Climate continues to change.

[Sean Renaud]

So tell me what I say.

You know, besides the 97% thing is BS and there have been 4 historic warming periods prior to humans even being here.

From that you belive I think what...

Do I hate trees?

Think humans have no impact?

No the 97% thing is not BS and your article is so crooked it doesn't even support it's own claim with evidence.

There are no historic warming periods you've mentioned that were prior to humans even being here. I'm sure they happened since the climate has been in flux since we've had one but you've provided no evidence of such.

Do you hate trees? Probably, your arguments are the kind only made by people who hate tree and nature and the environment and it shows every time you take a stand.

Do you think humans have no impact? Your argument seems hinged on the idea that only .3% of scientists believe that humans have an significant impact.

 

[girlsmiley]

There is way too much testosterone in this thread.

Phelia! Darling! Apart from being lazy, stupid and ignorant, how are you?

Let's paint VA's toenails pink.

Sigh, I saw your video. It was cool!

 

[revwrathline]

The C(lie)mate.... and weather

If i may for a moment suggest a site and channel on Youtube if you want to know about the weather
Suspicious0bservers on Youtube. Heres a link to todays news. Its about 4 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FPRVy5laz4
and to the web site
http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/
I highly suggest you explore the web site and subscribe to them on Youtube. Its ecudational and theres lots there to learn. I know I have. Everything he says is back up by facts with the links below. So you can find out more and not just take his word for it.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

No the 97% thing is not BS and your article is so crooked it doesn't even support it's own claim with evidence.

There are no historic warming periods you've mentioned that were prior to humans even being here. I'm sure they happened since the climate has been in flux since we've had one but you've provided no evidence of such.

Do you hate trees? Probably, your arguments are the kind only made by people who hate tree and nature and the environment and it shows every time you take a stand.

Do you think humans have no impact? Your argument seems hinged on the idea that only .3% of scientists believe that humans have an significant impact.

You are officially dumber than dirt.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Earth was entirely molten once upon a time, and global warming doesn't get much warmer than molten, yet here we are.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I've made two points in this thread;

- the earth has gone through 4 prior warming periods
- the 97% study is pure bullshit

Both indisputable facts backed by real science.

But for everyone's viewing pleasure drunk truck driving Sean with degrees from the bottom of cheap cases of beer will explain how these facts or not facts.

Renard Sean will the then explain that because I know these facts I also hate trees and other such stupidity.

Ready go!!!!!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Global warming denialism:

"Don't talk to me of independent study or scientific trial/I'm in denial, deep in denial/And as the waters rise around me/I'll just hold my breath and say it isn't so!"

—"Denial Tango," Men with Day Jobs[1]

Global warming denialism refers to claims that global warming: a) Isn't happening, b) Isn't caused by humans, or c) isn't significant.

Anthropogenic climate change

The phrase “global warming” by itself is often used to refer to the rapid rise in temperatures the planet has experienced since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

In its simplest form, the argument for anthropogenic climate change goes as follows.
1.The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.[2]
2.The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor.[3] Collectively these are called greenhouse gases.
3.The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.[4]
4.The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to do so.[5]
5.The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.[6]
6.The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.[7]
7.The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.[8][9]

Up to this point virtually all scientists are in agreement - including those few global warming "skeptics" who understand the science and the data.[10] Consequently the skeptics need to somehow attack the final leg of the argument:

8. The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases.[11][12]

The logical consequence of this blindingly obvious conclusion is that we should reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases which we pump into the atmosphere so as to reduce global warming.

Note that the statement that The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases is only true on a very broad timescale: GHGs have increased roughly exponentially but the temperature signal is far noisier, and displays almost no correlation with GHG changes on an annual basis, as expected. This is due to a variety of factors, from intrinsic noise in the climate system to the existence of other important forcing factors (most notably sulphate aerosols and global dimming, which are cooling factors).

Also note that while water vapour is correctly listed as a GHG, the human emissions of water vapor are not important in forcing climate change; water vapour is best thought of as a response to temperature change rather than a cause, because its atmospheric lifetime is very short (about 10 days), unlike other gases such as CO2.[13]

Scientific consensus

A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
And many more.

Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence.[14] In addition, those pinko tree-huggers at the Pentagon now rank global warming as a "destabilizing force" (damn enviro-weenies).[15]

National or international scientific bodies that reject anthropogenic global warming

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/2/2f/Tumbleweed.gif

Entrenched interests and global warming deniers

There are many entrenched interests who benefit from the current energy infrastructure of our modern civilization. Commonly mentioned "villains" are oil companies (as well as their complicit politicians) who would stand to lose a lot of money if action were taken to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere, as this would imply a reduction in the use of fossil fuels such as oil. But consumers are "the other half" of the same problem and (for example) US drivers have been very resistant to an increase in petrol (also known as "gas" in the colonies) taxation.

Consequently, interests have spent a vast amount of cash[16] in an effort to discredit the science behind man-made global warming, and encourage global warming denialism.[17] ExxonMobil has been one of the prime movers and a recent Greenpeace report stated:

ExxonMobil’s campaign to fund “think tanks” and organizations that spread misinformation about the science and policies of global warming is now widely known. The company’s multimillion dollar campaign has undoubtedly contributed to public confusion and government inaction on global warming over the past decade.[18]

Greenpeace is still monitoring ExxonMobil's attempts to distort public opinion in this area as can be seen in their website exxonsecrets dedicated to exposing the company's activities.

The disinformation campaign is similar to that embarked on by the tobacco companies who wished to persuade people that cigarettes were healthy,[19] and the campaigns carried out by the oil companies when they wished to continue adding lead to petrol.

As a result of the actions of Exxon and others, many wacky global warming conspiracy theories have been invented. These conspiracy theories vary from the weird to the humorous.

Global warming and the 2008 American elections

Although global warming deniers are probably more common in the United States than in the rest of the world, it is possible that the global warming argument has been won even there. None of the main 2008 presidential candidates was a global warming denialist (although Sarah Palin, the hopelessly ignorant Republican candidate for Vice-President, was a denialist, subsequently buying into Climategate and implying there is no consensus among scientists[20]) and all of them had some commitment to renewable energy sources. While this may have been partly because of the threat of peak oil, it suggests that the time of political interference in the science of global warming may be coming to an end.

The only explicitly denialist candidate was no-hope, third-party Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr.[21]

On the other hand...

Despite Barack Obama's insistence for a green economy, he has failed to get major climate legislation passed. He has stated that he plans to pursue further legislation towards reducing emissions. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican candidate, stated in the past that he believed in global climate change, but has since changed his opinion on the matter.[22] The next GOP candidate will likely do the same in 2016.

Hierarchy of global warming denial

Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below - in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.
1.Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring[23] (taken from the Conservapedia homepage). This probably goes beyond denialism and verges on the psychotic.
2.Simply deny global warming is happening[24] - and maintain that no action is necessary - an increasingly uncommon position.
3.Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity - so we don’t have to do anything.
4.Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it's caused by solar activity - so we don't have to do anything.
5.Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but predicting future emission levels is equivalent to astrology - so we don't have to do anything, Ehrlich![25]
6.Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing[26] - so we don’t have to do anything.
7.Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren't doing anything - so we don’t have to do anything.
8.Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough - so we don’t have to do anything.
9.(There is an hypothesized ninth step, "Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something, but it's too late now!")

When debating global warming, it is wise to establish beforehand which of the opinions each debater holds, referring to the list above - otherwise you can waste a lot of time proving the wrong point. It may be similar to arguing with someone about the New World Order as you need to find out exactly where they stand before engaging with them.

Global warming skeptics have raised a number of slightly more scientific arguments which are covered below.

Various claims by global warming denialists

"What I’m suggesting is we have a sort of an eco-evangelical hysteria going on and it leads me to almost wonder if we are becoming a nation of environmental hypochondriacs that are willing to use the power of the state to impose enormous restrictions on the rights and the comforts of, and incomes of individuals who serve essentially a paranoia, a phobia, that has very little fact evidence in fact. Now these are observations that are popular to make because right now it's almost taken as an article of faith that this crisis is real. Let me say I take it as an article of faith if the lord God almighty made the heavens and the Earth, and He made them to His satisfaction and it is quite pretentious of we little weaklings here on earth to think that, that we are going to destroy God’s creation.[27]"

—Dick Armey (R-TX), on global warming

NASA and the Y2K bug

Steve McIntyre deduced, and NASA recently admitted, that NASA programmers had a Y2K bug in their source code that processes temperature data. This bug introduced a 0.02% change in the temperature data that has been corrected. Before this correction 1998 was listed as the hottest year recorded, but this difference was statistically non-significant with the second place year 1934; with the correction 1934 becomes the hottest year. 1934 was a period of intense drought in the United States, as it was during the Dust Bowl years in the Great Depression. The change does not affect the global temperature; it only changes the temperature data for the United States.

The old temperature series data for the U.S. was as follows:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/4/41/Gissusold.png

With the correction it changes dramatically, to:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/b/bd/Gissusnew.png

Denialists jumped on the bandwagon in regards to this shift making many grandiose claims that it invalidates all of the data that proves this has been the hottest decade in recorded history. This is not the case; it only makes a tiny difference that does not change the decade averages or the global averages.

Glacier retreat calculations

Scientists have found DNA from ancient animals in an ice layer of Greenland, 1.9 km (1.2 miles) beneath the surface.[1] Since this study indicates that the ice layer survived the last interglacial, it has led to speculation that the ice caps may be able to also withstand global warming.[2] However, the main author of the study 'dismissed' suggestions that his team's data indicated that sea levels would not rise to predicated levels, saying that "during the last interglacial, sea levels rose by 5-6m, but this must have come from other sources additional to the Greenland ice cap, such as Antarctic ice. I would anticipate that as the Earth warms from man-made climate change, these sources would still contribute to a rise in sea levels."[3]

Another scientist pointed out that it may not be reasonable to extrapolate the study's results to our current situation, because the temperature changes in previous interglacials occurred at a much slower pace.[2] Coincidentally, this article provides more evidence that the world is at least 120,000 years old, which flies in the face of creationists who claim the earth is 6000 years old.[4]

Nature generates more CO2 than humans

While it is true that natural sources of CO2 release represent a much higher percentage of CO2 output, natural carbon "sinks" that take up that CO2 balance it out. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been relatively constant for hundreds of thousands of years due to output and input being equal. What humans are doing is burning and releasing natural carbon sinks, therefore releasing CO2, without creating additional carbon sinks. This means the net amount of CO2 is increasing over time due to our involvement even though our total output is less than natural sources.

One of the interesting things is that the natural outputs of CO2 and the human-made outputs contain different isotopes. Fossil fuel burning outputs CO2 that has less 14C and 13C than do natural sources. Using tree ring dating it can be shown that the proportion of 14C-containing CO2 in the atmosphere decreased substantially prior to the 1940s, when the largely defensive weapon of atomic bomb actually negated our ability to use that test. But 13C testing confirmed the 14C testing and showed that fossil fuel burning is the number one contributor to the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere.[5]

Volcanic activity, specifically underwater volcanic activity, is often cited (usually drawing on the writings of Ian Plimer) as producing more CO2 than humans. This, however, is demonstrably false.

Oddly enough, some denialists also point out the significant amounts of CO2 created by livestock, and somehow totally ignore that these animals are bred and kept by humans, ergo making it human-made emissions. Clearly it is (anthropogenic) burning of fossil fuels that is responsible.

A stranger claim was made by Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, namely that trees actually give off CO2 instead of absorbing it. He also claimed that environmentalism was the work of Communist leaders bent on destroying the freedoms of the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which indicates that live audio and Dunning-Kruger often go hand in hand.[6]

CO2 levels lag behind temperature increases

There have been several major changes in the Earth's climate over its 4.5 billion year history. These have included spectacular effects such as the snowball earth and periods of intense global warming. These periods of warming and cooling all have a range of causes mostly involving positive feedback loops, such as ice reflecting the sun back to space causing more ice, reflecting more sun, and Milankovitch cycles, variations in Earth's orbit that have an effect on climate. The warming had similar positive feedback loops, which initially could have been caused by one of many factors but eventually the warming increased the levels of CO2 which then caused even more warming. The fact that CO2 level increases have not been responsible for the start of a 100 percent of all global warming events on the planet does not negate the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere does cause warming.

Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas

Water vapour is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere and accounts for a substantial portion of the greenhouse effect that raises the Earth's temperature from an inhospitable 19 degrees below zero to a more temperate 16 degrees above zero. Global warming denialists have used this to claim that carbon dioxide is an unimportant gas in the greenhouse effect - and this can be coupled with the fact that burning fossil fuels (oxidation) results in the release of water vapour in addition to carbon dioxide.

However, this argument that CO2 is not the cause of global warming misses (possibly intentionally) several key facts. Firstly, water vapour is often saturated in the atmosphere, and this leads to rain. Adding water to the atmosphere may alter weather patterns but its concentration does not differ on the scales considered by climate scientists. As it is removed from the atmosphere on a fast time scale, it can cause short lived but extreme changes in temperature, and so is the cause of much freak, but short-term, weather. Carbon dioxide on the other hand has a much longer life-time in the atmosphere and its concentration is not capped by saturation in the atmosphere. This makes the effect that CO2 has on the Earth's climate a considerable force.[7]

It has been hotter in the past so it is just cyclical

While it is true that there have been cyclical patterns of temperature changes throughout our planet's history, this does not mean that causes are unknown, unknowable, or all the same. The application of the scientific method is great for working out cause/effect relationships. Scientists have managed to link several warming and cooling cycles in the geologic history to specific causes. They have also shown that the modern warming is due to the added output of humans burning fossil fuels and destroying carbon sinks.

The existence of previous warming cycles does not negate the seriousness of the current one. These previous cycles destroyed a great deal of life on the planet, and if similar effects occurred today they would probably destroy all of human civilization, along with the humanity that created it. This does mean that the earth itself will survive, but that no denialist would be around to gloat.

Global warming has more to do with the sun than the earth

Changes in the sun have not been responsible for recent climatic trends; there has not been any significant change in the total energy output of the sun since we have started measuring it, and no changes in the sun or sun phenomenon correlate with increased temperatures. One thing that can change is small perturbations in the orbit of the earth that draw the planet closer or further from the sun. These perturbations might be linked to the start of several of the major climate changes in the geologic history of the earth. Nonetheless, the actual change in temperature due to these orbital changes is small and the large scale changes are due to feedback loops localized to earth pushing things in one direction or another.

There is no evidence that such an orbital shift is happening now, but even if it has, it can only explain a very small percentage of the increase in global temperature. This issue was also a point of contention in the Soon and Baliunas controversy.

It must be the sun because Mars and Pluto are warming too

Many of the planets and moons (and a certain dwarf planet) in our solar system are big enough and geologically active enough to have both an atmosphere and a climate. In any given system there will be some planets increasing in temperature and some decreasing in temperature. This is due to changes in the localized climate, just as it is with earth. The causes are different for each planet and have little to no bearing on each other.

Even if the sun does have a role, it is not likely that our own activities are helping the situation. It would actually be even more incentive to temper our works, because anthropogenic activity combined with solar activity obviously equals even higher rates of warming

Urban heat islands

This point contends that weather station readings are affected by their proximity to cities, or "urban heat islands." See the article on Patrick Michaels, a notable proponent of this argument, for a treatment of this point.

Hey look! There's been no global warming since 1998

One of the most popular claims made against climate science is that there has been "no global warming since 1998," or even that there has been a pattern of "global cooling" since that year. Denialists who have made this argument include Tim Ball, Nigel Lawson, Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton. The origins of this argument are unclear; perhaps it might have originated in an article by Bob Carter which appeared the Daily Telegraph in 2006.[8]

This argument fails for several reasons: it only takes into account surface temperatures, and does not deal with oceanic temperatures; it fails to do any sort of trend analysis, and it does not take into account cyclical oscillations or variation. Most importantly, it is one of the finest examples of cherry picking. Classic climate denialism demands that average global temperature measurements must be taken from the peak of the hottest year and measured to the point trough of the coolest year. If the denialists ever picked years either side of 1998 as their start point, the argument would sink faster than the Titanic. This is because globally, 1998 was a record breaking hot year due to a very strong El Nino.[9][10]

Using anecdotal evidence

Using arguments such as "Wow, it's really cold today! Global warming, my ass!" or "See! It's snowing in Atlanta for the first time in years!" to argue that "global warming" misuses numerical data, since even without global warming, there are fluctuations in local temperatures. Global warming refers to an overall average increase in temperatures of air and water. Additionally, global warming will result in some local areas that are cooler, despite the global average increasing. Strangely enough, this is a common argument used by Fox News and other right-wing organizations who often claim scientists are only using anecdotes of hot weather as proof of global warming when the exact opposite is true. Even more strange, when someone asks where the global warming is because it's snowing where they live, and someone else responds back with "It's 75 and sunny here, and I'm north of you and up in the mountains" there is often a lingering silence. Apparently anecdotal evidence isn't allowed to work both ways.

Claiming there is no consensus in respect of global warming

Global warming denialists often try to claim that there is no scientific consensus, despite the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) --- the main international body associated with investigating the phenomenon --- says: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level...There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming."[11] Despite this assertion, denialists have attempted to use such methods as the discredited Oregon Petition in an effort to prove their case.

A 2004 study by Naomi Oreskes reviewed over 900 peer-reviewed papers and found none that dissented from the consensus.[12] Criticism of the study has been withdrawn but continues to be repeated in denialist circles.[13] For instance, Lawrence Solomon has claimed that Bennie Peiser, the British scientist who made the criticism, never actually withdrew it and Wikipedia is "censoring" him.[14]

Contradictory claims

Many of these claims are thrown into one big denialist soup. However, the problem is that many of them are also contradictory in nature. For example, the common talking points about it being warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and low climate sensitivity ("it's not that bad") contradict each other because a warmer Medieval Warm Period would imply high climate sensitivity. Another common assertion is that certain temperature records and proxies are inaccurate, though these supposedly inaccurate measurements are often used to argue that "it happened in the past, so it's natural" or "it's not that bad."[15]

Initial solutions

See the main article on this topic: Renewable energy

"The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations. Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No one should underestimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order."

—Margaret Thatcher, 1990[16]

Anyone who, even after the occurrence of extreme weather events that seem to intensify yearly, does not see the validity of decades of scientific documentation that catalogues the existence of global warming, is a lost cause. Simply put, time is of the essence. Instead of spending resources trying to convince people (anyone who still doesn't get it, will never get it) that global warming is in fact real, the people in this world who have a clue should put the focus on action and moving forward by championing the solutions to this crisis that threatens the entire planet. These solutions involve fostering the use of hybrid vehicles, wind power, solar power, hydro power and perhaps even a containable form of nuclear power.

In the event that such things are a dead end (and there is the opinion that it's too late to reverse climate change by merely reducing or stopping what we're doing) there is geo-engineering. Yes people, chemtrails!

This involves trying to force climate change back in the opposite direction intentionally, or what what has been described as terraforming Earth. Among these options is lacing the atmosphere with particulate matter in order to seed clouds, artificial carbon sequestration technology to actively remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a rate faster than natural sinks such as photosynthesis and ocean carbonates, and constructing sun screens in orbit. The pessimistic perspective is that these measures carry additional risks as we've already fucked the environment accidentally because we didn't understand it well enough, and any more messing about is liable to make things far worse and far sooner. If that becomes the case, we may have little choice but to attempt more extraordinary measures (ie. rapid colonization of space[17]).

Note on abbreviations

See the main article on this topic: Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming

Global warming is often abbreviated as "AGW" for anthropogenic global warming or "ACC" for anthropogenic climate change. Some deniers prepend a C to these (to make CAGW or CACC) to stand for "catastrophic." This is a bullshitting tactic whereby the denier can say "I'm not a 'denier', I do not 'deny' that human-produced emissions can have an effect on climate. I am merely asking questions about whether the impact will be as catastrophic as CAGW proponents say it will." Needless to say, it's a staple among the "not that bad/CO2 is plant food" crowd.

 

[RobDownSouth]

"Don't talk to me of independent study or scientific trial/I'm in denial, deep in denial/And as the waters rise around me/I'll just hold my breath and say it isn't so!"

—"Denial Tango," Men with Day Jobs[1]

*sniff* That's beautiful. They should play that at Trysail's funeral.

 

[phrodeau]

It's funny how so many people can deny scientific facts about climate change, yet happily share their belief and hope that one day soon God will turn off the sun.

 

[sethp]

Good discussion but...the globe continues to warm. You had the wrong thread title. Carry on!

 

[thør]

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1511652_751383871549293_1553910069_n.jpg

 

[girlsmiley]

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1511652_751383871549293_1553910069_n.jpg

Aww, you can just tell they love the little guy.

That's cute, Thor. I'm smiling like

 

[StrangeLife]

Global warming denialism:

"Don't talk to me of independent study or scientific trial/I'm in denial, deep in denial/And as the waters rise around me/I'll just hold my breath and say it isn't so!"

—"Denial Tango," Men with Day Jobs[1]

Global warming denialism refers to claims that global warming: a) Isn't happening, b) Isn't caused by humans, or c) isn't significant.....

An extensive list of arguments. Unfortunately you initiate it by locking down any critizims with a massive ad hominem attack on the opposition.

Basically you are opening with a clear message that people who won't accept anything that follows as absolute gospel and approaches information from "totally un-biased" sources like GreenPeace with a certain amount of skepticism are suffering from "denialism" and bla bla bla...

Despite the fact that it makes the choir cheer, it's an unsound debate strategy because it turns your list of arguments into an all-or-nothing package - either I accept everything as the undisputed truth or I'm a "denialist." A word invented by the same kind of people who calls somebody who believes in the theory of evolution a "Darwinist."

Because if you can put an "-ist" on people and an "-ism" on their opinions it's so much easier to dismiss them...


However as a man of science I approach every situation with a certain amount of skepticism, so alas I will have to reject your package. I agree with some of it, but not all. I agree that global warming is happening, that it's humanly influenced (not caused) and that we need to limit that influence as much as we practically can.

However I disagree with the predictions of future consequences because they're based on statistical data collected over a much too short time to be useful and meteorological models that are way too simple to predict the climatic development of an entire planet over centuries. The sheer number of parameters is staggering. They can hardly cope with a single city a week ahead...

I'm not dissing the meteorologists here, but not even the NSA has the hardware to do this yet. The Matrix is coming, but we're still not quite there.


In the light of the inaccuracies of the underlying science we need to quit the hysteria and stop using global warming as an argument for high-impact short-term political decisions. Unfortunately that will not happen - too many people have a dog in the race and the whole thing has been turned into something closer to religion than science.

I would love to join the religion - thinking is so hard and just running with the crowd is an enticing lure - but unfortunately my personality wont let me. If I came by a burning bush in the desert that claimed to be God, my answer would be "Prove it."

Which of course would result in me getting immediately incinerated by a lightning, because God hates skeptics. I've always wondered how many skeptical guys got their asses fried the last time before Moses came along...

http://www.rabbimoffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/moses.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

Saying that a person's belief in legitimate scientific inquiry and theory is akin to religion is totally valid and not ad hominem at all.

 

[StrangeLife]

Saying that a person's belief in legitimate scientific inquiry and theory is akin to religion is totally valid and not ad hominem at all.

I didn't say that.

The ad hominem part referred to the act of prefacing an argument with a derogatory branding-scheme for anybody whose meaning isn't in accordance with yours. It's basically an ad hominem attack wrapped in a thin layer of academically sounding bull, and a perfect way of converting any argumentation into a one-sided lecture.

The religious part was not aimed at the proponents alone, but at both sides of the climate debate. What side you're on seems to have more to do with unrelated circumstances, like political affiliations or life-style, than scientific considerations. Not unlike a religion...

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

The thermometer was invented sometime around the 1600's. We have 400 years of empirical data on the temperature of some earth zones. The Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. Establishing a long term global temperature trend is like trying to draw a picture of an elephant from a skin cell.

 

[phrodeau]

The thermometer was invented sometime around the 1600's. We have 400 years of empirical data on the temperature of some earth zones. The Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. Establishing a long term global temperature trend is like trying to draw a picture of an elephant from a skin cell.

Wow, you must know a lot about science.

 

[jeninflorida]

This is why we need hundreds of new nuclear power plants!

it makes no sense to have a Prius if a coal/oil is used to create the electricity

Fuck for once I agree with you

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Wow, you must know a lot about science.

Wow. You must know a lot about extrapolation.

 

[StrangeLife]

This is why we need hundreds of new nuclear power plants!

it makes no sense to have a Prius if a coal/oil is used to create the electricity

Fuck for once I agree with you

Definitely.

It's interesting how the "environmental activists" of the seventies who fought so hard against nuclear power ended up causing a massive increase in the usage of fossil fuel. A classic example of emotionally founded environmentalism gone bad.

 

[phrodeau]

Definitely.

It's interesting how the "environmental activists" of the seventies who fought so hard against nuclear power ended up causing a massive increase in the usage of fossil fuel. A classic example of emotionally founded environmentalism gone bad.

Oh, and you can prove this?

 

[StrangeLife]

Oh, and you can prove this?

It's recorded history.

The US dialed the building of power plants way down in the seventies and the protest-lobby made it political suicide for any administration to reverse it until years later, when people started talking about atmosphere pollution and global warming...

Of the 100 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1977 or earlier.

There has been no ground-breaking on new nuclear plants in the United States since 1974. Up until 2013, there had also been no ground-breaking on new nuclear reactors at existing power plants since 1977.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Definitely.

It's interesting how the "environmental activists" of the seventies who fought so hard against nuclear power ended up causing a massive increase in the usage of fossil fuel. A classic example of emotionally founded environmentalism gone bad.

They were also touting the upcoming ice age.

 

[sethp]

They were also touting the upcoming ice age.

Which isn't too far off, there are models that show that melting ice and the influx of cold, fresh water into the sea could actually cool the globe dramatically at least for a century or two.

 

[jeninflorida]

It's recorded history.

The US dialed the building of power plants way down in the seventies and the protest-lobby made it political suicide for any administration to reverse it until years later, when people started talking about atmosphere pollution and global warming...

phrodeau doesn't like the truth, he's rather stay high off the obama ass juice then face reality

he's almost as fucked in the head as Merc, UD, SeanH/R