• 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

Kodiak said:

"...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."

Ah, ha. My mistake was probably in putting in the phrase "raw data", so you assumed that the second "conclusion" was a reference to some scientific conclusion. The above was meant to say that there was no scientific conclusion made and, yet, the article made the (indirect, but still very blatant) conclusion that this information is (or should be) the death of GW and the scientists are simply hemming and hawing about it.

The article has a definite anti-GW tilt and the other articles I posted showed that this same information can be viewed a different way. It didn't sound like the scientists said "well, this doesn't agree with GW, so I guess we'll go look elsewhere", but rather merely "this is an anamoly and we still have to figure out why". Therefore, just like pro-GWers can prematurely state the "see, the world is overheating" chicken-little call, the anti-GWers (like this article) can prematurely state the "this anamoly wipes out GW".
 
dsm said:
...yet, the article made the (indirect, but still very blatant) conclusion that this information is (or should be) the death of GW and the scientists are simply hemming and hawing about it.

The article has a definite anti-GW tilt and the other articles I posted showed that this same information can be viewed a different way. It didn't sound like the scientists said "well, this doesn't agree with GW, so I guess we'll go look elsewhere", but rather merely "this is an anamoly and we still have to figure out why". Therefore, just like pro-GWers can prematurely state the "see, the world is overheating" chicken-little call, the anti-GWers (like this article) can prematurely state the "this anamoly wipes out GW".

"Indirect, but blatant, conclusion about the death of HCGW" you say.

"Where!" I say...

AGAIN:

I don't see where any final conclusions were made regarding human caused global warming. Evidence? Please?

So the article's skepticism is now "anti-GW tilt"?!? :jaw: Nice... :rolleyes:

You should be ashamed of yourself... :(

Evidence, pleeeease, for ANY mention in the article I linked that "these anamolies wipe out GW"!!!



And please, DON'T reply like this again:

"You provide your own evidence."

YOU make the claim, YOU back it up.
 
Kodiak 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... :rolleyes:

Saying sea levels will rise does not mean I think we are headed for Waterworld. You fail to appreciate just how finely balanced the economy is with the world. The human race will not die out.

Glaciers are melting.
Polar ice caps are melting.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Look at the basic information out there. It's all true.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Drooper 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.

It is a scientific organisation that has been set up by governments around the world. This is a common thing for governments to do, set up scientific organisations. They are funded by governments, but they are staffed by scientists.
 
Kodiak said:


How can science and the scientific method hope to stand up to things like fear, political pressure and correctness, and pseudo-sci/environmentalist elitism?

You idiot. One finding from one measurement.

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/articles/glacier.asp

Glaciers around the whole world are retreating, and ice shelves are breaking off Antarctica.
 
a_unique_person said:
Glaciers are melting.
Polar ice caps are melting.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Look at the basic information out there. It's all true.

And all of this proves what? It seems to me that all this proves is that the coldest regions of the planet are warming up. But this has been conceded in this thread time and time again, so what's the point?
 
shanek said:


And all of this proves what? It seems to me that all this proves is that the coldest regions of the planet are warming up. But this has been conceded in this thread time and time again, so what's the point?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/taroldest/wg1/014.htm

Taken together, these trends illustrate a collective picture of a warming world:

Surface temperature measurements over the land and oceans (with two separate estimates over the latter) have been measured and adjusted independently. All data sets show quite similar upward trends globally, with two major warming periods globally: 1910 to 1945 and since 1976. There is an emerging tendency for global land-surface air temperatures to warm faster than the global ocean-surface temperatures.
Weather balloon measurements show that lower-tropospheric temperatures have been increasing since 1958, though only slightly since 1979. Since 1979, satellite data are available and show similar trends to balloon data.
The decrease in the continental diurnal temperature range coincides with increases in cloud amount, precipitation, and increases in total water vapour.
The nearly worldwide decrease in mountain glacier extent and ice mass is consistent with worldwide surface temperature increases. A few recent exceptions in coastal regions are consistent with atmospheric circulation variations and related precipitation increases.
The decreases in snow cover and the shortening seasons of lake and river ice relate well to increases in Northern Hemispheric land-surface temperatures.
The systematic decrease in spring and summer sea-ice extent and thickness in the Arctic is consistent with increases in temperature over most of the adjacent land and ocean.
Ocean heat content has increased, and global average sea level has risen.
The increases in total tropospheric water vapour in the last 25 years are qualitatively consistent with increases in tropospheric temperatures and an enhanced hydrologic cycle, resulting in more extreme and heavier precipitation events in many areas with increasing precipitation, e.g., middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
Some important aspects of climate appear not to have changed.
A few areas of the globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of Antarctica.
No significant trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent over the period of systematic satellite measurements (since 1978).
Based on limited data, the observed variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones and severe local storms show no clear trends in the last half of the 20th century, although multi-decadal fluctuations are sometimes apparent.
 
RandFan sticks his head in,

Are you guys still at this? :D

Sorry I abandoned you Kodiak and Shanek. Good job of keeping alive the flame of skepticism.
 
RandFan said:
RandFan sticks his head in,

Are you guys still at this? :D

Sorry I abandoned you Kodiak and Shanek. Good job of keeping alive the flame of skepticism.

???? Kodiak was quoting an article from a journalist about one measurement from the Antarctica as debunking GW. That is not skepticism.
 
a_unique_person said:


???? Kodiak was quoting an article from a journalist about one measurement from the Antarctica as debunking GW. That is not skepticism.

I asked DSM and all I got was obfuscation...

Now I'm asking you AUP: Evidence please.

As I've already posted: "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."
 
RandFan said:
Sorry I abandoned you Kodiak and Shanek. Good job of keeping alive the flame of skepticism.

We have to pick our battles and besides, I've had to leave you in the lurch once or twice in the past. ;)
 
A Powerpoint presentation from the IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/cop7/part2.ppt

Interesting. It points out that inertia is an important part of natural systems. That is, by the time half the change is apparent, it may be too late to prevent the rest of the change from happening.

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/cop7/part3.ppt


These two links again. For example.

One of them has a chart of where the expected temperature variations will be. Shanek has accused proGW of cherry picking. That is exactly what you are doing. Except in this case, you have one measurement you think invalidates a whole, broad spectrum of research.
 
a_unique_person said:
...you have one measurement you think invalidates a whole, broad spectrum of research.

Evidence, please, to back up this accusation.
 
Kodiak said:


I'm the idiot? :rolleyes:

You make my case for me! Your linked article typifies the type of fear-mongering and reckless prognosticating regularly dispensed by the modern environmentalist movement.

Glaciers around the world are retreating. That is a fact. It appears that stating this fact is reckless.
 
a_unique_person said:


The scientists are presenting the evidence. Did you read the powerpoint presentations?

Yes.

I wasn't mentioned in any of them.
 

Back
Top Bottom