Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stray Cat said:
No set of politicians (either denier cranks nor AGW proponents) are handling the subject in a sensible manner.
The end result put forward should be a concise, accurate message that leaves no doubt in people's minds about it's reality and informs people correctly about what needs to be done.
Click to expand...

You could say much the same about any subject. If politicans were dealing only with an informed, cogitative electorate, secure from passions and prejudices, it might be possible. With universal suffrage and the human race as it is, it ain't. We simply don't have the institutions, global or national, to handle a matter like AGW. The closest we have is the UN, which was created to stop war - and look how that's worked out.

We're just not up to it. It'll take at best an oligarchy, at worst dictatorship, to get a grip on AGW - something which people will grasp at when things get bad enough. I'm afraid the medium-term future is bleak.

But yes you're right, it is probably better in the politics forum (where I rarely venture).
Click to expand...

Me neither, it's a bear-pit.

In fact I didn't originally post in the science forum but as the OP in the thread I replied to was only moved to here after I had responded to it, I was kinda dragged here. :)
Click to expand...

I for one welcome you ;).
 
Stray Cat said:
Your assertion that politicians need to fly half way round the world regularly in vast numbers seems to suggest that they couldn't possibly make any secret deals without doing so. Which is incorrect.
Click to expand...

When I see the word "regularly" I'm always reminded of the exchange : "Are your parents regular churchgoers?", "Oh, yes. Every Easter."

"Vast" strikes me as bit exaggerated as well. There weren't many politicians at Cancun at all (they don't like to be associated with failure, which was very much the expectation, and quite a few got their fingers burnt at Copenhagen.)

What you're probably referring to is diplomats, a very different breed. The last thing diplomats desire is any form of clarity, and certainly nothing so clear-cut as success or failure (either of which would end the process, and leave them casting around for a new justification of their employment). They're almost exactly like lawyers, but without the social stigma.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Good news? Bad news? I don't know, all I know is the IPCC got it wrong.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article1107174.ece

"In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent. "

More evidence of how much the science is lacking when it comes to climate change.
Click to expand...

Rest assured, it will always be lacking enough for your comfort.

One paper by Rao et al, and you know that the IPCC review of the (then) current state of climate science was wildly wrong. Not just wrong in "not exactly right" (a dependable comfort zone), but way out. Svensmark and an array of denialists have been trying to find this signal for years, but Rao has nailed it. Remarkable that they all missed it, given that it's 40%.

I expect this paper is getting a lot of coverage? You've heard about it, after all.

http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/rg1004/2009RG000282/

That's another take on the matter, a bit late for the last IPCC report but none the worse for that. It's hard to get worse than missing that 40% contribution by the thing they were looking at. Red faces all round.

(By the way,there is no "IPCC model". In fact there's very little real substance to the IPCC at all.)

I'm afraid this is yet another final nail in the coffin of AGW, destined to go the way of all the rest. Take comfort in the fact that the supply of final nails is unbounded.
 
 
3bodyproblem said:
Here are some good articles on how climate change is becoming a religion:

http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/artikel.php?id=802

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views

http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2010/03/17/pages/7940/index.xml

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/climate_change_in_a_secular_society_a_replacement_for_religion/

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion

http://www.globalwarminghype.com/religion.html
Click to expand...
No, it's evidence of denialist mania to paint the concept of AGW as a religion, ignoring minor details like multiple lines of evidence that support the concept. You can repeat your mantra of 'AGW is a religion' but it still amounts to your personal opinion and is unfortunately not support by evidence.
 
TShaitanaku said:
I have already explained what was wrong and given linked sources to the detailed explanations and cites. As you have stated that you are uninterested in learning that which you apparently do not understand, I am having a hard time taking your protestations as anything more than a disingenuous affectations.
Click to expand...
As I have already stated I accept the information at your links as accurate and have said nothing (to my knowledge) that contradicts them, I'm resorting to asking you exactly what is wrong with what I have said.
Pointing me back to links that I already agree with seems a tad circular.

Break the circle and you explain why you think I'm wrong. Despite you claiming you have already done that, all you have done is show that you have not understood my PoV my misrepresenting it.
If it's too much bother for you to explain in your own words, then please bear in mind that it wasn't too much bother for you to use you own words to wrongly label me a denier and attempt to misrepresent my actual PoV.
 
CapelDodger said:
You could say much the same about any subject. If politicans were dealing only with an informed, cogitative electorate, secure from passions and prejudices, it might be possible. With universal suffrage and the human race as it is, it ain't. We simply don't have the institutions, global or national, to handle a matter like AGW. The closest we have is the UN, which was created to stop war - and look how that's worked out.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, but 'acceptance' of the incompetence of politicians isn't or at least shouldn't be an option.
This is the planet we're talking about not a 4 year term in office.

CapelDodger said:
We're just not up to it. It'll take at best an oligarchy, at worst dictatorship, to get a grip on AGW - something which people will grasp at when things get bad enough. I'm afraid the medium-term future is bleak.
Click to expand...
No, what it will take is science speaking for it's self in a language that ordinary people can make sense of instead of allowing the politicians to be the 'spokespeople' of their work with all the bias and spin that is associated with it. The BBC Horizon programme last night (I believe there is a thread about it in this forum was kind of saying the same thing I have been saying for year and it was refreshing to hear that I am not alone in my opinion).

CapelDodger said:
I for one welcome you ;).
Click to expand...
Thanks :)
I'm more at home in the paranormal threads though.
 
If there is global warming, why is it that the warmest recoreded temperature in the USA predates te coldest recorded temperature in the USA?
 
 
3bodyproblem said:
Here are some good articles on how climate change is becoming a religion:

http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/artikel.php?id=802

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views

http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2010/03/17/pages/7940/index.xml

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/climate_change_in_a_secular_society_a_replacement_for_religion/

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion

http://www.globalwarminghype.com/religion.html
Click to expand...

Ironic how it is just like the creationists that argue from out of their religion and claim the theory of evolution is just a religion.

:rolleyes:
 
The AGW deniers keep claiming the same debunked stuff over and over again, just like gospels.
for example their Gospel of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warmth Period.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

debunked

but they don't care, like a good cult, it gets ignored and repeated over and over again.

just like Creationists repeat over and over again that the world is only 6'000 years old. Or that there is not one single transitional fossil.

truth doesn't matter, the gospels must be spread.
 
Bill Thompson said:
If there is global warming, why is it that the warmest recoreded temperature in the USA predates te coldest recorded temperature in the USA?
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112121611.htm

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US

ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb. [...]

If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows [...]

Despite the increasing number of record highs, there will still be occasional periods of record cold, Meehl notes.

"One of the messages of this study is that you still get cold days," Meehl says. "Winter still comes. Even in a much warmer climate, we're setting record low minimum temperatures on a few days each year. But the odds are shifting so there's a much better chance of daily record highs instead of lows."
Click to expand...
 
BeAChooser said:
In light of the explanation for the record low temperatures on the East Coast being fostered by Al Gore's adherents, could this be the ultimate result of *global warming*?

http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/images/snowball_earth.jpg

Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr :D
Click to expand...

Bill Thompson said:
If there is global warming, why is it that the warmest recorded temperature in the USA predates te coldest recorded temperature in the USA?
Click to expand...
Leave it to the usual suspects to try and claim global cooling within weeks of NASA announcing this last year was the warmest on record. (Tied for first actually) Furthermore that the 10 warmest years on record have all from 1998 on.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/
 
Stray Cat said:
As I have already stated I accept the information at your links as accurate and have said nothing (to my knowledge) that contradicts them, I'm resorting to asking you exactly what is wrong with what I have said.
Pointing me back to links that I already agree with seems a tad circular.

Break the circle and you explain why you think I'm wrong. Despite you claiming you have already done that, all you have done is show that you have not understood my PoV my misrepresenting it.
If it's too much bother for you to explain in your own words, then please bear in mind that it wasn't too much bother for you to use you own words to wrongly label me a denier and attempt to misrepresent my actual PoV.
Click to expand...

So you agree that the fact that climate has undergone natural changes in the past, is irrelevent to the issue of the current climate change episode that is being driven by humans digging up sequestered carbon and putting it into the atmosphere?
 
DC said:
Ironic how it is just like the creationists that argue from out of their religion and claim the theory of evolution is just a religion.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That seems like logical reasoning to cap and trade carbon. :rolleyes:
 
Mikemcc said:
You can repeat your mantra of 'AGW is a religion' but it still amounts to your personal opinion and is unfortunately not support by evidence.
Click to expand...

What "evidence" would you suggest beyond the obvious correlation? How would you go about differentiating AGW from Scientology?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom