hand, who has a particular interest in scientific and financial fraud, has read a lot of this work. Dr Hand admires the meticulous work of Steve McIntyre, a mining consultant and blogger, who unearthed statistical problems in another climate analysis. This was a 1998 paper, not produced by CRU, that is now known as “the hockey stick”. Those problems served to enhance the prominence of recent warming in a thousand-year reconstruction of the northern hemisphere’s temperature, and have become a cause célèbre among sceptics.
When the Oxburgh report refers to the possibility of “inappropriate statistical tools…producing misleading results” in climate science, it is the hockey stick that it has in mind. But Dr Hand sees no evidence of anything as worrying as this in the CRU work. His concerns centred mostly on questions about the selection of data sets and the need for studies that showed how sensitive the results were to different selections of data. These are, in effect, what some critics are offering (though with what the report calls “a rather selective and uncharitable approach”), and the antagonism irritates Dr Hand. “What I want to do”, he says, “is bang their heads together and say ‘Sit down together and work out what’s going on’.”
Although the panel said the CRU scientists were careful with caveats, people who subsequently made use of their results, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sometimes oversimplified issues, underplaying possible errors. It also noted that the CRU should have archived data and algorithms better, but that this was a conclusion more easily drawn in hindsight. Having been in both academia and industry, Lord Oxburgh said he has no doubt that in industry, where companies, not researchers, own the data, the record-keeping would have been better, but that the team would have done much less good research. And looking back on his own academic work he showed a certain solidarity with his subject’s sloppiness: “I’m very grateful that the isotopic composition of helium has not become a key matter of public interest.”
I was waiting for this to appear in this thread, but alas, it was too much to ask.
I doubt Furunculus or Fragony would have posted that "climategate" was infact wrong. Weakens their own position.
a completely inoffensive name
04-21-2010, 06:01
I would like to kindly ask the moderators to change the title of the thread to "No more climate change?" since that is what scientists are warning about, not that things are simply getting hotter.
I doubt Furunculus or Fragony would have posted that "climategate" was infact wrong. Weakens their own position.
the butcher testing it's own meat as we say here http://www.nocapandtrade.com/michael-mann-controversy/ EDIT BREAKING NEWS GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO MOAR VULCANO ERUPTIONS I REPEAT and repeat and repeat
Banquo's Ghost
04-21-2010, 07:53
I would like to kindly ask the moderators to change the title of the thread to "No more climate change?" since that is what scientists are warning about, not that things are simply getting hotter.
It's Rhyfelwyr's thread. You need to make your case to him first. :bow:
Furunculus
04-21-2010, 08:38
I doubt Furunculus or Fragony would have posted that "climategate" was infact wrong. Weakens their own position.
i haven't made a huge fuss about the gates, and my position remains unchanged from that stated in my profile.
a) the IPCC has thus far failed to conclusively demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 is principally responsible for what will be catastrophic climate change in the near future, or that the many claimed impacts which justify the title “catastrophe” are based on solid and sound science.
b) the IPCC climate change models that underpin this conclusion have insufficient data for long term projections, do not properly account for feedback mechanisms and thus fail to produce accurate projections, and contain too many errors to produce truthful projections.
c) the political solutions to the problem as presented by the IPCC are both staggeringly expensive for human society, and highly inefficient as a method achieving a non-catastrophic outcome, and thus require a large amount of certainty in (a) and (b) before implementing (c) becomes a sensible idea.
the butcher testing it's own meat as we say here http://www.nocapandtrade.com/michael-mann-controversy/ EDIT BREAKING NEWS GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO MOAR VULCANO ERUPTIONS I REPEAT and repeat and repeat
That is not at all relevant. I fail to see how two Youtube comedy videos are an adequate response to your bogus "evidence".
i haven't made a huge fuss about the gates
I noticed that, and I commend you for it :bow:
a) the IPCC has thus far failed to conclusively demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 is principally responsible for what will be catastrophic climate change in the near future, or that the many claimed impacts which justify the title “catastrophe” are based on solid and sound science.
b) the IPCC climate change models that underpin this conclusion have insufficient data for long term projections, do not properly account for feedback mechanisms and thus fail to produce accurate projections, and contain too many errors to produce truthful projections.
c) the political solutions to the problem as presented by the IPCC are both staggeringly expensive for human society, and highly inefficient as a method achieving a non-catastrophic outcome, and thus require a large amount of certainty in (a) and (b) before implementing (c) becomes a sensible idea.
I'll respond to this later when I am at my computer at home, and have access to my Firefox bookmarks.
InsaneApache
04-21-2010, 15:50
Let's take a little look at Baron Oxburgh.
Ernest Ronald Oxburgh, Baron Oxburgh, KBE, FRS (born 2 November 1934) is an eminent geologist and geophysicist[1]. Lord Oxburgh is well known for his dedicated work as a public advocate in both academia and the business world in addressing the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and develop alternative energy sources. [2]
Who'd have thunk it. Not so much a whitewash as don.t bother washing at all. This is like Gordon Brown chairing an inquiry into why he sold off the gold at bargain basement figures. Typical of the UK this last decade or so. Never mind the truth if it gets in the way of raising more and more taxes. Dispicable.
Not unique to the UK, just about everything gets taxed because of the hoax. Of course the petrol-price was never won by the enviroment, bloody thieves
Louis VI the Fat
05-01-2010, 01:49
Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide
Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world's weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating
Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global warming in the Arctic have been released by the US military. The photographs, taken by spy satellites (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/satellites) over the past decade, confirm that in recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months.
The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week. President Barack Obama is currently trying to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change) caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
One particularly striking set of images - selected from the 1,000 photographs released - includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow. One, taken in July 2006, shows sea ice still nestling close to the shore. A second image shows that by the following July the coastal waters were entirely ice-free.
The photographs demonstrate starkly how global warming is changing the Arctic. More than a million square kilometres of sea ice - a record loss - were missing in the summer of 2007 compared with the previous year.
Nor has this loss shown any sign of recovery. Ice cover for 2008 was almost as bad as for 2007, and this year levels look equally sparse.
"These are one-metre resolution images, which give you a big picture of the summertime Arctic," said Thorsten Markus of Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre. "This is the main reason why we are so thrilled about it. One-metre resolution is the dimension that's been missing."
Linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration)
InsaneApache
05-01-2010, 02:28
What about the guy who's being sued for fraud by the Virginia AG?
As in Mann Made Global Warming.
Sorry guys, you ':daisy:' up and wht's more, the game is up.
Sad.
What about the guy who's being sued for fraud by the Virginia AG?
As in Mann Made Global Warming.
Sorry guys, you ':daisy:' up and wht's more, the game is up.
Sad.
What game are you on about? Ecological disastor is not a game.
Nice and all that but the poles aren't shrinking, which is hardly surprising.
Of course not. The ice caps at the poles are.
InsaneApache
05-01-2010, 12:52
What game are you on about? Ecological disastor is not a game.
The game is raising taxes to promote some loony agenda, vis-a-vis stripping the developed world of wealth and wholesale re-distributing it to the third world. That's the game that is up.
The game is raising taxes to promote some loony agenda, vis-a-vis stripping the developed world of wealth and wholesale re-distributing it to the third world. That's the game that is up.
Where is the wholeshale re-distributing to third world?
It is coming from taxes, to renewable energy projects. What is even more amusing, is that oil runs out around 20-50 years, so we have to invest in renewable energy sources anyway. :laugh4:
I really do not see the problem, we are facing 3 major issues (amongst many). The Major-Changes in Climate, Depletion of Fossil-fuels and the need for Energy Efficiency.
Want to know the solution for all three? Investment in renewable resources and increased energy efficieny.
Funny.
I don't see why investing in renewable energy, such as solar, wind, tidal, hydro etc. "redistributes money to the third world". Rather, our addiction to oil has resulted in a huge transfer of wealth from the First World to countries which would otherwise be members of the Third World, the Arab Countries.
Where is the wholeshale re-distributing to third world?
wut
a completely inoffensive name
05-02-2010, 06:58
I blame all this climate change denial from the movie Waterworld. That movie made a world of high sea levels cool, and now we are reaping the benefits as these kids have grown up into voting adults and have chosen the world of Waterworld over the world of today.
Why the the negativity, we aren't doomed, that's good news you should be happy. Next hoax please, I put 50 on water shortages plunging the world into CHAOS if we DO NO ACT RIGHT NOW.
InsaneApache
05-02-2010, 11:33
I blame all this climate change denial from the movie Waterworld. That movie made a world of high sea levels cool, and now we are reaping the benefits as these kids have grown up into voting adults and have chosen the world of Waterworld over the world of today.
For myself, I was thirty five when the movie came out, However, I'm flattered to be called a kid. Thanks very much.
You are never too old to get into boats though. What I want to know, what are YOU going to do to educate mother nature, what can we do to discourage the type of eruptive behaviour we have seen in Iceland.
IA, you never said how/where this re-distribution of wealth to the third-world is being done.
Why the the negativity, we aren't doomed, that's good news you should be happy. Next hoax please, I put 50 on water shortages plunging the world into CHAOS if we DO NO ACT RIGHT NOW.
Expect Water-shortage is an issue, because you need fresh water or ways to create the fresh-water. You cannot use Sea Water.
Also, the North Atlantic Current getting screwed over is a serious concern for Europe.
In Copenhagen that's where it's done
a completely inoffensive name
05-03-2010, 07:05
For myself, I was thirty five when the movie came out, However, I'm flattered to be called a kid. Thanks very much.
Thanks for looking at a joke and finding a way to interpret it as an insult. Should I be in the mood for insulting someone im more blunt about it.
Furunculus
05-03-2010, 08:35
IA, you never said how/where this re-distribution of wealth to the third-world is being done.
Expect Water-shortage is an issue, because you need fresh water or ways to create the fresh-water. You cannot use Sea Water.
Also, the North Atlantic Current getting screwed over is a serious concern for Europe.
and you never explained your statement describing me as 'the biggest sceptic here'.........?
Thanks for looking at a joke and finding a way to interpret it as an insult. Should I be in the mood for insulting someone im more blunt about it.
Jokes like that are normal when you aren't absolutely terrified of CO2, not our fault warmists dismis instead of debate, it usually comes with lolclevurthingies
a completely inoffensive name
05-04-2010, 07:25
Jokes like that are normal when you aren't absolutely terrified of CO2, not our fault warmists dismis instead of debate, it usually comes with lolclevurthingies
Are you attempting to secure your side as the ones with the high ground when it comes to respect? Because if so I have to inform you, after that disaster of a sentence, you are standing on the Mariana Trench.
Are you attempting to secure your side as the ones with the high ground when it comes to respect? Because if so I have to inform you, after that disaster of a sentence, you are standing on the Mariana Trench.
Nope I am just pointing out that jokes like that are normal. It is also normal that something irrelevant is clawed instead, in this case language skills.
and you never explained your statement describing me as 'the biggest sceptic here'.........?
Apologises, cannot remember the context. Though your priority on the issue is high, and you are a skeptic, so I presume that is why i said it.
However, I am still wonder where wealth is apparently being redistributed to the third-world in the name of climate change by the government, InsaneApache.
I know of a private non-government project who wants to build masses of solar pannels in the Sahara Desert to provide electric to both Europe and Africa. Only case I can think of and it is nothing related to the government. As for wealth redistribution, there are masses of charities, the fact we get chinese/african/etc workers to manufacture our goods, and other such things where wealth redistribution by private organisations are done. Only government one is the 0.7 humanitarian aid, which is nothing to do with Climate Change.
Furunculus
05-04-2010, 14:27
Apologises, cannot remember the context. Though your priority on the issue is high, and you are a skeptic, so I presume that is why i said it.
a refresher for you:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?122329-No-more-global-warming&p=2462493&viewfull=1#post2462493
;)
a refresher for you:
Ah, same context. Some one who is involved and looks at the figures, but is skeptical. InsaneApache said that "can't they just do a law or something and do it for basically free." I was saying then, that it isn't that simple, and that you yourself is against such a law as it will stunt the economy severely.
Wasn't used an insult. I was more invoking the "Furunculus", an argument technique whereby I call upon the user "Furunculus" in one of those rare occasions I have a disagreement with some one from the political opposition, which Furunculus is also a member, and in that area, both me and 'Furunculus' agree on a fact or situation (but might take different sides of it), as such, that user should read the postings of 'Furuculus' to become more enlightened in their opinion.
For example:
Beskar: "There will be effects on the economy, but these are for the greater good of a, b & z".
Furunculus: "I don't believe the cost on the economy is worth it, at such a time due to x, y & z".
InsaneApache in this example is: "It is a hoax, because they can just do it for free with a law."
I invoked the Furunculus, in regards that: "That is not true, as it is not free at all. As while I have no problem with the government doing it, this is however why Furunculus is against the measures."
Furunculus
05-04-2010, 15:51
lol, it should be enshrined in canon; "the Furunculus position"
lol, it should be enshrined in canon; "the Furunculus position"
I prefer the "The Furunculus manoeuvre", the manoeuvre where you tell your debating opponent to consult with some one with their own viewpoint what the issues actually are, for that viewpoint, in a debate.
Furunculus
05-04-2010, 16:15
I prefer the "The Furunculus manoeuvre", the manoeuvre where you tell your debating opponent to consult with some one with their own viewpoint what the issues actually are, for that viewpoint, in a debate.
done. :D
sigg'ied.
Ah, looks like high-priest of the Church of Global Warming isn't absolutely terrified of rising sea-levels, just as his electricity bill proved he isn't absolutely terrified of CO2.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/exclusive-estimate-carbon-footprint-of.html
Ah, looks like high-priest of the Church of Global Warming isn't absolutely terrified of rising sea-levels, just as his electricity bill proved he isn't absolutely terrified of CO2.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/exclusive-estimate-carbon-footprint-of.html
Now the question is where he gets his electricity from. I come from a country where close to a 100% of the electricity produced is renewable.
How interesting. When you're a "Rightist" (To use the inverse of Fragony's favourite word), it's good to say to put down opponents as utilising the "politics of envy" and "class warfare". But when that opponent is, say, a world renowned speaker on climate change, then it's OK to rant about the excesses of the wealthy :laugh4:
How interesting. When you're a "Rightist" (To use the inverse of Fragony's favourite word), it's good to say to put down opponents as utilising the "politics of envy" and "class warfare". But when that opponent is, say, a world renowned speaker on climate change, then it's OK to rant about the excesses of the wealthy :laugh4:
It's not a rant against the excesses of the wealthy, it's a rant against the hypocrisy of Al Gore. Nothing new really, it's been known since http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Gore's new villa is in Cali, so it probably gets some power from wind/solar, but judging from past actions it's unlikely he's paying the premiums to get all green energy.
Actually, anyone who cares about Climate Change doesn't give two hoots about Al Gore. I never cared for him, I haven't even seen his film.
How interesting. When you're a "Rightist" (To use the inverse of Fragony's favourite word), it's good to say to put down opponents as utilising the "politics of envy" and "class warfare". But when that opponent is, say, a world renowned speaker on climate change, then it's OK to rant about the excesses of the wealthy :laugh4:
Don't you think it's kinda funny if the man who warned the world for DEATH BY SEA buys a house at the coast?
Furunculus
05-15-2010, 12:52
der-spiegel has another big article about the climate-gate affair:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,694484,00.html
der-spiegel has another big article about the climate-gate affair:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,694484,00.html
It is surprising you posted that, you just made all the rabid Climate Skeptics look like sheeples for industry and big corperations which are desperate to cover up the facts and try to denounce it.
Then it is obvious that this abuse from the industry ended up meaning innocent people have to huddle together in the dark, scared, because of the witch-hunt.
Furunculus
05-16-2010, 13:19
you shouldn't be surprised i posted that, unless you have utterly failed to understand my position on climate change in spite of the many times i have explained it.
InsaneApache
05-22-2010, 13:06
Dear oh dear oh dear.
A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.
In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.
The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life.
By the way, the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists. I suggest you Google the term.
Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing the Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to when we will pass the tipping point and be helpless to stop the runaway Global Warming.
There are enormous quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and under the oceans in ice-like structures called clathrates. The methane in Arctic permafrost clathrates is estimated at 400 billion tons.
Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 billion tons of the gas.
The highest temperature increase from global warming is occurring in the arctic regions-an area rich in these unstable clathrates. Simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half the permafrost will thaw by 2050, and as much as 90 percent by 2100.
Peat deposits may be a comparable methane source to melting permafrost. When peat that has been frozen for thousands of years thaws, it still contains viable populations of bacteria that begin to convert the peat into methane and CO2.
Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. The west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70 billion tonnes of methane. Local atmospheric levels of methane on the Siberian shelf are now 25 times higher than global concentrations.
By the way, warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons have caused microbial activity to increase dramatically in the soil around the world. This, in turn, means that much of the carbon long stored in the soil is now being released into the atmosphere.
Releases of methane from melting oceanic clathrates have caused severe environmental impacts in the past. The methane in oceanic clathrates has been estimated at 10,000 billion tons.
55 million years ago a global warming chain reaction (probably started by volcanic activity) melted oceanic clathrates. It was one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events in geologic history.
Humans appear to be capable of emitting CO2 in quantities comparable to the volcanic activity that started these chain reactions. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, burning fossil fuels releases more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes.
Methane in the atmosphere does not remain long, persisting for about 10 years before being oxidized to CO2 (a greenhouse gas that lasts for hundreds of thousands of years). Chronic methane releases oxidizing into CO2 contribute as much to warming as does the transient methane concentrations.
To summarize, human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Bacteria converts carbon in the soil into greenhouse gasses, and enormous quantities are trapped in unstable clathrates. As the earth continues to warm, permafrost clathrates will thaw; peat and soil microbial activity will dramatically increase; and, finally, vast oceanic clathrates will melt. This global warming chain reaction has happened in the past.
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose by a record amount over the past year. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply. Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear the trend could be the first sign of runaway global warming.
Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.
Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
I don't know what I'm getting smug about. There's only two years left. Run for the hills! :laugh4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=louXPUW7tHU
Owwwwwwwwwwwww 4.5 billion will be DEAD. Not alive. Muerto. IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW
Forgive me mother nature for I bought kewl stuff.
WE ARE DOOMED
if validated
It pains me that I have to actually point this out.
InsaneApache
05-22-2010, 23:51
It pains me that I have to actually point this out.
So, you agree, the writer was wrong then?
(It's called a start. You befriend them, put a arm around their shoulder, then hold a mirror up to the face)
So, you agree, the writer was wrong then?
No, he said it wasn't validated yet, which means it is in that terrority of "we don't know" the merits of that theory yet.
InsaneApache
05-23-2010, 01:35
No, he said it wasn't validated yet, which means it is in that terrority of "we don't know" the merits of that theory yet.
Hang on a minute. According to the 'climologists' the science is settled. So which is it?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-23-2010, 01:52
No, he said it wasn't validated yet, which means it is in that terrority of "we don't know" the merits of that theory yet.
4.5 million dead would be a good thing for the planet though, wouldn't it? If you're a Gaiaist surely this is just mother nature bitch-slapping hummanity back down to a reasonable population size.
2 years is absurd, even assuming systemic collapse of global society and economy people will persit in larger numbers longer than that.
Interestingly, the Climate Change lobby has been very seriously hurt by A: the attack of science on religion and philosophy and B: the recent scandals of scientists "sexing" up their data because they feel they need to scare the general populace into complience. "climate Change" is now being lumped in with "moral reletivism" as well as "militant atheism" and "multiculturalism".
Bluntly, the physical scientists would probably be getting more traction if men like Dawkins had confined themselves to useful research instead of populist rubbish, and we might all suffer as a result.
The fact is, it's quite clear that the scientists aren't really sure what's going on, but instead of trying to present the ecological and economic case for renewable energy and sustainabl development, not to mention the moral case on which they are silent, they resort to absurd scare tactics that cause them to be generally ignored.
LittleGrizzly
05-23-2010, 04:34
I don't know if you read the article but it seemed to be a theory of one of the effects climate change could have and the potential acceleration it could cause, an unvalidated thoery which is an addition to exsisting thought on the matter is of no consequence to the original matter...
For example if i had a theory on a side effect of gravity which was not yet validated that would not make a difference to the validity of gravity, gravity is fully validated it is my new theory which is yet to be approved.
It pains me that I have to actually point this out.
You and me bro. But it's so much easier to say it's a given and print it in schoolbooks. Kids are easier to scare. And repeat repeat keep repeating.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-23-2010, 10:02
I don't know if you read the article but it seemed to be a theory of one of the effects climate change could have and the potential acceleration it could cause, an unvalidated thoery which is an addition to exsisting thought on the matter is of no consequence to the original matter...
For example if i had a theory on a side effect of gravity which was not yet validated that would not make a difference to the validity of gravity, gravity is fully validated it is my new theory which is yet to be approved.
I did read the article, and I recognise the theory as something that has been mooted for several years. The problem is that although it makes a reasonable amount of sense the theory is, like the rest of the climate change hypothesis, incomplete; it lacks experimental data. What we see with the whole thing, again and again, is a constant modifiction of the theory as new conceptsd are bolted on, or the planet's failure to perform as expected has to be taken into account. There's nothing to say that, for example, a rapid warming will not trigger another process that causes rapid cooling.
Honestly, if the science really was closed then the developed world would be working a lot harder at this, and they would be enforcing change on the developing world. Right now the inaction of countries due to an insufficient feeling of urgency is the greatest argument against the whole edifice.
I mean, look at what the author is saying; in the next 2 years the breadbaskets (most of which are in the developed world) will litterally burn up to dust. That won't happen, because if it did get that hot then the relevent governments would intervene and irrugate the land to prevent complete destruction.
Furunculus
05-23-2010, 10:13
i don't know that paper is descibing the theory as brand new, i have a distinct memory of talking with my boss about the feedback loop from methane release of warming permafrost all the way back in 2005!
we did run an envirmental company tho.
Hang on a minute. According to the 'climologists' the science is settled. So which is it?
There is a consensus that human activity is warming the planet, and we have some pretty good ideas by how much, but that doesn't mean that climatologists shut themselves off from all new theories which may add to that.
4.5 million dead would be a good thing for the planet though, wouldn't it? If you're a Gaiaist surely this is just mother nature bitch-slapping hummanity back down to a reasonable population size.
I couldn't care less about the natural world. The sodding polar bears can drown for all I care. I care about people.
People in the artic regions do care about polar bears, there are too many of them they are a serious problem. These wooly buggers are thriving, almost trippled in population since the fifties. Good news no? Waving not drowning.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-23-2010, 10:45
I couldn't care less about the natural world. The sodding polar bears can drown for all I care. I care about people.
That is exactly the attitude that has caused the problem to begin with!
If people cared about the planet then we would already be doing everything needful to stop global warming, even if we didn't believe in it. The failure of the ideaology of human stewardship has caused every major ecological disaster. Consider, for example, the recent oil spill and the decidedly lacklustre response.
Dinosaurs probably more than tripled in population from 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. What's your point?
Dinosaurs probably more than tripled in population from 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. What's your point?
That the symbol that is drowning fluffies is just useless as the rest of the settled science. Polar bears are bouncing.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-23-2010, 17:23
Dinosaurs probably more than tripled in population from 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. What's your point?
What's yours? An asteroid wiped out the Dinosaurs.
That the symbol that is drowning fluffies is just useless as the rest of the settled science.
Yawn.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers [on climate change] were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.That is settled science. You really need to come up with some new good factually correct arguments.
Polar bears are bouncing.
No, they're not, and you know it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
What's yours? An asteroid wiped out the Dinosaurs.
Exactly :brood:
The fact that Polar bears may have done well in the past is irrelevant. They are suffering now.
But like I said, I do not give a flying **** about the polar bears. The polar bears can all be cut up to make poison liver and onions for all I care. I'm concerned about the effect climate change will have on people, not animals.
Pick one you like http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&source=hp&q=polar+bear+thriving&btnG=Google+zoeken
Fragony is correct, but he forgets something.
Polar Bears are thriving because of climate change, because the snow and ice is melting, there is more land and plants, producing resources for Polar bear food.
gaelic cowboy
05-24-2010, 18:09
Is it not more likely that the polar bears have moved south to eat peoples rubbish and cats and dogs etc rather than eating seals. The loss of sea ice benefit's the seal because the bear requires it to sneak up on the pups to catch them. Also there may be more polar bears in a given area but I suspect not in an overall context the history of man is the history of the destruction of megafauna and this will continue.
Also this may be an example of whats know as prey switching that is usually a sign of something being wrong in an area or evidence of a collapse of a particular prey a good example of a switching predator is man or funnily enough a hedgehog if you don't mind.
wikipedia prey switching sorry I know wiki but could only find this link handily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prey_switching)
Furunculus
05-25-2010, 19:06
29 months late and utterly distorted:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100041030/pope-catholic-night-follows-day-ipcc-found-telling-pack-of-lies-about-sea-level-rises/
"Pack of lies" seems disproportionate.
Furunculus
05-26-2010, 09:20
i think it is quite appropriate for the following statements:
1. The science is settled
2. It was agreed by the 'consensus' of scientific opinion
3. It was achieved using the highest standards of peer reviewed science
"Pack of lies" seems disproportionate.
Don't you know it huh.
@Beskar, not forgetting anything, they used to melt and now they don't. Polar bears aren't any less perfectly fine. As a symbol it's useless.
Surprisingly secular opinion in de Volkskrant about DEATH BY ACID RAIN. The flaggalants knew that ALL the forest would be GONE in FIVE years. Leading to an ECOLOGICAL HOLOCAUST, causing MASS STARVATION and GLOBAL WAR, IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW.
(Dutch) http://extra.volkskrant.nl/opinie/artikel/show/id/5885/Waarom_sterven_onze_bossen_niet%3F
save the earth
SO2 emissions have been drastically reduced in Western Europe over the past 10-20 years. Complaining that there is now no acid rain is bizarre and strange.
It's the alarmism that matters, same hysteria. When I got my indoctrination I had to be absolutely terrified of sulphur. Now industry in Russia and China is still dirty but nobody is absolutely terrified of sulphur anymore, the trees didn't die and the dead lakes were full of fish. Enter CO2.
But the polar bears aren't drowning, and temperatures aren't rising. Global Warming lost it's shine. Minister of carrots knew that we will be EXTINCT by 2050 but we are all like yeahrite
What is finally finish us all of? I say water shortages are our new DOOM.
Shame the same couldn't be said about those limestone statues.
Louis VI the Fat
05-27-2010, 14:52
It's the alarmism that matters, same hysteria. When I got my indoctrination I had to be absolutely terrified of sulphur. Now industry in Russia and China is still dirty but nobody is absolutely terrified of sulphur anymore, the trees didn't die and the dead lakes were full of fish. Enter CO2.But Russia and China do suffer from major pollution problems.
The famous perennial fog in London of Jack the Ripper's time was not fog, but dirty smoke. It has since been cleaned up and it turned out London is not a climatic peculiarity.
In recent years, fish have returned into the Seine, and into many other western rivers - the stories about their pollution were real after all.
Global warming strikes me as real too. However, alarmist 'we are all going to die for our sins' does the case a disservice.
I disagree that Global Warming is the great, single threat to our environment, that requires a singularly great overhaul. The entirerity of our enviromental problems need to be tackled. I'd rather money was spend on preserving ecosystems than on 'buying' emission rights.
gaelic cowboy
05-27-2010, 14:59
Now industry in Russia and China is still dirty but nobody is absolutely terrified of sulphur anymore
Frag does anyone even have the right to call a stop to pollution in china or russia do there government's even care??????? past experience tells us they do not give a fig for there peoples health.
No one is terrified of sulphur anymore because we took most of it out of the cycle years ago. The sulphur that is emmited in the west is now in a more acceptable range, however dont mistake acceptable range for no effect.
Furunculus
05-27-2010, 16:49
Global warming strikes me as real too. However, alarmist 'we are all going to die for our sins' does the case a disservice.
I disagree that Global Warming is the great, single threat to our environment, that requires a singularly great overhaul. The entirerity of our enviromental problems need to be tackled. I'd rather money was spend on preserving ecosystems than on 'buying' emission rights.
very sensible view.
It's the alarmism that matters, same hysteria. When I got my indoctrination I had to be absolutely terrified of sulphur. Now industry in Russia and China is still dirty but nobody is absolutely terrified of sulphur anymore, the trees didn't die and the dead lakes were full of fish. Enter CO2
So the science doesn't matter? How convenient, seeing as it's snuggles in nicely with your opinion.
But the polar bears aren't drowning
Why do you think I care about polar bears? Also, you're wrong.
What is finally finish us all of? I say water shortages are our new DOOM.
Nah, the Netherlands will be underwater, and Muslim-free by the time that starts to become a problem :yes:
InsaneApache
05-27-2010, 23:48
Flipancy is one thing dear boy, sarcasm is another.
Now did you wash behind your ears and clean your teeth before bedybyes?
:balloon2:
So the science doesn't matter? How convenient
For eco-apocalyptoloco's science indeed doesn't matter. It's a religion that filled up a gap. Like in the more hardcore versions of Christianity we are born sinners and must prepare for the end-days, the ecologicall holocaust. Nothing ever really changes men feels unworthy, in times of prosperity there will always be people who feel we are messing with the holy balance.
@Louis if you care about enviroment stop strangling the economy with useless eco-taxes. As society grows richer clean nature becomes a commodity, people like a clean enviroment. Less money, other priorities.
Furunculus
05-28-2010, 07:57
Nah, the Netherlands will be underwater, and Muslim-free by the time that starts to become a problem :yes:
unnecessary trolling.
Not sure it might just be a real argument to him, linking global warming to ethnic cleansing isn't really that uncommon.
InsaneApache
05-28-2010, 08:46
Seems that the Royal Society is getting it's knickers in a twist....
The UK's Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.
They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.
The society's ruling council has responded by setting up a panel to produce a consensus document.
The panel should report in July and the report is to be published in September.
It is chaired by physicist John Pethica, vice-president of the Royal Society.
Its deliberations are reviewed by two critical sub-groups, each believed to comprise seven members.
Each of these groups contains a number of society Fellows who are doubtful in some way about the received view of the risks of rising CO2 levels.
Continue reading the main story
It's not clear to me how we are going to get precise agreement on the wording
Review member
One panel member told me: "The timetable is very tough - one draft has already been rejected as completely inadequate."
The review member said it might not be possible for the document to be agreed at all. "This is a very serious challenge to the way the society operates," I was told. "In the past we have been able to give advice to governments as a society without having to seek consensus of all the members.
"There is very clear evidence that governments are right to be very worried about climate change. But in any society like this there will inevitably be people who disagree about anything - and my fear is that the society may become paralysed on this issue."
Another review member told me: "The sceptics have been very strident and well-organised. It's not clear to me how we are going to get precise agreement on the wording - we are scientists and we're being asked to do a job of public communication that is more like journalism."
But both members said they agreed that some of the previous communications of the organisation in the past were poorly judged.
Question everything
A Royal Society pamphlet Climate Change Controversies is the main focus of the criticism. A version of it is on the organisation's website. It was written in response to attacks on mainstream science which the Royal Society considered scurrilous.
It reads: "This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change…"
One Fellow who said he was not absolutely convinced of the dangers of CO2 told me: "This appears to suggest that anyone who questions climate science is malicious. But in science everything is there to be questioned - that should be the very essence of the Royal Society. Some of us were very upset about that.
"I can understand why this has happened - there is so much politically and economically riding on climate science that the society would find it very hard to say 'well, we are still fairly sure that greenhouse gases are changing the climate' but the politicians simply wouldn't accept that level of honest doubt."
Another society protester said he wanted to be called a climate agnostic rather than a sceptic. He said he wanted the society's website to "do more to question the accuracy of the science on climate feedbacks" (in which a warming world is believed to make itself warmer still through natural processes).
"We sent an e-mail round our friends, mainly in physical sciences," he said.
"Then when we had got 43 names we approached the council in January asking for the website entry on climate to be re-written. I don't think they were very pleased. I don't think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the society.
"But we won the day, and the work is underway to re-write it. I am very hopeful that we will find a form of words on which we can agree.
"I know it looks like a tiny fraction of the total membership (1,314) but remember we only emailed our friends - we didn't raise a general petition."
Precautionary principle
He said the agnostics were also demanding a "more even-handed" bibliography.
The first "climate agnostic" also said he was angry at previous comments from the previous president Lord May who declared: "The debate on climate change is over."
Lord May was once quoted as saying: "'On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots."
One source strongly criticised the remarks.
Lord May's comments were made at a time when world scientists were reaching a consensus (not unanimity) that CO2 had warmed the planet and would probably warm it more - maybe dangerously so.
Lobbyists funded by the fossil fuel industry were fighting to undermine that consensus and science academies were concerned that public doubt might deter governments from taking precautionary action to reduce emissions of CO2.
Climate change doubters among the society's Fellows say that in their anxiety to support government action, the academies failed to distinguish between "hired guns" and genuine scientific agnostics wanting to explore other potential causes of climate change.
The remit of the society panel is to produce a new public-facing document on what scientists know, what they think they know and which aspects they do not fully understand. The task is to make the document strong and robust.
It should answer the complaint that previous communications have failed to properly explain uncertainties in climate science.
Language of risk
At the Heartland Institute climate sceptics conference in Chicago, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), criticised the current society president Lord Rees for what he described as exaggerating the certainty in a joint public letter with Ralph Cicerone, president of the US National Academy of Sciences.
The letter, published by the Financial Times newspaper, states: "Something unprecedented is now happening. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising and climate change is occurring, both due to human actions…. Uncertainties in the future rate of (temperature) rise, stemming largely from the 'feedback' effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research."
Professor Lindzen says the "unprecedented" statement is misleading because neither the current warming nor the CO2 level are unprecedented. He complains that the statement on uncertainties is also misleading because it does not reveal that uncertainties about future climate projections are, in his view, immense.
A spokesman for the society defended the letter, saying that the rise in man-made CO2 was indeed unprecedented. But Professor Lindzen told me: "This is part of an inflation of a scientific position which has sadly become rather routine for spokesmen for scientific bodies."
The forthcoming Royal Society publication - if it can be agreed by the review panel - will be scrutinised closely because the society carries huge weight in global science. Under Lord May it was prime mover of a joint letter of international academies stating that climate change was a major concern.
The comments from the current president Lord Rees in his first Reith lecture next week are rather carefully measured and couched in the language of risk rather than certainty - but even in this speech, critics are likely to say that in some particulars he does not sufficiently distinguish between what is certain and what is very widely believed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm
Furunculus
05-28-2010, 08:52
about time they got their act together, that the home of modern science has become so banal and partisan is a serious embarrassment in recent times.
Climate-agnost, why didn't think that, perfectly illustrates where serious science and absolute faih collide.
For eco-apocalyptoloco's science indeed doesn't matter. It's a religion that filled up a gap. Like in the more hardcore versions of Christianity we are born sinners and must prepare for the end-days, the ecologicall holocaust. Nothing ever really changes men feels unworthy, in times of prosperity there will always be people who feel we are messing with the holy balance..
So I was right.
unnecessary trolling.
No, a valid point.
Not sure it might just be a real argument to him, linking global warming to ethnic cleansing isn't really that uncommon.
[Citation Needed]
So I was right.
Only if I suddenly turned into a believer. Which I didn't. Read IA article if you can see it, speaks volumes of why climate change is needed, the scientific climate that is.
a valid point only in the bizar logic of der linkschmensch by the way. I am used to it but it remains fascinating.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-28-2010, 10:49
The famous perennial fog in London of Jack the Ripper's time was not fog, but dirty smoke. It has since been cleaned up and it turned out London is not a climatic peculiarity.
In recent years, fish have returned into the Seine, and into many other western rivers - the stories about their pollution were real after all.
Global warming strikes me as real too. However, alarmist 'we are all going to die for our sins' does the case a disservice.
I disagree that Global Warming is the great, single threat to our environment, that requires a singularly great overhaul. The entirerity of our enviromental problems need to be tackled. I'd rather money was spend on preserving ecosystems than on 'buying' emission rights.
I very much agree. Pollution is clearly a problem, but it's also clear that we in the West have already done a lot to combat it. "Climate Change" may be less of an issue, and the whole edifice would be irrelevant if we just lowered pollution.
For eco-apocalyptoloco's science indeed doesn't matter. It's a religion that filled up a gap. Like in the more hardcore versions of Christianity we are born sinners and must prepare for the end-days, the ecologicall holocaust. Nothing ever really changes men feels unworthy, in times of prosperity there will always be people who feel we are messing with the holy balance.
I think this is very perceptive; see, this is what happens when you rubbish your traditional religion. The young just choose between different flavours of madness.
InsaneApache
05-28-2010, 11:25
‘Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban... At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals ... If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’
Animal Farm. George Orwell.
Smart man. Goebels once said that if you make lie big enough people will believe it. I disagree it's not supposed to convince anyone, the purpose is to make people part of the lie, the more outragious the better.
Louis VI the Fat
05-28-2010, 12:00
'Goebbels' - now that's taking it all too far. It's conspiracy thinking. As useless as saying that 4.5 billion people will die by 2012.
It is commonly accepted science that atmospheric make-up is a factor in climate. Greenhouse gasses do exist, and it's in little dispute they are a factor in earth's and Venus' climate.
Shaka_Khan
05-28-2010, 12:23
Let's wait and see how warm this summer gets.
Smart man. Goebels once said that if you make lie big enough people will believe it. I disagree it's not supposed to convince anyone, the purpose is to make people part of the lie, the more outragious the better.
So now I'm a Nazi SOB! :2thumbsup:
And apparently, I'm the troll for a sly reference to another one of Fragony' nutty beliefs.
But let's get down to business. You (I.e. Fragony, IA et al) say that climate change is fanciful, the work of some conspiracy by "them" and obviously a plot by "eco-apocalyptolocos ". I have provided absolutely LOADS of examples of peer reviewed papers, statistics about peer review papers etc. to show that there is a scientific consensus that man's actions are having an effect on the climate on the planet. I do not mean evidence as in one nutty, non-scientists "opinion" on some crackpot blog (Delingpole et al), or written in some crackpot newspaper (Daily Torygraph, cough). I do not mean evidence as in comparisons betwen the failure of the catastrophic disasters predicted of acid rain, should we fail to act on acid rain, which did not happen because action was taken on acid rain, and climate change.
However, you appear to have provided as evidence all the things which I have shown to be "bad" evidence. You have not provided any peer reviewed scientific studies from within the past twenty years or so showing that the Earth is in fact cooling. You have not provided any evidence of who these "eco-nutters" might be, and what form of conspiracy they are forming, or how they will gain from it. The onus is on you now. Prove that the Earth is cooling. Prove that CO2 has no impact on the capture of radiation from the Sun reflecting from the Earth. Prove that there is a conspiracy.
Or are you just wrong?
InsaneApache
05-28-2010, 13:02
So now I'm a Nazi SOB! :2thumbsup:
And apparently, I'm the troll for a sly reference to another one of Fragony' nutty beliefs.
But let's get down to business. You (I.e. Fragony, IA et al) say that climate change is fanciful, the work of some conspiracy by "them" and obviously a plot by "eco-apocalyptolocos ". I have provided absolutely LOADS of examples of peer reviewed papers, statistics about peer review papers etc. to show that there is a scientific consensus that man's actions are having an effect on the climate on the planet. I do not mean evidence as in one nutty, non-scientists "opinion" on some crackpot blog (Delingpole et al), or written in some crackpot newspaper (Daily Torygraph, cough). I do not mean evidence as in comparisons betwen the failure of the catastrophic disasters predicted of acid rain, should we fail to act on acid rain, which did not happen because action was taken on acid rain, and climate change.
However, you appear to have provided as evidence all the things which I have shown to be "bad" evidence. You have not provided any peer reviewed scientific studies from within the past twenty years or so showing that the Earth is in fact cooling. You have not provided any evidence of who these "eco-nutters" might be, and what form of conspiracy they are forming, or how they will gain from it. The onus is on you now. Prove that the Earth is cooling. Prove that CO2 has no impact on the capture of radiation from the Sun reflecting from the Earth. Prove that there is a conspiracy.
Or are you just wrong?
First off science is not about concensus. Your confusing science with politics.
Secondly it's not up to us to prove anything. You're the ones running around saying "We're all doomed" so in fact it's up to you lot to prove it conclusively.
Thirdly any science that 'sexes up' any data is not science, it's bunkem.
That is all.
Louis VI the Fat
05-28-2010, 13:03
So now I'm a Nazi SOB! :2thumbsup:
And apparently, I'm the troll for a sly reference to another one of Fragony' nutty beliefs.No, Frags describes AGW as scaremongering propaganda by using an insight about how propaganda functions that he derived from propaganda master Goebbels.
The point of debate is not to provide arguments for one's own case, then curse and swear on your opponent until he admits he's wrong, and a nutter to boot.
I think this is very perceptive; see, this is what happens when you rubbish your traditional religion. The young just choose between different flavours of madness.
So religion is incompatible with science? I guess that explains why I'm an athiest :beam:
First off science is not about concensus. Your confusing science with politics.
It is about the search for truth, and the generally accepted truth amongst climatologists is that man's actions are causing climate change. Policy decisions by governments and economic agents have to be taken within the scientific consensus, otherwise you end up with incidents like tribesmen in Nigeria refusing the Polio vaccine, as vaccines are obviously a Western Neo-Colonialist conspiracy.
Secondly it's not up to us to prove anything. You're the ones running around saying "We're all doomed" so in fact it's up to you lot to prove it conclusively.
.
I have provided numerous serious examples of evidence detailing that, contrary to what Fragony says, there is a consensus (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf) 97.5% of climatologists agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?), that the Earth is in fact warming (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml) + http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html) + http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif (http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif)) and that climate change will be extremely damaging to the environment and human civilisation.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html
http://oem.bmj.com/content/64/12/827.short These findings suggest that increases in heat-related mortality due to global warming are unlikely to be compensated for by decreases in cold-related mortality and that population acclimatisation to heat is still incomplete.
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/JuneICICLE.pdf
Our preliminary estimate using these models is that the public infrastructure at risk, or vulnerable, after accounting for likely adaptations, is in the range of $3.6 to $6.1 billion for the period 2006 to 2030 and from $5.6 to $6.7 billion, for the longer planning horizon to 2080. Without adaptations, the long-run costs could be billions of dollars higher. - And that's just Alaska(!)
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214.full (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214.full) Other direct impacts of global warming, such as sea level rising, spread of tropical diseases, increase of extreme weather events and glacial retreat, would also add costs on the current economy that is supported by cheap energy. In severe cases, the economic burden would cause conflict for resources and intensify social contradictions and unrest as we have seen in the past. However, we believe that the greater threat from global warming comes from the uncertainty of the ecosystem change, because the current high global average temperature (which has never been experienced in the last two millennia) is continuing to rise at an accelerated speed. Perhaps we are reaching the point at which it might break the balance of a human ecosystem that has been long established at a lower temperature, and in addition, many secondary and tertiary effects of global warming cannot be predicted based on current knowledge.
http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&theSitePK=469372&piPK=64165421&menuPK=64166322&entityID=000016406_20070209161430 (http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&theSitePK=469372&piPK=64165421&menuPK=64166322&entityID=000016406_20070209161430) Sea level rise (SLR) due to climate change is a serious global threat. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions and associated global warming could well promote SLR of 1m-3m in this century, and unexpectedly rapid breakup of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets might produce a 5m SLR.
And once again, contrary to what Fragony says, polar bears will suffer a decline in population of over 2/3rds over the coming 50 years.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_Amstrup_Forecast_lowres.pdf
Your turn.
Thirdly any science that 'sexes up' any data is not science, it's bunkem.
So, one, maybe two mistakes, in one research paper, created by hundreds of climatologists instantly discredits the entire hypothesis? Maybe if this sort of standard was applied to climate change deniers, then we would all have agreed that man-made climate change was reality by now!
No, Frags describes AGW as scaremongering propaganda by using an insight about how propaganda functions that he derived from propaganda master Goebbels.
So, he called me and all the scientists a Nazi. So much for debate without "cursing and swearing on your opponent" :2thumbsup:
The point of debate is not to provide arguments for one's own case, then curse and swear on your opponent until he admits he's wrong, and a nutter to boot.
Is this directed towards me or Frags? I honestly can't tell.
InsaneApache
05-28-2010, 16:01
The problem the alarmists have is credibility. More than once or twice the warmists have been found, well quite frankly, making things up.
Little lads and wolves spring to mind.
Subotan my curiosity wins over, the type of curiosity that makes people slow down when they see an accident. Please keep posting.
The problem the alarmists have is credibility. More than once or twice the warmists have been found, well quite frankly, making things up.
Little lads and wolves spring to mind.
Many many many more times have climate change deniers been found making stuff up.
One, random example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/30/climate-change-scepticism-climate-change
Little lads and wolves spring to mind.
I've always thought of Deniers as having a "Three Wise Monkeys" attitude :yes:
Subotan my curiosity wins over, the type of curiosity that makes people slow down when they see an accident. Please keep posting.
So you don't have any evidence? How very expected.
Many many many more times have climate change deniers been found making stuff up.
One, random example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/30/climate-change-scepticism-climate-change
I've always thought of Deniers as having a "Three Wise Monkeys" attitude :yes:
So you don't have any evidence? How very expected.
how about the earth not warming up. It really doesn't, and don't get any stupid ideas and don't say expected when you really mean agreement. Muslims aren't dying either but I can hold them back not trhat much longer. Or more general terms, you annoy me.
InsaneApache
05-28-2010, 18:51
I actually object to being called a denier, what with all those connotations with the holocaust. As I said previously in this thread, I started out believing that there was indeed global warming and that it was, in the main, caused by mankind. I started getting suspicious about four or five years ago and finally decided that I'd been a mug and lied to with Manns dicredited hockey stick and latterly my suspicions were confirmed by Phil 'hide the decline' Jones and the shower over at the UEA.
If they want to get me and my kind back on board then it's simple. Stop manipulating data, in other words, stop bloody well lying.
Why did you fall for it in the first place, it keeps amazing me. Calling non-lemmings deniers isn't an accident language is a powerful tool. Holocaust t t t
Banquo's Ghost
05-29-2010, 12:59
This is a topic that provokes emotional responses, but I would be grateful if we returned to a more civil debate without the snide remarks, generalisations and petty insults now beginning to fly about.
More light, less heat, one might say.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Why in green, et tu BG, et tu?(!)
InsaneApache
05-29-2010, 17:02
Why did you fall for it in the first place, it keeps amazing me. Calling non-lemmings deniers isn't an accident language is a powerful tool. Holocaust t t t
I was just a callow youth with limited experience of the world and thought I knew it all. Now I know how ignorant I am.
InsaneApache
06-04-2010, 10:51
Remember all those isalnds that are being swamped because of global warming? Remember the government of one of the said island holding a cabinet meeting underwater wearing scuba gear? Well the way things are going, they will need oxygen masks and crampons.*
A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment.
The study, published in the magazine the New Scientist, predicts that the islands will still be there in 100 years' time.
However it is still unsure whether many of them will be inhabitable.
In recent times, the inhabitants of many low-lying Pacific islands have come to fear their homelands being wiped off the map because of rising sea levels.
But this study of 27 islands over the last 60 years suggests that most have remained stable, while some have actually grown.
Using historical photographs and satellite imaging, the geologists found that 80% of the islands had either remained the same or got larger - in some cases, dramatically so.
They say it is due to the build-up of coral debris and sediment, and to land reclamation.
Associate Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University, who took part in the study, says the islands are not in immediate danger of extinction.
"That rather gloomy prognosis for these nations is incorrect," he said.
"We have now got the evidence to suggest that the physical foundation of these countries will still be there in 100 years, so they perhaps do not need to flee their country."
But although these islands might not be submerged under the waves in the short-term, it does not mean they will be inhabitable in the long-term, and the scientists believe further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia.
One scientist in Kiribati said that people should not be lulled into thinking that inundation and coastal erosion were not a major threat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm
This bit really made me chuckle.
But although these islands might not be submerged under the waves in the short-term, it does not mean they will be inhabitable in the long-term, and the scientists believe further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia.
One scientist in Kiribati said that people should not be lulled into thinking that inundation and coastal erosion were not a major threat.
Err no dumbo. There hasn't been significant sea level rises. This what I was talking about. Obfuscation, mendacity and duplicity.
*well if the alamists can make ridiculous assertions, then so can I. :blush:
how about the earth not warming up. It really doesn't, and don't get any stupid ideas and don't say expected when you really mean agreement.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's just wrong. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true)
Hotlinked picture removed. BG
I actually object to being called a denier, what with all those connotations with the holocaust
Those are unfortunate connotations, and obviously not ones I associate with anyone here, but from over here, it looks disconcertingly like certain members of this discussion are. Fragony certainly is, and Furunuclus almost certainly isn't, but I haven't made up my mind about you, IA. Read this (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in-denial-when-a-sceptic-isnt-a-sceptic.html), and then get back to me, as it might give me a better idea.
Why did you fall for it in the first place, it keeps amazing me. Calling non-lemmings deniers isn't an accident language is a powerful tool. Holocaust t t t
So I'm the one making Holocaust comparisons (Even though I'm not, as Holocaust deniers are at the extreme end of fruit-loopery), for calling you a denier, whilst the person calling me a Nazi isn't. How strange.
Remember all those isalnds that are being swamped because of global warming? Remember the government of one of the said island holding a cabinet meeting underwater wearing scuba gear? Well the way things are going, they will need oxygen masks and crampons.*
A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment.
The study, published in the magazine the New Scientist, predicts that the islands will still be there in 100 years' time.
However it is still unsure whether many of them will be inhabitable.
In recent times, the inhabitants of many low-lying Pacific islands have come to fear their homelands being wiped off the map because of rising sea levels.
But this study of 27 islands over the last 60 years suggests that most have remained stable, while some have actually grown.
Using historical photographs and satellite imaging, the geologists found that 80% of the islands had either remained the same or got larger - in some cases, dramatically so.
They say it is due to the build-up of coral debris and sediment, and to land reclamation.
Associate Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University, who took part in the study, says the islands are not in immediate danger of extinction.
"That rather gloomy prognosis for these nations is incorrect," he said.
"We have now got the evidence to suggest that the physical foundation of these countries will still be there in 100 years, so they perhaps do not need to flee their country."
But although these islands might not be submerged under the waves in the short-term, it does not mean they will be inhabitable in the long-term, and the scientists believe further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia.
One scientist in Kiribati said that people should not be lulled into thinking that inundation and coastal erosion were not a major threat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm
This bit really made me chuckle.
Err no dumbo. There hasn't been significant sea level rises. This what I was talking about. Obfuscation, mendacity and duplicity.
*well if the alamists can make ridiculous assertions, then so can I. :blush:
They studied 27 islands, out of the thousands in the Pacific, so this is hardly a definitive study. Also, 20% of them have shrunk, which is worrying when you consider that most Pacific islands are atolls, and made up of naturally reproducing coral.
The original article in NewScientist. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700-shapeshifting-islands-defy-sealevel-rise.html)
Didn't say you I said they, language is a very powerful tool you can't help making such an association subconciously. And there in fact carrot-munchers who will call you a nazi if you don't believe we are all going to die, their minds really drift there. I have no idea how but I suspect it gets out of control because doubt about it commonly associated with the right *zip* isbadtrainstopolandOMG
IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW
Louis VI the Fat
06-04-2010, 12:55
Oh for God's sake, twenty thousand posts about who is a nazi and how the Holocaust relates to climate change.
What a right bore. Take it to PM, nobody else is remotely interested in it.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon8.png
gaelic cowboy
06-04-2010, 13:08
Oh for God's sake, twenty thousand posts about who is a nazi and how the Holocaust relates to climate change.
What a right bore. Take it to PM, nobody else is remotely interested in it.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon8.png
:smash:
Oh for God's sake, twenty thousand posts about who is a nazi and how the Holocaust relates to climate change.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon8.png
where
Didn't say you I said they, language is a very powerful tool you can't help making such an association subconciously. And there in fact carrot-munchers who will call you a nazi if you don't believe we are all going to die, their minds really drift there. I have no idea how but I suspect it gets out of control because doubt about it commonly associated with the right *zip* isbadtrainstopolandOMG
IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW
When did global warming become a LEFT vs. RIGHT issue?
When did global warming become a LEFT vs. RIGHT issue?
Ok, very political, we want to get rid of it. There are massive amounts of money to be made in this green madness of course but none of it is real.
Rhyfelwyr
06-04-2010, 17:03
When did global warming become a LEFT vs. RIGHT issue?
Oh for God's sake, twenty thousand posts about who is a nazi and how the Holocaust relates to climate change.
What a right bore. Take it to PM, nobody else is remotely interested in it.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon8.png
I'm afraid much of this thread hasn't answered my queries made several months ago, but only confirmed my thoughts regarding the whole debacle...
Already we've finished with the science and suddenly it's a left-right shootout that ends up talking about evolution and whether Darwin turned Christian or not.
This sums up people's understanding of the global warming issue from what I've seen in RL. Left-wingers say "omg stupid hillybilly christians can't accept basic facts because they just watch fox news", then right-wingers return "gah brainwashed marxists global warming must be a big-government conspiracy to tax us and fund the new world order".
How many on either side actually know enough to make a serious decision on this issue? It seems to me they can't (which is understandable since the scientists apparently can't either, or is this just one side's conspiracy???), so every left-winger automatically accepts global warming, and everyone on the right denies it (generally speaking).
Ok, very political, we want to get rid of it. There are massive amounts of money to be made in this green madness of course but none of it is real.
By who? Who is going to make money? Green businesses? Oh because businesses are automatically left wing :rolleyes2:. I would much rather spend the money that we will inevitably have to spend on renewable energy on schools, hospitals, aircraft carriers etc.
Do you also deny that there is millions, billions even, in resisting the calls to act on climate change? Or are the likes of BP spreading lies out of the goodness of the hearts and the emptiness of their brains?
I'm afraid much of this thread hasn't answered my queries made several months ago, but only confirmed my thoughts regarding the whole debacle...
I'm a social liberal/social democrat, but that has no bearing on the fact that man-made climate change is real. Even if I was a Tory (heaven forbid), the facts would remain unchanged.
So how do left wing people stand to benefit more from that than right wing people?
Furunculus
06-04-2010, 20:12
When did global warming become a LEFT vs. RIGHT issue?
about here:
It was not ad-hominem. I was criticising conservatives. You have to admit, most conservatives harbour a healthy amount of distrust for intellectuals. Why? Perhaps because a great deal of intellectuals are liberal. But surely their science is at least somewaht accurate. And is it a coincidence that so many intellectuals are liberal? Who knows, but you cannot entirely discount me, although it is quite apparent that my post was not entirely serious.
and here:
I like how the right blame the left yet it is the right which is the most vocal. Also they link to sources as left when they are centre and they aren't even left.
Also, on many issues, what is left and what is right?
In the enviroment, is the welfare of the people left, while oil oligarchs who just want profit, the right?
and here:
I agree, if the 'right' were smart enough, they would appear to be on the 'left' and fund "alternative projects" which pander to public opinion and con the public and politicians alike for a huge profit.
But there is another big point "skepticism" is funded by oil companies and the biggest polluters in the industry, that is a fact.
So you have to question the motives behind people. There are those who would simply exploit the situation for their own pockets.
Which goes back to my question, what is left and right on the issue?
Is left welfare of the people while the right profiteering for their own gain?
When you look at the primarily motivations using the above, you get this insight:
[Left] There is a great potentional danger to the planet which can endanger our lives and those of future generations. (Obviously very sinister motivations.)
[Right] Hey, you are stopping us from making money. I don't care about the planet, I only care for number one. We will heavily fund anti-environmental lobbies, use the media to attempt to spread doubt and uncertainity, at least delaying policies while we attempt to make as much money as possible. (Obviously a mistaken case.)
Is left and right even being applied correctly? This is a tricky issues, as many people have tried to make it a left and right issue, and as the victims (aka, billionaires) usually fall in the right-stereotype category of the mad profiteering and usually vote for Republican/Conservative policies (as it allows them more money at expense of those below them) and how those concerned for the environment are generally on the left (aka hippies), you can see that there might be a slight left-right bias for certain sides.
Then comes for the vital issue. Why is an >individual< taking up such as position?
By identifying yourself as a skeptic and the on right, you will automatically get thrown with the above situation. You would be seen as a person who has stocks and shares in oil corperations or simply some one who is foolish and dancing to the tune of the Right-Wing Pied Piper. Most likely to make this even worse, you might start suggesting that trying to prevent the horrid possible outcome might cost the poor starving oligarchs money in the disguise of "bad for the economy", which wouldn't help your situation at all.
So simply by saying "Hello, my name is Furuculus and I am a rightwing skeptic" you suddenly been thrown into a situation where your whole entire background and history has instantly been invented for you on the spot, following the stereotypical behaviour and examples of fellow "rightwing skeptic" classifications.
So where are the issues?
Clarification on definitions. Who are the 'Right' and 'Left'.
Definitions in regards to positions. Is the bi-choice situation causing more problems than it is worth? Is there space at all for a Middle-Ground/Third/Alternative options?
Priorities on Issues. Many people have never actually said their priority, as part of their line with their view. For instance "Follower - Value of Human Life" "Skeptic - My Bank Account", are there room for options like "Follower - I can make a profit" "Skeptic - Money could be better spent on Universal Health Care*"
Could go on and on....
and here:
I'm not sure i'm overly concerned by the question, if people choose to interpret issues that way then that is their right, for all that it lacks any intellectual rigour.
I am right wing, and yes i happen to be a skeptic*, if you choose to conflate the two positions then that is your business, i will make no compromises on my personal beliefs that result from long consideration and testing, in order to stroke the expectations of other people. You may note that I have zero friends listed in my profile, not that i don't like and respect a lot of you, but this is a debating club to me, not friends re-united.
* I am as yet skeptical of the IPCC consensus that catastrophic climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
This is a fairly nuanced opinion, and yet even people who are not eco-activists by any means, somehow sum this up with the statement; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!"
I am by training a geologist, of course i believe in climate change, i spent three years studying it on and off.
I also know, from study, that it has frequently in the past been catastrophic in impact to the flora and fauna of the time.
I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and accept that it is within the realms of possibility that it is the driving factor of recent recorded climate change.
I am also fully aware that there are a multitude of other anthropogenic sources of green house gas, and that their action in combination can bring about feedback mechanisms that amplify the individual effects.
And yet this nuance is written off by; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!" This to me is the real poison of the consensus as advocated through politics and eco-preaching, it is removing the responsibility of critical analysis from people, and replacing it with xenophobic faith.
My skepticism is not immovable, as that would not be a scientific position to hold, but it will require a great weight more evidence alongside a great deal more confidence in simulated climate models before I am convinced that spending trillions worrying about anthropogenic CO2 is a sane policy.
Because if this bout isn't anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides.
and here:
Funnily enough, it is pretty much just the Tories. You can obviously see the politicalisation of the issue, with the right-wing oil elite sowing skepticism within their ranks trying to force a right vs. left issue.
Also, look at the 2nd table, it looks like they basically asked a lot of tories, but only one labour guy, and one libdem guy, etc. (total is 16, even though the 3 other columns were 50+)
oh, and lookey here:
That's Twenty Seven Trillion Euros in 2100, which is going to be a lot less as a percentage of GDP than what it is now.
George Monbiot has on numerous occasions raised his objections to the enviornment section of the Guardian being sponsored in part by Shell. And how does supporting policies that will just happen to make some people money automaticaly discredit what he says?
...On the other hand, James Delingpole is a certified, tried and tested, blue in the wool opponent of the 'the “global warming” myth', the "European Socialist Superstate" etc.
and here:
Frightening is that the Rebublican Party outright knows that the science is against them. They are perfectly well aware that the facts are against them.
In an act of cynicism bordering on insanity, their strategy is to create doubt. To 'Teach the controversy, not the science' (where have we heard that strategy before...)
The world thanks the GOP very much for this act of depraved cynicism. :shame:
oooh, and again:
Climate Change Denier denounces "bullying" of a Conservative candidate; then proceeds to go bully the "bully" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-delingpole-climate-change-denial)
and again:
Damn him to hell, but I swear Bin Laden is a climate change denier. He is not stupid, and he knows his endorsement of climate change will, in the West, only promote climate change denying.
But yes, Frags, I do agree with him, save for his call to boycott US. That is only going to start another recession, or actually, a depression.
I think this should only shame the US Republicans, as it shows that even scum the likes of Bin Laden, the religious extremists of Islam, are more open-minded then the US religious fundamentalists and the Religious Right. Of course, plenty will disagree with me... Not to mention, I lost my faith in humanity a long time ago. If climate change is real, humans will be :daisy:. But if it is not real, either nothing will happened (due to the fact we are nto doing anything to stop it) or the world will be better (because we stopped polluting our planet as much). But of course, how can common sense interfere with the Republican plans?
i'm only half way through the thread, shall i find more?
InsaneApache
06-04-2010, 23:26
I'm chuffin' pissed off that i wont quoted. I hate you all. :laugh4:
Louis VI the Fat
06-05-2010, 00:05
I'm chuffin' pissed off that i wont quoted. I hate you all. :laugh4:I was referring to you alone in my outburst. :stare:
Vladimir
06-07-2010, 17:34
Thought unrelated, the last paragraph nicely sums up my cynical view of the Global Warning Consensus®. :2thumbsup:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8717000/8717761.stm
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Vladimir
06-07-2010, 21:12
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
:laugh4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus
@1:19
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Good for them, but the earth doesn't agree with their conclusions
Seamus Fermanagh
06-07-2010, 21:55
Good for them, but the earth doesn't agree with their conclusions
Dismissing things just a tad cavalierly, no? I am a anthropogenic climate change skeptic myself, but sheesh. The Earth merely is, it does nothing to ocnfirm or deny the conclusions of its inhabitants.
Evidence suggests that the last two hundred years have seen a significant rise in average temperature -- with little or no evidence running counter to this.
Evidence regarding human agency as a significant component is more varied -- in large part because we don't understand the entirety of the climate process as well as we'd like -- but it would be hard to argue against the idea that we are having some measurable impact on the current temperature shift.
Yet you assert that "the earth doesn't agree...."
Yet you assert that "the earth doesn't agree...."
Unless we have an industrial age every notsurehowmany millenia. Now I do admit I was kinda trolling but Subotan is kinda fun to annoy (I am sure he forgives m-
Hosakawa Tito
06-07-2010, 22:31
C3 Headlines. (http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/us-climate-data-reveals-past-global-warming-far-exceeds-modern-temperature-change.html) The climate is changing, it's always changing and is much more complex than we know or can predict.
Evidence regarding human agency as a significant component is more varied -- in large part because we don't understand the entirety of the climate process as well as we'd like -- but it would be hard to argue against the idea that we are having some measurable impact on the current temperature shift.
I can't disagree that we have some influence and we are going to have to learn to adapt or die. Earth will do what it will and we are along for the ride.
Evidence regarding human agency as a significant component is more varied -- in large part because we don't understand the entirety of the climate process as well as we'd like -- but it would be hard to argue against the idea that we are having some measurable impact on the current temperature shift.
If there is going to be a debate, it has moved beyond "Is the planet warming?" and "Are humans causing it?" to "How much do we need to do?". Can we reverse it? Can we stop it? Can we even adapt to it? I consider myself relatively well informed about climate change for a non-scientist, and I honestly have no idea :shrug:
Unless we have an industrial age every notsurehowmany millenia. Now I do admit I was kinda trolling but Subotan is kinda fun to annoy (I am sure he forgives m-
So long as you permit me the same liberty, and we both avoid the Nazi comparisons :yes:
I can't disagree that we have some influence and we are going to have to learn to adapt or die. Earth will do what it will and we are along for the ride.
The idea of "Oh noes you're killing the planet" has always amused me, as if rock and magma could be "killed" by a comparative blip in surface temperature.
Louis VI the Fat
06-07-2010, 23:38
97% of scientists agreeMe, I always wonder who the other three percent are. The science is pretty basic, and can be tested in your backyard.
https://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1508/greenhouseeffectdiagram.jpg
https://img709.imageshack.us/img709/2858/greenhousegallery0.jpg
Provided that CO2 emissions raise CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that CO2 indeed functions as a greenhouse gas, then if CO2 is a constituant of the earth's climate, and levels of CO2 change owing to human activity, then all else being equal there's anthropogenic climate chance. Few, one would think, would dispute this.
The more interesting debates are 'what should we do about it', 'should we do something about it', 'is there cause for alarm over runaway warming scenario's', 'what are the most proper means at our disposal', etc. I can't believe that such an important debate has been ran into the ground by politised science, vested interests, and the relentless shouting of amateurs.
Unless we have an industrial age every notsurehowmany millenia. To say that there is anthropogenic climate change is not the same as saying that climate change is anthropogenic. :book:
Furunculus
06-08-2010, 11:01
Me, I always wonder who the other three percent are. The science is pretty basic, and can be tested in your backyard.
Provided that CO2 emissions raise CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that CO2 indeed functions as a greenhouse gas, then if CO2 is a constituant of the earth's climate, and levels of CO2 change owing to human activity, then all else being equal there's anthropogenic climate chance. Few, one would think, would dispute this.
The more interesting debates are 'what should we do about it', 'should we do something about it', 'is there cause for alarm over runaway warming scenario's', 'what are the most proper means at our disposal', etc. I can't believe that such an important debate has been ran into the ground by politised science, vested interests, and the relentless shouting of amateurs.
the three percent: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/minority-report-50-year-warming-due-to-natural-causes/
the argument is about feedbacks, not greenhouse warming: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/25/a-short-primer-the-greenhouse-effect-explained/
yes indeed, is spending E27 trillion/year good value for money: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,665703,00.html
yes indeed, is spending E27 trillion/year good value for money: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,665703,00.html
Interestingly, to quote: "Global warming is real and it is caused by humanity. That much has long been clear."
Does that mean we can move the discussion on from the corperate puppets to discuss the policies and actions which could be untaken to tackle this?
Also, as to the topic about £27 trillion/year, that is because the plan is stupid. What you also fail to mention is where that £27 trillion/year would be actually going as well, which is basically into government coffers. The plan mentioned doesn't actually cost anything, it is simply "lets tax this much for that much carbon, this will make those companies stop polluting!". It is not that the citizens have to directly pay that in taxes, so the corperations get free welfare at our expense. Even then, it is still a stupid plan, even if it is not what you are making it appear to be.
Furunculus
06-08-2010, 11:43
Interestingly, to quote: "Global warming is real and it is caused by humanity. That much has long been clear."
Does that mean we can move the discussion on from the corperate puppets to discuss the policies and actions which could be untaken to tackle this?
Also, as to the topic about £27 trillion/year, that is because the plan is stupid. What you also fail to mention is where that £27 trillion/year would be actually going as well, which is basically into government coffers. The plan mentioned doesn't actually cost anything, it is simply "lets tax this much for that much carbon, this will make those companies stop polluting!". It is not that the citizens have to directly pay that in taxes, so the corperations get free welfare at our expense. Even then, it is still a stupid plan, even if it is not what you are making it appear to be.
no, because that might be their conclusion, but it is not mine.
it is a stupid plan regardless, particularly so IMO since i am not as yet blessed with any great confidence in the IPPC consensus that anthropogenic CO2 represents an imminent and catastrophic threat to mankind.
Should use my "plan" / "solution". Far cheaper, and some really big pluses. If CC is a very urgent issue, we are in a far superior position to handle it. If CC isn't actually an issue at all, then there is no loss, as there would be great gains from it anyway.
So long as you permit me the same liberty, and we both avoid the Nazi comparisons :yes:
Gentlemens agreement, your still a commie though :balloon2:
Would a Commie vote Liberal Democrat?
Would a Commie vote Liberal Democrat?
The more devious ones do
Like me.
Though I am a Libertarian Socialist, not really a communist.
edit: that only makes sense if you seen Batman Begins and even then nvm
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 20:44
I've seen Batman Begins
And now this thread ends. :dancinglock:
Just like humanity. :skull:
Seamus Fermanagh
06-08-2010, 21:14
And now this thread ends. :dancinglock:
Just like humanity. :skull:
I admire your powers of prediction.
As Tosa might say, "topic is tired and needs a nap."
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.