• 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.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
yairhol said:
I would like to add that global warming and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are not the same subject.
The OP was asking about global warming in general which I think has more concensus amongst scientists than AGW.
Click to expand...

the difference in the concensus will be very tiny. the 2 or 3 crackpots that claim GW is real but we didnt cause it don't weigh much.
 
Global warming is (so far as we know) quite real. The media insanity about it as the cause du jour is something quite different. This of course is not coming form the scientists themselves, but from the pundits, as it usually does in most scientific "scares".
 
Last edited:
Barber Shop said:
This is actually old news, but since I just discovered the video, I wanted to create a thread about it...My apologies if this has already been covered and for bringing up old material.

I watch a YouTube video featuring Penn and Teller from the TAM in 2008 where Penn says he has a strong feeling that all of the global warming stuff is "BS".

I was curious whether Penn still holds this position.

My (very limited) knowledge of this subject is that that the scientific consensus was strongly leaning toward the reality of the global warming, and that is by no means a minority position. Is this an accurate assessment?

It is also my understanding that skeptic-brethren (like Dr. Shermer) have argued that the jury is no longer out on this subject...

Whattaya think JREFers?

Sorry...not enough posts to put up the link...You can search "Penn Jillette's reponse" for the relevant Youtube video.
Click to expand...
Yep, and it's a dead issue politically.
 
Alan said:
Randi is among those who are skeptical of AGW, although he is modest/realistic enough to say that he isn't an expert.
Click to expand...

Which is a polite way of saying he isn't a fanatic.

You'll note that most of the "pro" AGW, "Yes it's real and it's happening" crowd around here are also so paranoid they monitor the level of ice in the Arctic on a daily basis.

OK, maybe only weekly :)

The more rational skeptical position is that burning fossil fuels has lead to a slight increase in global average temperature. To what extent and effect it's really hard to say, but it's probably not going to be the end of the world and it isn't a pressing concern unless you're a polar bear.

That's why it's both very true and bull flop all at the same time. Quite the enigma.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Which is a polite way of saying he isn't a fanatic.

You'll note that most of the "pro" AGW, "Yes it's real and it's happening" crowd around here are also so paranoid they monitor the level of ice in the Arctic on a daily basis.

OK, maybe only weekly :)

The more rational skeptical position is that burning fossil fuels has lead to a slight increase in global average temperature. To what extent and effect it's really hard to say, but it's probably not going to be the end of the world and it isn't a pressing concern unless you're a polar bear.

That's why it's both very true and bull flop all at the same time. Quite the enigma.
Click to expand...

evidence for your claims?
 
Unless Randi has spoken about this since 2009 (someone here might know better than me) he doesn't qualify as a skeptic.

PLAIT:And what they have to say can be boiled down to this: the world is warming and humankind is responsible for at least half of that rise in global average temperatures."
RANDI:Accepted.

I AM NOT "DENYING" ANYTHING
 
3bodyproblem said:
Which is a polite way of saying he isn't a fanatic.

You'll note that most of the "pro" AGW, "Yes it's real and it's happening" crowd around here are also so paranoid they monitor the level of ice in the Arctic on a daily basis.

OK, maybe only weekly :)

The more rational skeptical position is that burning fossil fuels has lead to a slight increase in global average temperature. To what extent and effect it's really hard to say, but it's probably not going to be the end of the world and it isn't a pressing concern unless you're a polar bear.

That's why it's both very true and bull flop all at the same time. Quite the enigma.
Click to expand...

Really because the majority of scientists are concerned for hundreds of millions of the world's poor so you'd better have something to back that up lest you be accused of intellectual laziness and carelessness.
 
Resident denier extraordiare kicks in with debunking to exculpate his fossil energy job.

Meanwhile in the climate science circles where they actually know what they are talking about.

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Joey McGee said:
All of the information and debunking material you'll ever need is located at the greatest AGW site (AFAIK)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Thanks how you do debunking ladies and gentlemen. Next level.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons why I don't quite buy into the entirety of the global warming argument is sites like this that proclaim to have all of the information and debunking material you'll ever need -- AS LONG AS YOU DON'T ACTUALLY READ THE JOURNAL ARTICLES THEY USE. I went to the "Positives and Negatives" of global warming on that site and the disagreement between what they say the science says and what the actual science says is positively unforgivable. (Just to be clear I accept AGW, but I am generally unconvinced by the claims of how horrible the results will be.)

For instance:

  • Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps (Medina-Ramon 2007)
Click to expand...

Okay, that is what the journal article sort of says, but what else does it say?

Conversely, heat effects were quite heterogeneous, with the largest effects observed in cities with milder summers, less air conditioning and higher population density.
Click to expand...

In other words - yes, you might have that sort of increase in deaths due to heatwaves if people never bother to buy air conditioners despite increasing frequencies of heatwaves. In many cases of "really bad" sounding negative effects that I've read, reading the actual journal article leads back to this great debunking site taking generally reasonable science and turning it into junk science.

Another fine example:

  • Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts
Click to expand...

Okay, so let's see what science Solomon did in 2009 to justify these claims:

Such changes occurring not just for a few decades but over
centuries are expected to have a range of impacts that differ by
region. These include, e.g., human water supplies (25), effects on
dry-season wheat and maize agriculture in certain regions of
rain-fed farming such as Africa (33, 34), increased fire frequency,
ecosystem change, and desertification (24, 35–38).
Click to expand...

That was IT. There was nothing else on that subject in Solomon's paper. Solomon did no science in this paper on those topics, he simply referred elsewhere. Now I found a lot of the science Solomon did on that paper rather poor, but I have no need to focus on that since it doesn't cover the specific claims. What justification do the folks at skepticalscience have for linking a non-primary source that says essentially nothing about what they say it says? The words "fire" and "wildfire" each occur exactly once in Solomon's paper.

This site is full of real science redressed as junk science. Is this what qualifies as a good debunking site? Come on.
 
Wavicle said:
One of the reasons why I don't quite buy into the entirety of the global warming argument is sites like this that proclaim to have all of the information and debunking material you'll ever need -- AS LONG AS YOU DON'T ACTUALLY READ THE JOURNAL ARTICLES THEY USE. I went to the "Positives and Negatives" of global warming on that site and the disagreement between what they say the science says and what the actual science says is positively unforgivable. (Just to be clear I accept AGW, but I am generally unconvinced by the claims of how horrible the results will be.)

For instance:



Okay, that is what the journal article sort of says, but what else does it say?



In other words - yes, you might have that sort of increase in deaths due to heatwaves if people never bother to buy air conditioners despite increasing frequencies of heatwaves. In many cases of "really bad" sounding negative effects that I've read, reading the actual journal article leads back to this great debunking site taking generally reasonable science and turning it into junk science.

Another fine example:



Okay, so let's see what science Solomon did in 2009 to justify these claims:



That was IT. There was nothing else on that subject in Solomon's paper. Solomon did no science in this paper on those topics, he simply referred elsewhere. Now I found a lot of the science Solomon did on that paper rather poor, but I have no need to focus on that since it doesn't cover the specific claims. What justification do the folks at skepticalscience have for linking a non-primary source that says essentially nothing about what they say it says? The words "fire" and "wildfire" each occur exactly once in Solomon's paper.

This site is full of real science redressed as junk science. Is this what qualifies as a good debunking site? Come on.
Click to expand...

more airconditioners is more electricity used is more coal and gas burned is more CO² is more AGW is more heatwaves is more airconditioners is more coal and gas burned is more CO² is more AGW is more heatwaves is more airconditioners is more coal and gas burned is more CO² is more AGW is more heatwaves is more airconditioners is more coal and gas burned is more CO² is more AGW is more heatwaves is more airconditioners is more coal and gas burned is more CO² is more AGW is more heat waves is more airconditioners is more coal and gas burned is more CO² is more AGW is more heatwaves...
 
Last edited:
Wavicle said:
One of the reasons why I don't quite buy into the entirety of the global warming argument is sites like this<snip>
Click to expand...

So one of the reasons you don't buy what almost 100% of scientists accept is that activist websites sometimes make mistakes or are unclear? That makes no sense.

Second, you didn't give us any references to where you found this on the website so it took me a few minutes to find the sites in question with Google. So much for your belief in good references.

Third, unless you're going to buy people air conditioners, or think that people can afford these things, or think that the people most at risk for death are the people who might have the money for that, think again.

Fourth, it seems clear to me that Solomon study gives the context and the other 8 studies are easily locatable.

If this is the best criticism you've got, well... I suggest you email the admin of the site and see what they have to say about your criticism.
 
Last edited:
Wavicle said:
Yes



No. yes

Anything else?
Click to expand...

ftfy

1000px-Annual_electricity_net_generation_in_the_world.svg.png
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
The more rational skeptical position is that burning fossil fuels has lead to a slight increase in global average temperature. To what extent and effect it's really hard to say, but it's probably not going to be the end of the world and it isn't a pressing concern unless you're a polar bear.
Click to expand...
You do not have to be a polar bear to be worried over rising sea level, you just have to live close to the sea. The extra energy in the atmosphere also causes concern that more extreme weather is to be expected, and this should be a concern for everybody.
 
Joey McGee said:
Unless Randi has spoken about this since 2009 (someone here might know better than me) he doesn't qualify as a skeptic.

PLAIT:And what they have to say can be boiled down to this: the world is warming and humankind is responsible for at least half of that rise in global average temperatures."
RANDI:Accepted.

I AM NOT "DENYING" ANYTHING
Click to expand...
He was 'skeptical' on The Drum in late 2010. It is an Australian news discussion show he was on just before TAM Australia. I do not have a quote. But he was saying that he was not an expert (he repeated that a few times) but that he is incredulous that humans could have such an effect.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Which is a polite way of saying he isn't a fanatic.

You'll note that most of the "pro" AGW, "Yes it's real and it's happening" crowd around here are also so paranoid they monitor the level of ice in the Arctic on a daily basis.

OK, maybe only weekly :)

The more rational skeptical position is that burning fossil fuels has lead to a slight increase in global average temperature. To what extent and effect it's really hard to say, but it's probably not going to be the end of the world and it isn't a pressing concern unless you're a polar bear.

That's why it's both very true and bull flop all at the same time. Quite the enigma.
Click to expand...

What altitude above sea level is your house?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom