global warming denial

[shanek]

Try this logic. We know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has warmed the earth by 60 degrees, and without it there would not be life as we know it. Why then would more CO2 not increase the temperature.

Who's claiming it wouldn't?

 

[shanek]

Lindzen = Liar

There's a good skeptical rebuttal.

The IPCC report states that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years" is of human origin. It says that late 20th-century temperatures shot up above anything the earth had experienced in the previous 1,000 years.

Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone?

"The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene." —Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001

Don't you think, then, that we need to be looking at the last 2,000 years instead of the last 1,000?

 

[clk]

You do realize that this is the POLITICS forum, don't you?

Does that justify the hijacking of threads?

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Perhaps you'd care to review this thread and defend the proposition that any of us here fit that category? And look at all of the doomsaying that HAS been going on here, with NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER. And when we ask them to provide evidence for their gloom-and-doom predictions, we just get evidence for increasing surface temperatures and CO₂ concentrations, which is NOT the data being contended!

And for the record, I consider myself an environmentalist. I'm just not part of the environmental movement, which has been coopted by anti-corporate Socialists as a disguise for their true agenda. BTW, the founder of Greenpeace agrees with me on this one.

One of the founders of Greenpeace thinks that the Chicken Little movement is wrong. He was still a founder of Greenpeace and wants to care for the environment.

Anti-corporate Socialists have tried to take over the Green movement as theirs. I also saw these people in the anti-war march. Considering their miniscule numbers, the fact that over 100,000 people turned out in Melbourne for a the march indicates that the depth of anti-war sentiment was much deeper than they can take credit for. Ditto with the environmental movement. I am not an anti-corporate Socialist, and the thought of the scientists who study GW being socialist puppets is laughable.

My friend tells me about how they have to apply for funding for their research. The current Australian government, and the current Minister for the Environment, are deeply conservative and could not more pro-business and pro-free market. He keeps funding the research, because they justify it to him.

 

[a_unique_person]

Who's claiming it wouldn't?

It appears to me that there is only one thing you do deny, that anything that affects business is involved in this.

 

[dsm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Perhaps you'd care to review this thread and defend the proposition that any of us here fit that category?

Now, now. No need to get touchy -- I didn't point the finger at you (or anyone else). My statement was a reaction to the quote I made it against -- nothing more. I don't like hearing people characterize a group with such broad strokes -- they're invariably wrong. My point was that, one may believe the quote, but others may believe my statement and both are overly broad.

 

[dsm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Whenever I have heard ANY GW scientist pressed on the issue, they say that the evidence shows that average surface temperatures are getting warmer, and that humans may be contributing to it. I've never heard any of them say it's a foregone conclusion that we're heading for disaster in the near future.

And, when pressed, what do the GW scientists (who, by the way, would probably not consider themselves to be scientists who only specialize in GW) say should be done about it?

 

[a_unique_person]

There's a good skeptical rebuttal.

Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone?

"The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene." —Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001

Don't you think, then, that we need to be looking at the last 2,000 years instead of the last 1,000? [/B][/QUOTE]

I called him a liar based on his misrepresentation of data from the quote I provided.

The 'hockey stick' curve is still accepted by the majority of scientists.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Hopefully, some people, in spite of their egos will consider the opposing arguments and become less rigid in their thinking and perhaps understand science a little better. And ego, well, it does have its purpose.

Agreed, but in many cases, of which "global warming" is a particular, arguments aren't even opposing; they're simply, well, you know, science. But are deemed to be opposing on the basis of how the lines have been drawn in the sand by dumbskis. Even Scientific American has done a lot of stupid things in this regard, but that magazine has been for fecal matter ever since they decided to stop right-justifying the captions to their illustrations.

I've studied climatology and chaos in mathematical systems extensively, and I could go on all day what a bitch the Navier-Stokes equations are to solve and what interesting (to me) things we found out when trying to solve them, but people just want to hear, you fer' it or agin' it?

(Edited for clarity. With any luck, a positive delta.)

 

[epepke]

Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone?

Also, carbon dioxide levels during the Roman period were higher than today. This is very easy to test. People have been making crimped brass buttons for thousands of years. Get one, drill a little hole in it, and do spectrometry on the gas inside.

This is corroborated by arctic and antarctic ice cores. Little bubbles get trapped.

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone?

"The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene." —Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001

Don't you think, then, that we need to be looking at the last 2,000 years instead of the last 1,000?

I called him a liar based on his misrepresentation of data from the quote I provided.

The 'hockey stick' curve is still accepted by the majority of scientists.

 

[a_unique_person]

Also, carbon dioxide levels during the Roman period were higher than today. This is very easy to test. People have been making crimped brass buttons for thousands of years. Get one, drill a little hole in it, and do spectrometry on the gas inside.

This is corroborated by arctic and antarctic ice cores. Little bubbles get trapped.

That was shane's quote, not mine. The tags got messed up. Can you provide a source for that data?

 

[shanek]

Does that justify the hijacking of threads?

I'm denying your assertion that the thread HAS been hijacked.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

One of the founders of Greenpeace thinks that the Chicken Little movement is wrong. He was still a founder of Greenpeace and wants to care for the environment.

And I want to care for the environment, too. What's your point? Unless you're trying to pretend that everyone who dares ask questions of the Holy GW Scientists about their Sacred Writ doesn't care for the environment?

I am not an anti-corporate Socialist,

Sure could have fooled me, given your stance on just about every thread in this forum...

 

[shanek]

It appears to me that there is only one thing you do deny, that anything that affects business is involved in this.

When have I said ONE F*CKING WORD about business in this thread, or ANY of the other GW threads? Geez...

Nooooo, you're not an "anti-corporate Socialist," oh, nooooo.......

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

And, when pressed, what do the GW scientists (who, by the way, would probably not consider themselves to be scientists who only specialize in GW) say should be done about it?

When pressed, they all seem to maintain that more research is required. In other words, we're not sure yet!

 

[shanek]

The 'hockey stick' curve is still accepted by the majority of scientists.

Instead of falling back on this tired old combination of argument from authority and argumentium ad populum, why don't you provide a scientific response to the point about the changing proxy just as the line curves upward, and a scientific explanation as to why the Medieval Warm Period disappeared?

 

[a_unique_person]

Instead of falling back on this tired old combination of argument from authority and argumentium ad populum, why don't you provide a scientific response to the point about the changing proxy just as the line curves upward, and a scientific explanation as to why the Medieval Warm Period disappeared?

And while I'm at it, why don't I invent nuclear fusion. I don't know all the answers to GW, and I can't. Sooner or later, I have to go to authorities, just as you do.

The argument from authority is only a fallacy if those making the claim are not experts in their field. The scientists behind the IPPC are all recognised experts, following the scientific process. We have no better recourse to authority than those who do. The fact that the majority of scientists, who are experts in this field, following the scientific method, make these claims, makes me think that this is the most plausible scenario.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

And I want to care for the environment, too. What's your point? Unless you're trying to pretend that everyone who dares ask questions of the Holy GW Scientists about their Sacred Writ doesn't care for the environment?



Sure could have fooled me, given your stance on just about every thread in this forum...

As I have said before, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, the western model of the market economy is the worst economic system, except for all the others. I feel no need to pull my punches in criticising it's shortcomings, but I think that we have no better solution at the moment.

 

[shanek]

And while I'm at it, why don't I invent nuclear fusion.

I'm hardly asking you to do any such thing. I just want you to back up your side of the argument.

I don't know all the answers to GW, and I can't.

Then don't go pretending that certain conclusions are foregone just because you like them. There ARE problems with the hockey-stick graph, and until I see a reasonable response to those problems, I am going to be skeptical of them.

Sooner or later, I have to go to authorities, just as you do.

No, we don't. Not when there are problems with the graphs the authorities are using that no one can seem to come up with an answer for. This is just more of this pathetic and ANTI-SKEPTIC tactic you and others on your side use whenever someone asks a tough question that you don't want to deal with. It has NO PLACE in skeptical discourse.