Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

Bluefire said:
I understand that this is the state you consider it to be in. However, from my reading this simply reinforces my point about them not being very usable in their current state.


I'd like some backing for that claim. Do you have a few papers that I should read on the predictive skill of (some specific I assume?) GCM:s ?


100% accuracy to the fifth decimal is not what is being requested. A "good enough" prediction power with "good enough" uncertainty range is what is being requested.




IF you want me to base my actions on the outcome of CM:s they had better be strongly validated. If they are not I will not believe their output, despite the lame excuse of "but we have nothing else".


:rolleyes:


Not yet, but I will do that inbetween postings.
Click to expand...

Ok, good.

Go read the current science, then come back to me and tell me if you still think these questions are valid.
 
Bluefire said:
From a quick glance and read of a few of them I found articles there that could be supportive of a wide range of views. Just like any other general collection of climate news , views and papers. Was there any particular answer you wanted us to arrive at by that page?
Click to expand...

Really?

Exactly how many articles did you find that showed current research based on models that were not supportive of AGW?

How many that were based on models supportive of AGW?

How many articles did you find that indicated that GW is progressing more slowly than previously anticipated?

How many indicated that it would be prudent to begin taking mitigating action immediately?
 
tyr_13 said:
Personally, I didn't really want to debate like this about what "science says."
Click to expand...

That's insane.

This is a scientific question.

You might as well say you don't care to debate what the science says about evolution or astronomy or quantum mechanics.

No, screw that, gimme the blogs!
 
Piggy said:
That's insane.

This is a scientific question.

You might as well say you don't care to debate what the science says about evolution or astronomy or quantum mechanics.

No, screw that, gimme the blogs!
Click to expand...



You missed my point entirely. My point is that you say, "the science says this," while some of us say, "but I looked at the same data and drew a different conclusion," and they the nitpicking starts.

You keep saying the science clearly says something, when there are so many shades of it. Just because most climate scientists say that AGW is real doesn't mean they all agree that it is catastrophic, on the mechanism, on the degree, on what to do about it, on predictions, etc.
 
tyr_13 said:
If you believed that this was a natural temperature change, would you still want rapid changes like taking CO2 out of the atmosphere? Would we want to increase cloud cover, put mirrors into space to deflect sunlight, put blankets on icecaps, or any other such thing? Or would it be ok to adapt if it were natural?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make if it's natural or man-made if it's still going to wipe out coastal cities? (Hypothetical)
 
The ONLY reason "Silent Spring" did not play out is because people heeded that warning and substantially curbed DDT use! And "The Population Bomb?" Are you daft? You are living in it right now. We are dead-on for that prediction and those of The Club Of Rome as well. The only question is the actual rate, not the outcome.
 
tyr_13 said:
You missed my point entirely. My point is that you say, "the science says this," while some of us say, "but I looked at the same data and drew a different conclusion," and they the nitpicking starts.

You keep saying the science clearly says something, when there are so many shades of it. Just because most climate scientists say that AGW is real doesn't mean they all agree that it is catastrophic, on the mechanism, on the degree, on what to do about it, on predictions, etc.
Click to expand...

Ok, gotcha. Sorry for the misread.
 
BenBurch said:
The ONLY reason "Silent Spring" did not play out is because people heeded that warning and substantially curbed DDT use! And "The Population Bomb?" Are you daft? You are living in it right now. We are dead-on for that prediction and those of The Club Of Rome as well. The only question is the actual rate, not the outcome.
Click to expand...

A line I can remember from the 70's : "Malthus has been proved wrong before". We still hear it, like a mantra. And it is utterly meaningless. Malthus was only projecting into the future a rational explanation of what had happened in the past. Malthus didn't say when and where it would happen, or how often.

mhaze has often alluded to there always being spurious scares around (AGW just being the most recent) but when asked for an example never supplies one. I suspect what he has in mind are real problems that were dealt with. DDT, antibiotics as growth-promoters, smog, acid rain, CFC's - they were dealt with, with minimal impact.

AGW is of a massively different order. You don't need me to tell you that. But to mhazes it's not so obvious.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Is this graph meant to convey "factual information" or is it just satire? It's getting harder to tell with Mhaze these days... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Of course it has facts. But it does seem to poke fun at Dr. James Hansen and his ever-trending upward predictions, doesn't it? Why does every single comedian that ever bit into the Global Warming made the butt of his jokes the alarmists? It has intrinsic humor value. I can't make this stuff up, it is already out there.

My personal interests are more scientific than to dig into the transparent propaganda issues.

Nobody said that Alarmists were not serious or that they did not believe in their concepts of a very dismal future. Since we are on the subject of World Wildlife F., they had a commercial on the TV I happened to see the other day. I quote:

"The Polar Bear is going extinct" (yada-yada-yada) Donate, donate, donate...

That's a lie, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
The ONLY reason "Silent Spring" did not play out is because people heeded that warning and substantially curbed DDT use! And "The Population Bomb?" Are you daft? You are living in it right now. We are dead-on for that prediction and those of The Club Of Rome as well. The only question is the actual rate, not the outcome.
Click to expand...

Ah...well, thanks for warning me....I guess.....Gee, I thought the "Pop Bomb" was pretty much the laughing stock of scientific forecasting, as much as Pildown Man was an error in hindcasting.

Capeldodger, hold on a minute. Now you are claiming you can remember things from the 1970s?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Of course it has facts. But it does seem to poke fun at Dr. James Hansen and his ever-trending upward predictions, doesn't it? Why does every single comedian that ever bit into the Global Warming made the butt of his jokes the alarmists? It has intrinsic humor value. I can't make this stuff up, it is already out there.

My personal interests are more scientific than to dig into the transparent propaganda issues.

Nobody said that Alarmists were not serious or that they did not believe in their concepts of a very dismal future. Since we are on the subject of World Wildlife F., they had a commercial on the TV I happened to see the other day. I quote:

"The Polar Bear is going extinct" (yada-yada-yada) Donate, donate, donate...

That's a lie, pure and simple.
Click to expand...


Poison is defined by the dose and alarmism is defined by the time frame.

As noted by Sir John Houghton, the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor of its first three reports, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."

And, yes, the polar bear population has hit a historical high; a fact even a second grader can look up online. ;)
 
No, the Population Bomb was incorrect only in the RATE at which carrying capacity would be reached, not that we would ultimately reach it, and not that there would not be a major set of problems that would attend to that. We are almost at the carrying capacity of the planet right now. My best guess is that nobody will doubt that 12 years hence.

And the solution is really, really obvious; Mandatory limits to births. It is also equally obvious that very few nations have the political will to achieve that.
 
BenBurch said:
No, the Population Bomb was incorrect only in the RATE at which carrying capacity would be reached, not that we would ultimately reach it, and not that there would not be a major set of problems that would attend to that. We are almost at the carrying capacity of the planet right now. My best guess is that nobody will doubt that 12 years hence.

And the solution is really, really obvious; Mandatory limits to births. It is also equally obvious that very few nations have the political will to achieve that.
Click to expand...

You mean you want to go through that piece of idiotic writing and pick from it to support some of your ideas as above expressed? Why not just start with a clean sheet of paper?

Oh, and on the subject of bets, how did Erlich do in his bet against Simons?

Erlich's fallacy, (well, one of hundreds) was that he did presume population grew exponentially.

Any more grim futurecasts? I always kinda liked Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, myself.:)
 
BenBurch said:
No, I pick from it the idea that there is a natural limit to the carrying capacity of the planet. Do you dare deny that concept? If so, show me how it is unlimited.
Click to expand...
OK, every home has a replicator in which nanobots assemble your choice food for the night, along with other goodies.

Now I think this is no more fantastic than your prophecy of doom, and much more likely than your future dystopia is a 22nd century where people are as advanced and as wealthier as say, we today compared to those of 1908.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
The ONLY reason "Silent Spring" did not play out is because people heeded that warning and substantially curbed DDT use!
Click to expand...


Well, that and that DDT was later proven not to have the damaging effects that were attributed to it in Silent Spring. It's manufacture and use, was, nonetheless, very strictly regulated as a result of this hysteria, and as a direct result, there are parts of the world where people are suffering serious epidemics of malaria for which DDT was, and remains, the best known preventative. People are suffering and dying from a very real disease because junk science is being used to deny them the one thing that would most effectively prevent the spread of this disease.

But the environmentalist Chicken Little's get to claim credit for preventing a terrible disaster that was never going to happen anyway; just as they are trying to do now with global warming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom