• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No global warming since 1995?

Upchurch said:
huh. I thought this thread was about (1). Who is arguing (2) or (3) in this thread?

Let's point out further that pointing out that some people in the world do (2) and (3), that is not a reason to reject (1) as not true.
Click to expand...
What actions are you willing to take?

That becomes the key question, both in the scientific domain, and in the political domain.

You cannot separate that.

I will point out that when there were only 3 billion people on this planet, global warming was not an issue.

I have seen, in SciAm and Economist, ads for a company (IIRC Monsanto) a vision of a future with 9 billion people and how they'll help feed them all.

At what point does anyone look up and ask why this assumption isn't a place to look hard and fast, and to take action?

The human input to the change in CO2 density wasn't the result of a single factor. It took a variety of factors to get there. The solution set ought to encompass a pretty broad menu of options.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
What actions are you willing to take?

That becomes the key question, both in the scientific domain, and in the political domain.

You cannot separate that.
Click to expand...
Skeptic suggested that we could in his usual appeal to consequences. It was this that I was addressing, if perhaps poorly.


Darth Rotor said:
At what point does anyone look up and ask why this assumption isn't a place to look hard and fast, and to take action?
Click to expand...
I dunno, but I'm guessing it happens sometime after this creationist-like "it's just a theory" and "there is controversy in the scientific community" BS is way back down in the minority of public opinion like it should be.
 
Upchurch said:
Skeptic suggested that we could in his usual appeal to consequences. It was this that I was addressing, if perhaps poorly.
Click to expand...
I was sort of agreeing with you, and sort of not. The way I read Skeptic's appeal was an attempt to make sure that we remain aware of the scare mongering that is so common in politics, regardless of science. See 30 plus years of anti-nuke power stupidity in the US as a fine example of where that can end up politiclally, which by no small coincidence is a contributing factor in fewer non-CO2 intensive electric plants being up and running as you and I write these posts ...

I dunno, but I'm guessing it happens sometime after this creationist-like "it's just a theory" and "there is controversy in the scientific community" BS is way back down in the minority of public opinion like it should be.
Click to expand...
Or, when a program like the Chinese government's one child policy can be sold to more of the world.

Unlikely, I grant you.

Or, some really big wars, with lots of dead bodies.

Or, a fine famine.

Or, a really productive plague season or five, for the microbes.

For some reason, the demise of the great American Chestnut tree comes to mind, but it's about four intuitive leaps from there to here, so I'll stop.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
I don't recall the physical facts ever being called ideology.
Click to expand...
.
When disregarding the fact is your bedrock belief, the persons promoting fact become an ideologue... from your viewpoint.
Somehow AGW is a monstrous lie to the conservative.
 
Skeptic said:
Look, folks, can we separate two issues?

1). "The earth is warming at a rate of about 0.01 degrees a year, possibly / probably also due to human action. This looks small to the layman, but the cumulative effect can be significant. Possible outcomes of this are... " = science.

2). "We must spend zillions of dollars RIGHT NOW or else the glaciers will disappear, polar bears will die off, billions will starve and the coasts will all be flooded!" = hysteria.

3). "Nyah nyah, I'm driving a hybrid and using recyclable paper bags! I'm saving the planet and you're not, you knuckle-dragging buffoon!" = moral sanctimoniousness.

(1) is one thing, (2) and (3) quite another.
Click to expand...

Seconded. And well said, Skeptic. The only other thing I would add is...

(4) Ideological resistance to any science which can possibly be perceived as at odds with said ideology. This includes all the "GW is a hippie lie" type of nonsense that gets tossed about by those who somehow believe that politics & economics trump the laws of nature.

None of this means the hole in the ozone layer isn't real or that acid rain does not exist (duh). But the hysteria, then as now, has much more to do with the upper middle class' burning desire to feel superior in their sensitivities to the proles than with any actual science.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People on all sides of this thing just need to calm down a bit & chill.
 
I Ratant said:
.
When disregarding the fact is your bedrock belief, the persons promoting fact become an ideologue... from your viewpoint.
Somehow AGW is a monstrous lie to the some conservatives.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. There are many conservatives, some on this thread, who have no problem with GW science.
 
BenBurch said:
Are you alleging that the 97% of climate scientists who believe that GW is caused by man are creating facts? If so, please expound on this vast global conspiracy?
Click to expand...
.
It's takes only one rotten apple (the hacked e-mails, for instance) to poison the entire barrel of AGW fact, for the rabid anti-AGW fan...(atic). :)
 
BenBurch said:
Are you alleging that the 97% of climate scientists who believe that GW is caused by man are creating facts? If so, please expound on this vast global conspiracy?
Click to expand...

What are the climate scientists basing their belief on? The data?

Bwahahaha!

How much of that data is compromised and fraudulent?
How many temperature stations have been eliminated to skew the data?
How many heat island temperature stations are there?
What other contrary data has been deleted or suppressed?
What proxy data (tree rings, ice core, etc.) is fraudulent?
What other scientists have silenced themselves for fear being ostracized?


Face it, EVERYTHING is now suspect. Scientists need to start from SCRATCH with better data controls and open dialogue without fear of persecution.

Up till now I have believed that the Earth has warmed 1 degree F over the last 100-150 years, give or take. Now I'm not even sure about that anymore.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Are you alleging that the 97% of climate scientists who believe that GW is caused by man are creating facts? If so, please expound on this vast global conspiracy?
Click to expand...


You win a gold medal in the long jump to conclusions!!!!

:bigclap
 
Upchurch said:
I dunno, but I'm guessing it happens sometime after this creationist-like "it's just a theory" and "there is controversy in the scientific community" BS is way back down in the minority of public opinion like it should be.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, this is the kind of anti-science BS I was referring to:
easycruise said:
What are the climate scientists basing their belief on? The data?

Bwahahaha!

How much of that data is compromised and fraudulent?
How many temperature stations have been eliminated to skew the data?
How many heat island temperature stations are there?
What other contrary data has been deleted or suppressed?
What proxy data (tree rings, ice core, etc.) is fraudulent?
What other scientists have silenced themselves for fear being ostracized?


Face it, EVERYTHING is now suspect. Scientists need to start from SCRATCH with better data controls and open dialogue without fear of persecution.

Up till now I have believed that the Earth has warmed 1 degree F over the last 100-150 years, give or take. Now I'm not even sure about that anymore.
Click to expand...
 
applecorped said:
You win a gold medal in the long jump to conclusions!!!!
Click to expand...

No, he's absolutely right.

In order for the current amount of consensus in the scientific community on AGW to be based on solely on fudged or completely invented data, it would require a coordinated conspiracy among all independent scientific organizations and journals. It would require every climate scientist to put aside their own best professional interests for the sake of the conspiracy, which if discovered, would ruin them. (This is including upcoming scientists who have no previous stock in the conspiracy.)

Take it from personal experience, every scientists wants to be the one who proves the old standard wrong. Every physicist wants to be the Einstein to current Newton.

What is being suggested here is that there is something so powerful that it is disrupting the scientific process across the world and keeping it from self-correcting, as it has been set up to do.
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
Glaciers have never melted before?
Click to expand...
I can just picture these people during the Cuba Missile Crisis.

Someone watching the news: Applecorped! Mhaze! Alfie! The Soviets have put ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on Cuba!
The aforementioned: There have never been weapons on Cuba before?
SWN: Not with nuclear warheads!
AM: Can you prove they've got nuclear warheads?
SWN: Well, that's what everyone agrees on!
AM: Well, I believe they don't, and that this is just a ploy to get costly reforms into our economic system.
SWN: But we could be weeks or days from World War Three!
AM: Wars are a natural part of human nature, and have happened many times before. Hence, they're totally harmless.
SWN: But-- but--
AM: And even World Wars I and II were proven to be beneficial financially. Hence, a WWIII would be a good thing.
SWN: :speechless:
 
Upchurch said:
Just to be clear, this is the kind of anti-science BS I was referring to:
Click to expand...

Oh excuse me, that's right, in the Church of Global Warming we are not supposed to wonder about how much of the data is valid. It all is! It has been decreed. Never mind that man behind the curtain.

Seriously, Upchurch, I take it that you are not a believer in the cockroach theory. As for me, I am now skeptical about all the GW data. Sure, some or most of the data is probably valid. But now you don't know which is and which isn't. Too much shenanigans have been exposed.

Start being a skeptic. After all, you are on a skeptics forum.

Oh and BTW, the cockroaches seem to keep on coming these days.
 
easycruise said:
Oh excuse me, that's right, in the Church of Global Warming we are not supposed to wonder about how much of the data is valid.
Click to expand...

You're not "wondering," though. You've decided that none of it is valid.

In particular, you're suggesting the existence of some global conspiracy to silence all dissent ("What other scientists have silenced themselves for fear being ostracized?") despite the fact that several hundred years of history have shown not only that such global conspiracies don't work, but that scientists themselves are usually the ones to blow the whistles precisely because (as Upchurch pointed out) they all want to be the one to shatter the conventional and become the new Einstein.

Which makes you an idiot, not a skeptic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom