• 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.

global warming denial

I started a thread very early on, asking, are we all wankers. Everytime I raise one of the points that was put here as debunking GW, he just laughs and says they had an answer for that years ago. I asked him if he wants to answer questions here, and he laughs again, and asks me why I am wasting my time with people on the internet who do not follow the scientific method, and have already made up their minds.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

a_unique_person said:
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.

What does any of that have to do with what I asked you?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

shanek said:


What does any of that have to do with what I asked you?

I will criticise the parts of the economy that I believe exploit it's failings. Commonly, big business and special interests. That does not mean I am just a raging socialist.
 
a_unique_person said:


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

I'm still looking for an online source for the bit about drilling into brass buttons, which I found particularly fascinating, but it was on a NOVA program some years ago and I have so far been unable to dig it up.

In the mean time, there's a thread here with a reference to the Little Ice Age: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36244

Here's some detail on the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node5.html

I also came across this, which is kind of interesting--it's a 160,000 year graph: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node5.html This, oddly enough, is the same as the number of people some say die from global warming every year: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,60640,00.html
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

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

Exactly the answer I was hoping for and I am in agreement with it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

dsm said:


Exactly the answer I was hoping for and I am in agreement with it.

I'd love to see more research. Hell, I'd love to see some basic, public research, but that dried up in the mid-1990s.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

shanek said:


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

It is not their call, you mean. They can only say what the science tells them. The realm of politics is where policy is made. Cutting GW gases, however, appears to be one proposal.

Their research cannot tell the future, what is does do is say what is likely to happen. We cannot prove exactly what will happen with GW, and no one claims that. Now, a person presenting with cancer, say, cannot be given any guarantees for the treatment or the outcome. However, what they are told is what the odds are. Ditto with this case.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

a_unique_person said:
Their research cannot tell the future, what is does do is say what is likely to happen.

Not to beat Shanek to the punch, but what do you suppose their "confidence factor" is for "what is likely to happen"?

(You can answer that, too, Shanek).
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

dsm said:


Not to beat Shanek to the punch, but what do you suppose their "confidence factor" is for "what is likely to happen"?

(You can answer that, too, Shanek).

It appears to be pretty confident. You can read it on the IPCC web page.
 
Kodiak said:
I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal and alter his positions.

For example
From your referenced article:

"It showed that 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees in approximately 50 years."

Surely this is wrong? From the IPCC:

fig2-22.gif


I don't see any 20 degree change.
 
Zero said:
What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand?
LOL, don't you see the circularity of your argument there? Of course the "anti-global warming groups" will be presenting data that doesn't support GW. That's why they are "anti-global warming groups".
 
shanek said:
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?
There seems to be some dispute over whether the MWP was a global phenomenon or a local one. The IPCC again:

Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia (Grove and Switsur, 1994). However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation (see Bradley, 1999). Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.



viewed hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age” can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels



The evidence for temperature changes in past centuries in the Southern Hemisphere is quite sparse. What evidence is available at the hemispheric scale for summer (Jones et al., 1998) and annual mean conditions (Mann et al., 2000b) suggests markedly different behaviour from the Northern Hemisphere. The only obvious similarity is the unprecedented warmth of the late 20th century.



Medieval warmth appears, in large part, to have been restricted to areas in and neighbouring the North Atlantic. This may implicate the role of ocean circulation-related climate variability.
 
RichardR said:
I don't see any 20 degree change.
I don't see Roman times having higher CO2 levels than now either (about 375ppm).

According to these charts the last time CO2 was as high as it is now was 23 million years ago.

shanek said:
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 would think going back a little further than 2,000 years would be prudent.:D
 
a_unique_person said:
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.


Over simplifying a little here aren't we?


Additional CO2 might only increase temp a little. It may not increase it at all.

Want a real world analogy where the causality isn't linear?


Run a bath and leave out the plug. You will need increase the rate of flow into the bath to maintain a higher water level.

Without scientific evidence that the global climate is a simple as you say, your logic is worth nothing.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Theodore Kurita said:



I see that your link is to a rightwing thinktank known as the "NCPA" "National Center for Policy Analysis"


The people in the NCPA are among many organizations against the idea of gloabal warming.

They use data from "Oil Companeis" which of course is most likely to have a pro oil comany bias.

Look at people that are actually really studying the effects of global warming and are not publishing crackpot ideas like your "industry scientists" are.


Face it, give some government studies or some studies from a nonbiased institute, or make yourself look like a complete fool in front of the entire forum.


Have a nice day. :p

Ah...welcome young socialist. :)

Care to address what the article had to say about Mr. Hansen, or are you simply going to attack the site presenting the information?
 
I recall seeing in the news last month about the jokes and ribbing when some big global warming conference here in the US was snowed-out. Isn't 'global warming' a wide brush for dramatic climate changes? For instance, getting extreme temps both ways, not necessarily everything getting hot?
 
RichardR said:
From your referenced article:

"It showed that 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees in approximately 50 years."

Surely this is wrong? From the IPCC:

fig2-22.gif


I don't see any 20 degree change.

The article states that a study presented Oct. 2nd, 1998 in Science made that determination.
 
Theodore Kurita said:
And plase avoid using these sources, these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry:

* Acton Institute
* American Enterprise Institute
* American Legislative Exchange Council
* The American Policy Center
* The Augustine Institute for Ethics
* Calvert Institute for Policy Research
* Cascade Policy Institute
* The Cato Institute
* Center for American Experiment
* Center for Equal Opportunity
* Center for Individual Rights
* The Center for Public Policy
* Center for Strategic and International Studies
* Center for the New West
* Center for the Study of Popular Culture
* Claremont Institute
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
* Economic Policy Institute
* Foundation for Economic Education
* Free Congress Research and Educational Foundation
* George C. Marshall Institute
* Heartland Institute
* The Heritage Foundation
* Hoover Institution
* The Independent Institute
* Institute for Contemporary Studies
* Institute for Policy Innovation
* John Locke Foundation, Inc.
* Lincoln Heritage Institute
* Ludwig von Mises Institute
* Mackinac Center for Public Policy
* National Bureau of Economic Research
* National Center For Policy Analysis
* Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs,
* Pacific Research Institute
* Policy.com
* Political Economy Research Center
* The Regulatory Policy Center
* The Smith Center for Private Enterprise Studies
* Texas Public Policy Foundation

Then of course you must have no problem with this site or this site , right? :)
 
Bottle or the Gun said:
I recall seeing in the news last month about the jokes and ribbing when some big global warming conference here in the US was snowed-out. Isn't 'global warming' a wide brush for dramatic climate changes? For instance, getting extreme temps both ways, not necessarily everything getting hot?

"Weather Events" is the technical term. And that does mean extremes in both directions.
 
Drooper said:



Over simplifying a little here aren't we?


Additional CO2 might only increase temp a little. It may not increase it at all.

Want a real world analogy where the causality isn't linear?


Run a bath and leave out the plug. You will need increase the rate of flow into the bath to maintain a higher water level.

Without scientific evidence that the global climate is a simple as you say, your logic is worth nothing.

If there was a hole it all disappeared into, never to be seen again. However, the scientists are using methods to determine if this is in fact a valid conclusion to make. They appear to be saying it is, based on the evidence.
 

Back
Top Bottom