No more global warming?

[Fragony]

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]

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]

‘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.

[Fragony]

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]

'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]

Let's wait and see how warm this summer gets.

[Subotan]

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!

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]

So now I'm a Nazi SOB!

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]

So now I'm a Nazi SOB!

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.

[Subotan]

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

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 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.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html + 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/20....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/Publi...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 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_2007020916143 0 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...ast_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"

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.