global warming denial
- Thread starter varwoche
- Start date
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
shanek said:
They CAN'T have factored it into the model, because they don't yet know the magnitude of it. The Duke study found one area with different results because there was a nitrogen deficiency in the soil. They said they need to find out the nitrogen content of the soil throughout the world to make a good prediction on it.
You have just admitted that these models are based off of factors that are still unknown. Thank you for proving they're worthless.
So until they can factor in every single variable and detail, you don't want to know about it. Don't ever go to the doctor for treatment. The side effects, are unknown for every drug for every person. Better not take that risk.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial
Hmmm. I think you (intentionally?) interpretted my sarcasm in the reverse of what I intended.
To answer your question -- probably not in the sense that you are asking. In a controversial topic, all research can be (and probably has been) politicized in some manner which makes it fundamentally untrustworthy in some quarters.
shanek said:
Hmmm. I think you (intentionally?) interpretted my sarcasm in the reverse of what I intended.
To answer your question -- probably not in the sense that you are asking. In a controversial topic, all research can be (and probably has been) politicized in some manner which makes it fundamentally untrustworthy in some quarters.
TillEulenspiegel
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,302
Idiots to the right of me
Idiots to the left of me
Idiots all around me
So marches the enlightened brigade.
That there is general change in this planets weather is not open to question.
That there are cyclical changes in the major weather systems on Earth , is not open to question
That there is a fundamental weather change occurring , is not open to question
The only thing worth discussing is the current change in global temperatures and weather systems.
The alarming thing we see is not that there is change , but the rate of which that change is occurring. The rate of change is very fast in the general schema of atmospheric behavior. The alarming thing is that global weather systems and patterns have an inertia that is as broad as the planet itself. Thus if we finally realize that the behavior of contributing to the climate change is a real phenomenon, it could be too late. No amount of political posturing or selective input to any study will change the reality.
Idiots to the left of me
Idiots all around me
So marches the enlightened brigade.
That there is general change in this planets weather is not open to question.
That there are cyclical changes in the major weather systems on Earth , is not open to question
That there is a fundamental weather change occurring , is not open to question
The only thing worth discussing is the current change in global temperatures and weather systems.
The alarming thing we see is not that there is change , but the rate of which that change is occurring. The rate of change is very fast in the general schema of atmospheric behavior. The alarming thing is that global weather systems and patterns have an inertia that is as broad as the planet itself. Thus if we finally realize that the behavior of contributing to the climate change is a real phenomenon, it could be too late. No amount of political posturing or selective input to any study will change the reality.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
a_unique_person said:
Ya gotta love predictions...
"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population." -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000." -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
Predictions...
a_unique_person said:
Seeing is believing? The central point is we do not know what exaclty we are seeing. The climate has always changed, that is what it does. Is this present phase anthropogenic or just as natural as changes in the past. Despite your own self assurance and in contrast to your claims, it is not obvious to me or to "experts".
The so called "global mean temperature" records are a classic example. It consists preominantly of land based data with a small coverage of the earth, it is not very reliable (accurate temperature monitoring across Africa - yeah right) it is distorted by micro climate effects around monitoring stations that tend to be in airports or urban centres.
Evidence:
1. read the link that Kodiak posted. One of a number of scientists who particpated in the IPCC but do not support its summary findings or policynprescriptions.
2. A link I have posted often enough before, I am getting sick of it (I will add it to my sig.) The Association of American Climatologists don't know what we are seeing either.
Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change
So these people state that they cannot discern what they are witnessing from the information/data availble, but you can??
When I look at avaiable information I find myself agreeing with the stance of the skeptics (in 1 and 2 above).Your second point. The models are not accepted. The GCMs used cannot even produce consistent results amongst themselves, they COMPLETELY ignore solar forcing (this is a BIG issue - again see Kodiak's link), They do not satifactorily account for feedback loops, in particular moisture and clowd cover. In short, these models are wildly unpredictable and poorly qualified to have any significant influence on policy decisions that could measurably effect our welfare.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
You are confusing pundits and the press with scientists. They are saying that
a) Sea Levels will rise
b) Temperatures will rise
c) Weather patterns will be changed
d) Weather events will occur more often
They are not predicting gloom and doom for the whole planet in ten years, or making economic predictions.
I am saying that you don't have to be too smart to realise that
a) A lot of people will find that land that was once productive will find that their land is now less productive.
b) Weeds, that are more opportunistic in the plant world will be able to take better advantage of the changed conditions
c) low lying areas and facilities such as docks may not be viable any more
d) species that cannot migrate will be threatened.
e) The stresses on established and complex societies will be large.
a) Sea Levels will rise
b) Temperatures will rise
c) Weather patterns will be changed
d) Weather events will occur more often
They are not predicting gloom and doom for the whole planet in ten years, or making economic predictions.
I am saying that you don't have to be too smart to realise that
a) A lot of people will find that land that was once productive will find that their land is now less productive.
b) Weeds, that are more opportunistic in the plant world will be able to take better advantage of the changed conditions
c) low lying areas and facilities such as docks may not be viable any more
d) species that cannot migrate will be threatened.
e) The stresses on established and complex societies will be large.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial
Oops. Don't start throwing stones, they can bounce right back at ya. What almost everybody reads from the IPCC is the "Summary for Policy Makers". This is indeed vetted and changed by politicians.
Just remember AUP, the IPCC is not some scientific organisation it is the:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
a_unique_person said:
Oops. Don't start throwing stones, they can bounce right back at ya. What almost everybody reads from the IPCC is the "Summary for Policy Makers". This is indeed vetted and changed by politicians.
Just remember AUP, the IPCC is not some scientific organisation it is the:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
a_unique_person said:
From the web article I linked above:
"...Which has led to the most ominous forecasts by environmental advocacy groups such as the National Resources Defense Council.
Glaciers and polar ice packs will melt," it direly predicts, in its global warming "fact sheet."
"Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. And species will be pushed to extinction."..."
You seem in lock-step with the GW "true believers", AUP...
Congrats...
Kodiak said:
You realize, of course, that that works both ways. For instance, the article you link appears to jump the gun on scientific conclusions. Rather than say that the scientists have found an anomaly and are trying to figure out how (or IF) it fits into their theories (including GW), the article takes the raw data and jumps to the immediate conclusion that this is one of the final nails in the GW coffin.
(Note: I cannot seem to get to nature.com to look for the article your article is referring to, so I can only guess at which way it slanted.)
Edited to add: Here is a different view from NPR
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
dsm said:
I don't see where any final conclusions were made regarding human caused global warming.
The only points mentioned in the article were that several recent studies have produced data contrary to that relyed on by the GW "true believers" and that the scientists involved in those studies felt pressure to disavow and/or downplay their results and any possible implications they might have.
Kodiak said:
Oh, come on. The article itself is written in an anti-GW style and makes the conclusion! What is called "pressure to disavow" in the article is merely scientific process. These scientists have found something anomalous and now must collect the data and develop the theories necessary to explain the anomaly to other scientists. They realize that 14 years is a relatively short period. Their ultimate conclusions may either confirm or deny the GW theory.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
dsm said:
Exactly what conclusion was made about global warming? Evidence please.
The author seems to think it is something more than just the "scienticic method".
From the web article I linked:
"There is a curious thing going on in the scientific community. Scientists who produce research that does not comport with accepted wisdom on global warming – like Doran and Joughin – feel compelled to disavow their findings. Or, at least, to suggest that their results are aberrational.
Indeed, a few years back, the Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, released a study that found the continental United States has actually gotten cooler, rather than warmer, over the past third of a century.
Yet, the scientists who produced the center's study went to great lengths to assure that their findings did not undermine prevailing notions about global warming.
Then there was the study by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.
They took Antarctic ice core samples from the last three glacial cycles (the transitional periods between ice age and planetary warming) to ascertain the relation between rises in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and increases in planetary temperature.
Based on global warming theory, there should first have been a rise in carbon dioxide levels followed by a rise in temperature levels. But, in fact the opposite actually occurred.
Yet, the Scripps scientists insisted that their results were not inconsistent with global warming theory.
It seems clear that much of the scientific community is in denial about global warming. That scientists are so empathetic to the IPCC, the NRDC and other global warming doomsayers that even those scientists who produce research that contradict the global warming orthodoxy are unwilling to admit as much."
It continually surprises me how one-sided the HCGW "true believers" skepticism can be.
IMO:
Study/Experiment confirms HCGW: "See?!? It's clear! The scientists say so! We must do something now! It may already be too late!!!"
Study/Experiment refutes HCGW: "Were these scientists biased by oil companies or Big Business?" "Just because they are scientists doesn't make them right." "I'm skeptical of these findings - we must have confirmation through replication."
a_unique_person said:
No; until they factor in every detail, people shouldn't act like the findings are foregone conclusions. You just love those false dichotomies, don't you? Probably because you have no defense for your point of view...
a_unique_person said:
WTF does this mean??? As if there are periods in the past when we have had no weather? I haven't yet looked out my window and seen no weather at all...OMG, that means Global Warming!!!
(Some days, it's just too easy...)
I have provided you evidence of the opposite effect, which you have ignored.
I have provided you evidence of the opposite effect, which you have ignored.
Why not? Is it because of the ocean levels that won't rise when the northern polar ice cap melts because it smegging FLOATS???
Ridiculous. The hottest places aren't getting hotter. The colder places are. If anything, this should reduce the need for migration.
I have provided you evidence of the opposite effect, which you have ignored.
You do a lot of ignoring evidence for someone who claims to be a skeptic...
Kodiak said:
You provide your own evidence. I didn't say that there was a "scientific" conclusion made -- just that the article jumped to a conclusion...
...the above conclusion that the scientists are being pushed to "disavow" their findings by mysterious (ie. GW) forces.
More evidence of the article's "conclusion".
Perhaps more evidence of the article's "conclusion".
And, finally a precisely stated conclusion from the non-scientific author of the article about how scientists should conduct and report their studies.
And, as I said, the reverse can also be true.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
dsm said:
You provide your own evidence. I didn't say that there was a "scientific" conclusion made -- just that the article jumped to a conclusion...
...the above conclusion that the scientists are being pushed to "disavow" their findings by mysterious (ie. GW) forces.
More evidence of the article's "conclusion".
Perhaps more evidence of the article's "conclusion".
And, finally a precisely stated conclusion from the non-scientific author of the article about how scientists should conduct and report their studies.
And, as I said, the reverse can also be true.
YOU originally posted:
"...the article you link appears to jump the gun on scientific conclusions. Rather than say that the scientists have found an anomaly and are trying to figure out how (or IF) it fits into their theories (including GW), the article takes the raw data and jumps to the immediate conclusion that this is one of the final nails in the GW coffin."
I know exactly what the article's conclusions were since I wrote about them already in this thread:
"The only points mentioned in the article were that several recent studies have produced data contrary to that relyed on by the GW "true believers" and that the scientists involved in those studies felt pressure to disavow and/or downplay their results and any possible implications they might have."
NOW does the article I linked "jump the gun" scientifically? "Nails" any "coffins"?
...