Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Careful there Jones. I hear disagreeing with <insert PC term> can get weather forecasters fired

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:And the prediction of several feet? We've sustained a rise of an average of 1.8mm a year over the last century. That is pretty negligable. Not to mention there has been no measurable acceleration in the rise during that time frame.

part of the difficulty of studying climate change is that record keeping is recent and the time scales involved are potentially vast. Additionally the average rate of change in the sea level may not be the key figure, but rather the rate of change in that rise. If that rate is accelerating then it indicates that there is a problem and that we ought to be concerned.

Didn't he just tell you there was no measurable acceleration in the rate.

abaddonfidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:
Look, the "science" behind AGW is shoddy at best. The pushers behind it are taking weak data, drawing conclusions, and calling it fact. It's a process that has been accomplished horribly, and should be laughed at by the scientific community. The problem is that it is a trillion dollar cash cow. There is so much money involved that it's ridiculous. Look at Al Gore. The man has made millions off of this, and it's obvious he doesn't buy what he's selling because he wastes more energy himself than most small towns.

whether Al Goreis a hypocrite or not really doesnt matter, so I'll just pass over that as an irrelevant ad hominem attack. What matters is the science.
If you think the science is bad, then my question to you is: whats your training? where did you get your phd? what experiments have you performed? what data have you collected? what scientific journal has published the results of your research? If your answer to these questions is a big zippo then, politely, be quiet. You dont know anything about it and shouldnt act like you do. If you do have some substantial answers to those questions, then lets hear them, and lets hear why, based on science - not grant money, not whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or not, not crazy conspiracy theories - why, based on science, you disagree.

he doesn't need training. There are plenty of actual scientists that disagree with AGW.

abaddonfidelis wrote:
Yes its possible the whole thing is a swindle. Its also possible that corporations that stand to lose billions of dollars in taxes to clean up their own mess are throwing out disinformation in order to protect their own interests. Its possible that republican stooges are stumping for their corporate masters on the radio day in and day out. If you really think money is motivating the debate, then who stands to gain or lose more? the scientists or the corporations?

You do realise that not all corporations are making money on oil. The "green" industry is making billions of dollars also.

abaddonfidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:
The IPCC has been thoroughly debunked because it was BS work that was put into it, and the more and more digging that is done into this thing, turns up more and more dirt, cut corners, and shoddy work. It's ridiculous that this "science" has gotten the credence that it does.

debunked by who?

By scientists who disagree. Perhaps you should read a bit more and not just accept what you media tells you the science says. Also the ICPP report was found to reference a bunch of non-peer reviewed studies.

abaddonfidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:
Abbadon, when I made reference before to how much energy a single storm puts out, I was trying to give you a glimpse of just how unbelievably massive and dynamic our atmosphere is. We have thousands of thunderstorms occur around the world daily. Massive ocean currents pushing trillions of tons of water. Jet streams moving continental sized air masses around the world. Hurricanes, typhoons, El Nino, etc...

I've been in this career my whole adult life, and it still baffles me today just how unebelievably huge and complex this system is. We cannot yet write computer models that can accurately forecast to within two degrees what the temperature will be in a week. There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that they can create models accurate enough to drive laws, that tell us whats going to happen with that unebelievably huge engine, down to a single degree, within a hundred years.

No we cant model the climate. Not yet. Climatology is a new science these things take time. But if you agree that CO2, when present in sufficient quantities in the atmosphere, has the effect of permitting light and heat energy in but preventing it from getting out, and you also agree that CO2 gas is a byproduct of respiration of animal life as well as of industrial production, and, on top of that, you agree that the trees that absorb that CO2 are less common then they were, say, a thousand years ago, then it follows, as day follows night, that the earth is getting warmer. As a student of history (not of climatology) I can tell you that the deforestation of the plant is real - the entire eastern sea board of this country, all the way up to the Apalachains, used to be covered with trees. Much of the land beyond that, up to the Mississippi valley, was another gigantic forest. Now what is it? farm land, cities, roads, etc. I believe you when you say that there is a vast amount of energy at work in the weather patterns of the planet. But you also need to recognize that the presence of nearly 7 billion humans producing and consuming millions upon millions of tons of manufactured goods daily is not insignificant. The energy that they consume, the CO2 that they give off, the energy that goes into creating the material goods on which their lives are based, and the waste products they discard, all combine to make human presence *the* ecological fact on the planet, second only to *the sun.*
AF

There are also plenty of regions that used to not have trees and now have tons of forests. Large portions of our provincial parks used to be sparsely covered and now we have dense forests there. The computer models that have predicted global warming have completely failed to take into account the lack of statistically significant warming since the mid 90's.

Brock
Those scientists are in the minority. If scientists disagree, and you dont know anything about what they're talking about, do you think it makes more sense to go with the majority or with the minority? The truth is that right wing types want to go with the dissenters because theyre protecting the interests of their corporate masters, like good stooges always have and always will. They dont know or care anything about the science.

Who said anything about oil? Every business that polutes would have to pay to clean it up. Do you think they want to do that? No. Its far cheaper to buy a senator or sponsor a radio talk show program.

Which scientists? What are their qualifications? Be Specific.

You really think that our national parks used to be....deserts? farms? what? Look at a map of how many national parks there are right now, and how much area they cover. Put together do they cover an area even 1/10 the size of the whole eastern sea board? The Ohio valley? What about Europe? Do you realize that all of europe north of the Alps was at one time covered with forests? God you climate change deniers are irritating. Did you know that there was recently a proposal to change the name of Glacier National Park? Why? Cause there arent any damn glaciers left in it. They've all melted. I mean its happening right in front of you and you all stick your heads in the sand. Wake up. Your opinions are bought and paid for by CEOs through their patsies Rush Beck Coulter etc. Its scientists, not radio talk show nutjobs, who you ought to be listening to. And the scientific consensus is....

Global warming is real.
AF

Logically it makes no sense to abide by either. It makes sense only to acknowledge that you are ignorant.

And you haven't actually named any scientists when you support global warming. You don't seem to know anything about the subject either. Perhaps you should keep watching MSNBC and listening to what they tell you. Or was the Al Gore documentary enough?

There are plenty of corporations that make money off of selling green energy and products.

I also have no idea what your national parks are like or used to be. I have no idea what Glacier National Park is. I also have never seen more than a 2 min youtube clip of rush, beck or coulter. It is scientists I'm listening to. Perhaps you should actually read the science and then make a decision instead of listening to what the media tells you the scientists are saying.

Neither of you is citing anyone.

dogma wrote:Neither of you is citing anyone.

This is true. That is why I was pointing out how it is absurd for him to ask for the names of the scientists who oppose AGW when he doesn't provide citations for his scientists.

Why are you making appeals to authority at all?

Richard Seager - Columbia University
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-richard-seager.html

Benjamin Santer - Lawrence Livermore Labarotary
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjamin-santer.html

John Cristy - University of Alabama
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html

Paul J Crutzen - Max Planck Institute for Chemistry
http://www.mpch-mainz.mpg.de/~air/crutzen/

James Hansen, Columbia University, Goddard Institute for Space Stuies
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html
A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/blogs/99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
99% of publishing climatologists — you know, the people who spend their lives studying the science of climate — agree that climate change is happening and that it's because of humans.

That list took me about 5 minutes to compile. I can name as many climate scientists who think climate change is real as I want. The only upward limit is how much time I want to spend on refuting your ridiculous, suicidal, corporate sponsored fantasies.
You all are living in a fantasy world.
Wake up.
AF



Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x70/AnthonyMarr/glacier-melting1941-2008-1.jpg
do you see anything here that represents warming?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://geology.com/news/images/glacier-melting.jpg
what about here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
maybe here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe the real problem with convincing people that climate change is real is intellectual smugness? You know - its cool to buck the establishment. you know what you know. Nobody can tell you different. Dont trust the man. Dont trust the guy with the PhD. Screw education. Screw science. Screw knowleldge. You all have a feeling. You know what you know. Rush wouldnt lie to you. He's a real american. Its all a liberal lie. You all are so smart. Here's a gold star for thinking for yourselves. Now doesnt it feel good to be a part of the counter culture?
Drones. Corporate zombies. Think about whose interests your opinions are serving.
Your opinions are bought and paid for. What a joke.
AF

Again with Rush. You should realize that your cultural icons don't mean anything outside of america. You're not the centre of the world, get over it.

I suppose the retreat of the glaciers since the 1850's has nothing to do with us coming out of a little ice age. North America was once covered in glaciers and the have been melting since. They're going to melt and then the earth will eventually cool and we'll have another ice age again where everything is covered in glaciers. From your first link the CO2 levels didn't start to spike until the 1950's is it possible that those glaciers were melting because of a natural warming trend that we were experiencing since the 1850's?

I doubt you'll bother reading anything I post, since you know what you know, but why not start here and then check out the links to other pages.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

If you are a global warming believer and want action (somewhere between 30-50% of westerners depending on the country) then YOU turn off the electricity where it enters your house and live off solar or wind only, refuse to use an internal combustion engine for any transport, stop playing GW games due to the carbon footprint of the transport of your little model men.

I'll continue enjoying a first world lifestyle thank you very much.

When all the 'believers' start acting in a meaningful way instead of trying to foist uberlame rules, taxes and massively expensive energy on everyone (3rd world included) then I'll be happy to play my part.

BrockRitcey wrote:

I doubt you'll bother reading anything I post, since you know what you know, but why not start here and then check out the links to other pages.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Figured someone would, eventually, trot out Anthony Watt... Is Christopher Monckton next? His slides are available on-line, of course so are some very detailed critiques of his "science". Or, for the "it's sort of happening, but we shouldn't worry" crowd, Bjorn Lomborg; available frequently in the OpEd pages of the Wall Street Journal. By all means read Watt's page, but take it with a huge grain of salt. He has a habit of cherry-picking studies that he thinks weaken individual lines of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming. I'd suggest that folks also read, as a place to start, Skeptical Science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

You can find there discussions of all the various threads of evidence. Their strengths, weaknesses, and common misconceptions about them. But by all means, read more...

On the plus side, Skeptical Science provides links to the actual published material, so those who are willing to actually make the effort can see what the scientists themselves actually said. Not what Watt, Monckton, et al *want* them to have said.

Then if you want, try the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. www.noaa.gov

Or NASA's website on AGW http://climate.nasa.gov/

Between those, you can get a jump on what the data is actually suggesting.

I'll even avoid directing folks to the Hadley CRU, even thought "Climategate" was hugely overhyped and -in the end- was a lot of, pardon the pun, hot air which, at most, reminded everyone that scientists are humans and do get frustrated from time to time. There are some very in-depth refutations of the Climategate conspiracy theory at Skeptical Science, as well as elsewhere, but AGW skeptics will need to leave the cozy confines of their echo chambers to ever run across them.

If there were just one or two threads of evidence that supported AGW, Watt's approach (and for that matter, stance) might be compelling. But there are a vast number of threads, across multiple scientific disciplines, that support the AGW hypothesis. That's how science works. There is virtually never a *perfect* fit between data and theory, and especially so in the case of complex adaptive systems like the earth's climate. Data is noisy, messy, and (yes!) often needs to be "corrected". There will always be threads to pick at, but until there are enough problems with the data matching the theory, you do not meet the threshold of a Kuhnian paradigm shift. Dissenting minorities are important for scientific progress. They serve as important checks on the process. But they do not represent some "suppressed clique". Scientists understand that. The lay public does not, and that leaves the door open for folks like Watt, Monckton, and for that matter the Inhofe's and Limbaugh's of the world to claim that the "truth is being surpressed". Especially if it's, to borrow Gore's phrase, "inconvenient".

The whole debate is very much akin to New Earth Creationists saying that limitations in radiocarbon dating (well understood and documented, by the way, by the scientists who use it) "prove" that you can't trust geologists about the age of the Earth while ignoring the fact that there are multiple independent means of validating the age of the Earth.

Regardless of what Foxnews, the Wall Street Journal (which will, funnily, admit that AGW is real as their official editorial stance but which will always find room for OpEds from AGW deniers), and a few fringe scientists will tell you, there is a scientific consensus on AGW.

Despite what's been claimed in this thread, the IPCC AR4 was NOT 'refuted' as relying on unpublished studies. A couple of specific sub-sections on the possible impact of AGW were based on, at best, poorly reviewed studies. But that does nothing to refute or undermine the overall findings of AR4.

But, again, for anyone who wants to seriously discuss the topic, please read some of the actual sources of information out there. And, please, take the time to learn how scientists talk and how they couch their evidence. As with all groups of specialized professionals, language is not always used the same way in scientific circles as it is elsewhere.

Valete,

JohnS

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I'll continue enjoying a first world lifestyle thank you very much.

...Since when does Australia count as the First World? I thought it was in the 4.5 Tier of the World Ranking system, beating out the likes of 5th World Nations like Somalia, North Korea, and California...

EDIT: It's funny how people interpret data that suggests the climate does indeed change, that humans can influence climate, and that even without humans that animals and natural forces can influence the climate process.

BrockRitcey wrote:Again with Rush. You should realize that your cultural icons don't mean anything outside of america. You're not the centre of the world, get over it.

I suppose the retreat of the glaciers since the 1850's has nothing to do with us coming out of a little ice age. North America was once covered in glaciers and the have been melting since. They're going to melt and then the earth will eventually cool and we'll have another ice age again where everything is covered in glaciers. From your first link the CO2 levels didn't start to spike until the 1950's is it possible that those glaciers were melting because of a natural warming trend that we were experiencing since the 1850's?

I doubt you'll bother reading anything I post, since you know what you know, but why not start here and then check out the links to other pages.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Do you agree that atmospheric co2 has the effect of allowing light and heat energy in but hindering it's escape?
Do you agree that co2 is a byproduct both of animal respiration and of industrial production?
Do you agree that there are close to 7 billion people on the planet?
Do you agree that the last 200 years has seen a tremendous growth in industrial production?
If so then it follows as day follows night that climate change is real and that humans are the cause.
If you don't agree, then what specifically do you disagree with and why? What's your training? Where did you get your phd?

Anyway I don't want to see anymore nonsense about how Im not citing anyone to back up my claims. I recognize that I don't have the training to evaluate the data independently - that's why I defer to the scientific consensus. If you don't have that training, then why don't you?

I really like the discussions on global warming/climate change as it amazes me how people focus on some data and ignore or put less emphasis on other data.
For me its about looking back through the real long term data (tree rings, ice cores, fossils etc) and also modern measurements.

The earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for many thousands of years.
Human interference has led to an increase in "green house gases" (although the argument of 6billion humans etc is not balanced as many animals have seen a dramatic decline in numbers due to humans even extinction)
the earths orbit around the sun and the suns emmisions are hugely important and variable elements to this argument (look at the little ice age for example) lets be honest which would have a bigger effect on the planet 6 billion fossil burning humans or a 1% change in solar emmisions (if you say humans you are deluded)
once global warming melts enough ice the warm currents in the atlantic and pacific that keep many areas warm will slow/stop and the next ice age/mini ace age will be here and we will be discussing global cooling and how desserts are turning to forests and forests to deserts.

Global warming is happening!
humans do impact on it!
Global cooling will happen!
solar system changes/impacts have more effect than humans!
humans should be more aware and make efforts to limit there impacts on the planet! (especially the usa - lead by example instead of through your bank accounts)

The Mauna Loa time series data on atmospheric CO2 concentration shows a marked and fairly steady increase since recordings started in 1958.

I don't know if it has any correlation to industrial activity or natural phenomena.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with thousands of smoke stacks belching CO2 into the atmosphere 365 days a year.....

a couple of people brought up ice ages. they happen cyclically its true, but no one knows why. Its kind of blase to dismiss global warming as part of a natural cycle, since no one really understands what drives that cycle.
AF

if people generally understand that the earth has had many warming and cooling phases and that we are now in a warming phase then figures from anytime since the warming started (at the end of the last ice age) are baseless figures. we cant compare them to the last warming cycle because man didnt keep records then and so we dont know if the current trend of gases and temps isnt normal. the nearest we get is ring data and ice core samples etc and even those only go back a few thousand years and that is no doubt not enough to really judge patterns as a few thousand years doesnt give enough timne to see patterns due to the planets tilt, solar emmisions etc

Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm sure it has nothing to do with thousands of smoke stacks belching CO2 into the atmosphere 365 days a year.....

a couple of people brought up ice ages. they happen cyclically its true, but no one knows why. Its kind of blase to dismiss global warming as part of a natural cycle, since no one really understands what drives that cycle.
AF

Also, human life is quite natural, and therefore all the things that go with it (technology) are also quite natural.

The question isn't really about whether or not nature is affecting itself, the question is about whether or not humans are a significant component of nature's affect on itself.

Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion, but whenever AbaddonFidelis signs himself off AF, it makes me think of Japanese porn.

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

That's quite simply not true. I mean seriously... There are plenty of cases where people can disagree over what the facts actually are without repeating statements that are factually incorrect...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

There are plenty of links in the Skeptical Science page for anyone who doesn't trust them per se...

Now, there was some PRESS hyping of the "coming Ice Age", but it was not based on the overall consensus of the scientific community, even in the 70's.

Valete,

JohnS

Kilkrazy wrote:Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion, but whenever AbaddonFidelis signs himself off AF, it makes me think of Japanese porn.

It was way too highbrow anyway.

It makes me think of Anti-Flag, a punk bad that I listen to but agree with upon absolutely nothing.

cygnnus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

That's quite simply not true. I mean seriously... There are plenty of cases where people can disagree over what the facts actually are without repeating statements that are factually incorrect...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

There are plenty of links in the Skeptical Science page for anyone who doesn't trust them per se...

Now, there was some PRESS hyping of the "coming Ice Age", but it was not based on the overall consensus of the scientific community, even in the 70's.

Valete,

JohnS

Maybe you weren't around, but there was definitely hype back in the day about Global Cooling. To suggest otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.

fox40 wrote:usa - lead by example instead of through your bank accounts

no u

Orkeosaurus wrote:

fox40 wrote:usa - lead by example instead of through your bank accounts

no u

Do they want us to run the world or don't they?

I'm confused.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

and republican radio hosts say
no it isnt

how many people prefer to believe the radio host. I mean whats their qualification anyway? What university did they go to? What experiments have they performed? What data have they collected? What research station have they ever visited? People are dumb. honestly.

QFT

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion, but whenever AbaddonFidelis signs himself off AF, it makes me think of Japanese porn.

It was way too highbrow anyway.

It makes me think of Anti-Flag, a punk bad that I listen to but agree with upon absolutely nothing.

cygnnus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

That's quite simply not true. I mean seriously... There are plenty of cases where people can disagree over what the facts actually are without repeating statements that are factually incorrect...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

There are plenty of links in the Skeptical Science page for anyone who doesn't trust them per se...

Now, there was some PRESS hyping of the "coming Ice Age", but it was not based on the overall consensus of the scientific community, even in the 70's.

Valete,

JohnS

Maybe you weren't around, but there was definitely hype back in the day about Global Cooling. To suggest otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.

I was "around". Be careful about confusing "hype" generated by the media with actual evidence. But I do know that is something the Foxnews crowd (whether you're one or not, I have no idea) have a very hard time doing...

But rather than rely on either of our recollections of what the state of climate science was over 30 years ago, I'd suggest you actually peruse the link... and read some of the material. There was some media coverage of the "coming Ice Age", but if you'd bothered to take a look at the actual evidence of what was published by climatologists in the '70s, it was a very different story. I've heard the claims that there was scientific hype about a coming Ice Age in the '70s. I chose to actually try to find out what evidence exists to back up those claims. To do otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.


Valete,

JohnS

Whenever I read a thread where AF is arguing, I keep expecting him to suggest moving into mine shafts with a ratio of 10 women to 1 man, and that all the women would have to be sexually attractive.

Then I realise he probably isnt, and I am sad :(

Honestly, the worst thing about Global Warming(or whatever the hell the PC crowd want to call it) is the fact that its become a political football, except most politicians dont actually understand anything about it, so just pay people to tell them what they want to hear.

A year ago the man that very nearly became Prime Minister of Australia said that climate change was "absolute crap" ...

cygnnus wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion, but whenever AbaddonFidelis signs himself off AF, it makes me think of Japanese porn.

It was way too highbrow anyway.

It makes me think of Anti-Flag, a punk bad that I listen to but agree with upon absolutely nothing.

cygnnus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

That's quite simply not true. I mean seriously... There are plenty of cases where people can disagree over what the facts actually are without repeating statements that are factually incorrect...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

There are plenty of links in the Skeptical Science page for anyone who doesn't trust them per se...

Now, there was some PRESS hyping of the "coming Ice Age", but it was not based on the overall consensus of the scientific community, even in the 70's.

Valete,

JohnS

Maybe you weren't around, but there was definitely hype back in the day about Global Cooling. To suggest otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.

I was "around". Be careful about confusing "hype" generated by the media with actual evidence. But I do know that is something the Foxnews crowd (whether you're one or not, I have no idea) have a very hard time doing...

But rather than rely on either of our recollections of what the state of climate science was over 30 years ago, I'd suggest you actually peruse the link... and read some of the material. There was some media coverage of the "coming Ice Age", but if you'd bothered to take a look at the actual evidence of what was published by climatologists in the '70s, it was a very different story. I've heard the claims that there was scientific hype about a coming Ice Age in the '70s. I chose to actually try to find out what evidence exists to back up those claims. To do otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.

So... What is your point exactly?

Did I say that the proponents of Global Cooling were correct? I wouldn't do that, I have no idea whether they are or not. What would the motive be for a massive media misinformation blitz about Global Cooling?

Though I wouldn't be so quick to just post a link and expect it to be taken as gospel. Behold, the proof of Global Cooling.

http://www.climatecooling.org/

BrockRitcey wrote:Like how scientists used to tell you smoking wasn't harmful. There has been data collected on how the more extreme the claim of danger the higher the funding the scientists got. When a scientist tells a politician, "we don't think anything is wrong but we want to study it." how much money do you think they get?

Also how do you explain the people in the rest of the world who are wary of climate science when they don't have rush talking to them?

In following the reasoning above you're pretty much rejecting science, which is basically the foundation for the modern world.

And Rush is hardly the only guy out there. Climate change is finding resistance because building a global framework to controlling industrial emissions is the kind of thing people really don't like doing. It's easier to pretend it isn't needed. If some clown on the radio is going to tell them that it isn't necessary, plenty of people are going to choose to believe them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Regardless, we shouldn't be asking the question "Is the climate changing?" It plainly is. We should asking the question "Is the climate changing into something beneficial?"

Well, no. We should just spend time to recognise how much of the world's infrastructure in dependant on the current climate patterns. Then we should think about how much it will cost to change to adapt to those patterns, and compare it to the cost of controlling emission. This was done in the Stern Report, and his conclusion was pretty clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:I've been a weather forecaster for 9 years in the USAF. I've forecasted across the entire world. Continental US, North Pacific, Central Asia, Australia, you name it, I've done it.

I cannot say that I've ever seen definitive evidence to prove whether or not humans are involved in worldwide climate effects, but I do know the dynamics of the atmosphere. I do know that the energy involved in a single thunderstorm more then eclipses that of the Hiroshima bomb.

I believe that the human impact is inconsequential. That the psuedo-science of AGW, is at it's core humanity trying to say it matters.

You're accusing them of pseudo-science... you haven't even got any science. You've got a factoid about an a-bomb and a thunderstorm and a whole theory built on that. A factoid dependant on a misunderstanding of the scale of a noteable once-off event and the combined industry of an entire planet over a century.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:Look, the "science" behind AGW is shoddy at best. The pushers behind it are taking weak data, drawing conclusions, and calling it fact. It's a process that has been accomplished horribly, and should be laughed at by the scientific community. The problem is that it is a trillion dollar cash cow. There is so much money involved that it's ridiculous.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, if a scientist wanted to make money on the issue, they could take the much higher pay cheques offered by industry. They don't, because not everyone is a mercenary. Your claim makes no sense.

Look at Al Gore. The man has made millions off of this, and it's obvious he doesn't buy what he's selling because he wastes more energy himself than most small towns.

Trying to dismiss science by targetting one guy is terrible science, and given your dislike for climate science you really should hold yourself to a higher standard.

The IPCC has been thoroughly debunked because it was BS work that was put into it, and the more and more digging that is done into this thing, turns up more and more dirt, cut corners, and shoddy work. It's ridiculous that this "science" has gotten the credence that it does.

Some elements of the IPCC were attacked by some parties. To claim it was thoroughly debunked is almost nonsensical.

There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that they can create models accurate enough to drive laws, that tell us whats going to happen with that unebelievably huge engine, down to a single degree, within a hundred years.

There is tremendous complexity in the climate, but that doesn't discount the existance of general rules. A game of football is incredibly complex, it involves thousands, probably millions, of individual physical reactions with the decision making of dozens of humans - we couldn't predict a past the first second's play even if we had near perfect information. And yet, we can still make broad predictions, we can still predict that Manchester Utd are very likely to defeat Gosnells U/11s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:But I do know poor scientific work when I see it. Such as AGW pushers completely ignoring the Solar aspect.

They don't. The multiple solar cycles have been accounted for in climate models. Is it possible the problem here is that you're relying on the terrible media coverage of climate science, and not reading any of the actual research directly?