No more global warming?

[Subotan]

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/environmen...climate-change

Little lads and wolves spring to mind.

I've always thought of Deniers as having a "Three Wise Monkeys" attitude

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.

[Fragony]

Many many many more times have climate change deniers been found making stuff up.

One, random example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change


I've always thought of Deniers as having a "Three Wise Monkeys" attitude


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]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

Why in green, et tu BG, et tu?(!)

[InsaneApache]

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]

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.*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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/asi...c/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.

[Subotan]

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.

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, 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.*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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/asi...c/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.

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[Fragony]

Oh for God's sake, twenty thousand posts about who is a nazi and how the Holocaust relates to climate change.

where

[Subotan]

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?

[Fragony]

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]

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.

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).

[Subotan]

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 . 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.

[Fragony]

Carbon emmision rights.

[Subotan]

So how do left wing people stand to benefit more from that than right wing people?

[Furunculus]

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.

oooh, and again:

Climate Change Denier denounces "bullying" of a Conservative candidate; then proceeds to go bully the "bully"

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 . 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]

I'm chuffin' pissed off that i wont quoted. I hate you all.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm chuffin' pissed off that i wont quoted. I hate you all.

I was referring to you alone in my outburst.

[Vladimir]

Thought unrelated, the last paragraph nicely sums up my cynical view of the Global Warning Consensus®.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth...00/8717761.stm

[Subotan]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-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]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-consensus.htm

@1:19

[Fragony]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-consensus.htm

Good for them, but the earth doesn't agree with their conclusions

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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...."

[Fragony]

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]

C3 Headlines. 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.

[Subotan]

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

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

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.