Global Warming: Fact or Farce

[yossarian22]

Yeah you are right I was a bit. I just meant I hadn't really paid much attention to them or rather I paid them the same amount of attention that I do the "Creationism is science" threads. I knew that there were people who were sceptical of global warming but I had thought that it was to about the same extent as people who believe 9/11 was organised by the American government.

I'd rather not get classed in with that group. I would like to think that I am being rational in my analysis, but I can't be a judge of my own rationality.

The notion of it being bad science is really annoying to me personally. It is not bad science; it is a difference in interpretation of data. People who declare that the thing is a hoax really have little idea what they are talking about. The title of this thread is mostly meant for shock effect. I am willing to admit to blatant sensationalizing.

Jaiket: People actually think that? I have heard claims that global warming is a conspiracy made by power companies so they can receive massive subsidies from the government, but nothing quite as.... idiotic as that.

Anyhow, attacking the issue on name changing is useless. Global Warming is, in and of itself, totally misleading. It will not get warm everywhere. That is due to unequal absorption of heat. That creates air and water currents. Certain areas will get very very hot, others will get much colder. The general trend will be upwards as more heat gets absorbed. So they renamed it "Climate Change" or "Climate Shift" or something similar to that, mostly so FOX News does not latch use the coldest winter in history for a town as an argument against global warming.

The debate has never been about whether or not the earth has been warming. Whoever makes that argument needs to either review the data or stop ruining the reputation of other skeptics. The issue has never been whether or not we have an effect on climate. We are spewing tons of CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor into the air. All gases with known insulative properties. Of course the planet is going to warm. What the debate is, and has always been about these questions
1: Is our effect on climate significant? (I do not mean statistically significant).
2: What are the consequences of climate change?
3: Do the consequences of climate change outweigh the benefits?

The validity of current anthropogenic climate change is irrelevant to my position. It does not appear that climate change warrants immediate and dramatic action, or even any action at all.

And the notion that scientists are being bribed to support the point of view of whoever funds them is offensive.

 

[3.14]

ofcourse global warming is real just think more and more energy is transfered into heat it is however not as big of a problem as people make it out to be it is more used as a warning that we need to take better care of the planet. since people rarely care that some species dies off they invented global warming (blaming people for heatwaves) so people would care again for nature, but now some idioots are disproving it so people are again stopping to care about nature

 

[Alceste]

And the notion that scientists are being bribed to support the point of view of whoever funds them is offensive.

Why? I mean, you can look up any one of the handful of "scientists" who question the almost unanimous concensus of climatologists on SourceWatch - SourceWatch to find out exactly which pro-industry think tanks and industry-funded foundations are paying for their research. I mean, there are literally only about forty people generating all the material climate change skeptics draw upon, and they are all there. (Compare this to the 2500 members of the IPCC).

I mean, that's if you even need any further reason to be dubious of them than the fact none of them are, or even claim to be, climatologists, and none of their research is peer reviewed. Your guy is an economist and most of the rest are geologists who spent many years locating oil before making their smooth transition into the "climate change skeptic" industry. The purpose of their work is to create the appearance of controversy in order to confuse governments into putting off environmental regulations, and to confuse consumers into putting off riding their bikes to work.

How is that offensive?

 

[Troublemane]

Its all speculative at this point. Scientists cant even adequately predict how many hurricanes we will have in a year, and they really expect us to believe they know what the global climate will do in the next century! LoL!

True, islands in Micronesia are disappearing, and glaicers are retreating, but the climate change pimps are trying to link this to CO2 because they want to try and start lawsuits against the US and China, thats my thought. Its really just a shameless shakedown for cash, and the scientists who are going along with it (especially those who have no credentials related to climatology, but sign anyway to help foist this absurdity on the public), should be ashamed.

 

[Troublemane]

...You have heard that there is now supposed to be a trend of global cooling for the next ten years havent you? This is from the same people who advocate the IPCC.

But it doesnt change global warming. it will still happen (they say) just later....really.

 

[Alceste]

Here, since Ross McKitrick's efforts seem to have kicked this whole thing off, I'll post a link to his Sourcewatch profile and a brief rundown of his "scientific credentials". Ross McKitrick:

Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and, since October 2002, has been a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia. His name also appears frequently as "Ross McKittrick".


McKitrick has made a name for himself in the last few years as a climate change sceptic since he co-authored the book Taken By Storm, which was published in late 2002. However, his support for conservative challenges to mainstream environmental policies stretches back some years prior to the book. For example in late 1999 defended the Fraser Institute when it criticised proposals for an Endangered Species Act in Canada.

In November 1999 the Fraser Institute disputed an estimate by the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada that there were 339 endangered species. Instead it preferred its own estimate of 91.

And some more on the Fraser Institute:

In 1974, a group of academics and business executives, concerned about big government, founded the Fraser Institute. [[1]]


At the time, there were concerns about the institute's agenda given that one of those who helped set it up, Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, had received financial support from the forestry giant, MacMillan-Bloedel [Ibid]. To allay these charges, the Fraser Institute stated that its research priorities would not be determined by its funders but by its staff, that the staff of the institute would not engage in political activity, not its funders, and that its conclusions would not be shaped to favour any political or economic group. [Ibid]

On page 2 of its 2005 Annual Report, the Fraser Institute features a photograph of Michael Walker with US Vice President Dick Cheney at the Eisenhower Administration Building, followed by a photograph of Canada's "future Prime Minister" Stephen Harper attending the Institute's annual general meeting.


This suggests that the institute is indeed engaged in political activity, and certainly many of its Senior Fellows are.

 

[Alceste]

...You have heard that there is now supposed to be a trend of global cooling for the next ten years havent you? This is from the same people who advocate the IPCC.

But it doesnt change global warming. it will still happen (they say) just later....really.

Nope, haven't heard that. Please provide a link. I wasn't even aware there had been a group set up to "advocate the IPCC".

 

[Troublemane]

funny how someone who is a skeptic has "scientific credentials", but someone who has absolutely no credentials and no idea what he is talking about (i.e. Al Gore) can get a nobel prize. america is the land of opportunity!

 

[Troublemane]

Nope, haven't heard that. Please provide a link. I wasn't even aware there had been a group set up to "advocate the IPCC".

CFP: New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
Eco-alarmists, just the (cold) facts - BostonHerald.com
Bloomberg.com: Science
IFM-GEOMAR: Welcome to IFM-GEOMAR
IFM-GEOMAR: 080501
Just a few links to the story. Odd the media hasnt reported it much here.

 

[Alceste]

funny how someone who is a skeptic has "scientific credentials", but someone who has absolutely no credentials and no idea what he is talking about (i.e. Al Gore) can get a nobel prize. america is the land of opportunity!

The Nobel Peace Prize is for peace, not science, and there are no advantages to being American in terms of winning it. Ie. The Dalai Lama, Yassir Arafat, Mikhail Gorbachev and Mother Theresa have also won it. Also worth a mention is that the IPCC and Al Gore shared the prize last year. The European Nobel Prize committee asserts that since the mass migrations that result from rapid climate change are a threat to peace, action on climate change is worthy of a peace prize. I tend to agree with their reasoning.

So your point is?

 

[Alceste]

CFP: New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
Eco-alarmists, just the (cold) facts - BostonHerald.com
Bloomberg.com: Science
IFM-GEOMAR: Welcome to IFM-GEOMAR
IFM-GEOMAR: 080501
Just a few links to the story. Odd the media hasnt reported it much here.

OK, first article is by Dennis Avery, a well-known climate change skeptic who also claims food sprayed with pesticides is safer for consumption than organic food. Case dismissed. I am not surprised the mainstream media has not followed up on any of his nonsensical blathering. He's a quack. Next!

Phil Chapman... Can't find much on him, but he does seem very much on his own when it comes to what to do about climate change - he recommends using all the bulldozers in the world to dirty up the snow in Canada and Siberia to avoid the imminent ice age he believes is around the corner. He's certainly NOT an "advocate of the IPCC" as you put it. Next!

Re, the Bloomberg article, did you even read that one? Together with the IFM links you posted there's no suggestion of what you're calling "global cooling". They are claiming it might warm up a bit slower than expected in the short term due to sea currents. I strongly recommend reading your own sources!

 

[tomspug]

More telling than actual global warming science is the amount of money that Al Gore is making thanks to the trend of being "green". His carbon credits are making him a multi-millionaire!

 

[Alceste]

More telling than actual global warming science is the amount of money that Al Gore is making thanks to the trend of being "green". His carbon credits are making him a multi-millionaire!

I'm sure it's nowhere near the amount of money Dick Cheney is making by being "evil".

 

[Troublemane]

...You have heard that there is now supposed to be a trend of global cooling for the next ten years havent you? This is from the same people who advocate the IPCC.

But it doesnt change global warming. it will still happen (they say) just later....really.

I know, this is what I said in my original post. These are the same scientists who are saying global warming is happening, are saying there will be a cooling trend. (bloomberg). the first couple links i gave refer to cooling but are skeptics. i included em all, as i figured you would be able to see its not just one group (pro or con) talking about it.

 

[Alceste]

I know, this is what I said in my original post. These are the same scientists who are saying global warming is happening, are saying there will be a cooling trend. (bloomberg). the first couple links i gave refer to cooling but are skeptics. i included em all, as i figured you would be able to see its not just one group (pro or con) talking about it.

OK, well, you threw me off with the phrase "trend of global cooling". The Bloomberg and IFM links say nothing about global cooling - they say there MAY be a bit of a slow-down in overall global warming due to short term cooling trends in "parts of North America and Europe", which I'm sure you'll agree is not the same thing as a "trend of global cooling".

Also, talking about research which indicates the possibility of a short-term cooling trend in "parts of North America and Europe" really has nothing to do with whatever those two morons you found are blathering about, so there's really no reason to show me how "both sides" are talking about global cooling. I could do with seeing respectable research-based scientific links only in this case.

 

[yossarian22]

Why? I mean, you can look up any one of the handful of "scientists" who question the almost unanimous concensus of climatologists on SourceWatch - SourceWatch to find out exactly which pro-industry think tanks and industry-funded foundations are paying for their research. I mean, there are literally only about forty people generating all the material climate change skeptics draw upon, and they are all there. (Compare this to the 2500 members of the IPCC).

I mean, that's if you even need any further reason to be dubious of them than the fact none of them are, or even claim to be, climatologists, and none of their research is peer reviewed. Your guy is an economist and most of the rest are geologists who spent many years locating oil before making their smooth transition into the "climate change skeptic" industry. The purpose of their work is to create the appearance of controversy in order to confuse governments into putting off environmental regulations, and to confuse consumers into putting off riding their bikes to work.

How is that offensive?

I find it amusing that you consider the IPCC to somehow be an unbiased source of information. If it wasn't for the idea of climate change, that entire organization would not exist. Anyhow, your appeal to numbers is old hat. I can also tell that you have never browsed through many scientific journals, as you apparently have no knowledge of the girth of information there that can help one build a case against anthropogenic climate change. Shall we forget how the last sea level change predicted by the IPCC was written without a single qualified sea level expert involved and was openly criticized by a known expert in the field?

The accusation of getting paid off cuts both ways. Just look farther back in the thread. How much did the "pro" side get, and how much did the "neg" side get? It is not like it matters either way, as you are basically saying "They work for X, therefore whatever they say is invalid". Either refute their arguments or shut up. Data is data. If their interpretation is invalid, then show how it is invalid. If you can't, then you have absolutely nothing useful to add.

Warming on hold until 2015
Access : : Nature
You can find the UN's prediction for global temperatures to drop during 2008 yourself.
RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - A cold spell soon to replace global warming
I can provide more links from Nature that can build a case arguing that the solar minimum is rolling around if you want through diminishing sun spot activity, solar flares, radio telescope observation, and more, but that would be beating around the bush for a moot point.

Justify acting as if global warming is true.

 

[Alceste]

I find it amusing that you consider the IPCC to somehow be an unbiased source of information. If it wasn't for the idea of climate change, that entire organization would not exist. Anyhow, your appeal to numbers is old hat. I can also tell that you have never browsed through many scientific journals, as you apparently have no knowledge of the girth of information there that can help one build a case against anthropogenic climate change. Shall we forget how the last sea level change predicted by the IPCC was written without a single qualified sea level expert involved and was openly criticized by a known expert in the field?

The accusation of getting paid off cuts both ways. Just look farther back in the thread. How much did the "pro" side get, and how much did the "neg" side get? It is not like it matters either way, as you are basically saying "They work for X, therefore whatever they say is invalid". Either refute their arguments or shut up. Data is data. If their interpretation is invalid, then show how it is invalid. If you can't, then you have absolutely nothing useful to add.

Warming on hold until 2015
Access : : Nature
You can find the UN's prediction for global temperatures to drop during 2008 yourself.
RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - A cold spell soon to replace global warming
I can provide more links from Nature that can build a case arguing that the solar minimum is rolling around if you want through diminishing sun spot activity, solar flares, radio telescope observation, and more, but that would be beating around the bush for a moot point.

Justify acting as if global warming is true.

OK, you obviously didn't read the Access: Nature link. It's a letter from the IMF - same people as the other two links already discussed, that reiterates they're predicting cyclic ocean currents will cool parts of Europe and N. America which might temporarily offset previously predicted warming trends.

As to the other article, that's ONE scientist. Not being a scientist myself, I am perfectly happy to do "the numbers game", as I understand it's a crucial step in the scientific process. So if two thousand five hundred scientists claim to have verified anthropogenic climate change and one scientist has not, I'm satisfied to accept the findings of the majority. That is the whole point of peer review and verification. I have to wonder why anyone would go for the "lone wolf", unless your desire to believe in his findings outweighs your understanding of and commitment to scientific method.

So why do you find the notion of anthropogenic climate change so threatening you bone up on the debunked "findings" of economists who work for libertarian think tanks (ie. industry-friendly PR firms) and the insignificant minority of contrarian scientists whose views support your own beliefs? Do you own an oil company or something? Are you a logger? What's the deal?

 

[Troublemane]

For decades the official date for Native peoples coming to the americas was set at no earlier than 20,000 years ago, and it was thought that they travelled from siberia during the last ice age. When evidence that there were people here further back, as far back even as 40,000 years ago or more, was discovered it was suppresed and attacked by the majority of anthropologists, without ever reviewing the data. Quite a few anthropologists over the last century were beaten down in the public forum, openly mocked and even lost their positions due to the opinions of the majority. Why? Not becaus they looked at the data, but because it couldnt be possible, because the evidencence contradicted a pet theory, or was dangerous to the majority who were in "agreement" (i.e., their own careers were based on theories they had advanced, and were now being questioned). Today, anthropologists are still having difficulty pinning down a precise timeline for the migrations of peoples to the americas, but now that the old guard is dying out we are able to learn things like "hey, there are clovis points all over eastern america, and from france that are even older, so clovis people came from europe! not siberia!"---this is how science changes. its not through genuine work that is recognized through peer review, its survival in the face of overwhelming opposition at times.

I personally am not a denier of climate change, nor is Yossarian ( think said as much),just a critic of the methods used attributing it to man. But what is suspicious to me immediatedly is when scientists who appear as "pro-anthropegenic-sourced-climate-change-biased" speak about those who disagree with their science as "idiots" and "morons"---ad hominem attacks reveal much about the person using them, for if you cant refute the arguement you generally attack the person.

 

[yossarian22]

OK, you obviously didn't read the Access: Nature link. It's a letter from the IMF - same people as the other two links already discussed, that reiterates they're predicting cyclic ocean currents will cool parts of Europe and N. America which might temporarily offset previously predicted warming trends.

I see meta analysis is not your thing.

As to the other article, that's ONE scientist. Not being a scientist myself, I am perfectly happy to do "the numbers game", as I understand it's a crucial step in the scientific process.

Then your understanding is (drumroll please) totally useless. I could care less if you had 20 billion scientists on your side. All I care about is the validity of data analysis. And there are more than a few more I could dredge up, but I find all the common links to them to be ridiculously biased sinkholes of idiocy. I don't like posting non english websites here.

Let's take the following realization.
1: Our models declare that we will have warming through this decade.
2: We have real world evidence of a flaw in our models.

That is the most abstract result we can derive from this data. Our models are weak. The problem with this, a huge number of claims made about the effects of global warming are based off of these same models.

So if two thousand five hundred scientists claim to have verified anthropogenic climate change and one scientist has not, I'm satisfied to accept the findings of the majority. That is the whole point of peer review and verification. I have to wonder why anyone would go for the "lone wolf", unless your desire to believe in his findings outweighs your understanding of and commitment to scientific method.

Unless I find that nobody has adequately addressed his points. Lot's of scientists disagreed with Issac Newton. Look how that turned out. Lot's of people disagreed with Einstein. Look what happened there. The bleeding edge of science changes direction faster than we can blink.

There is only one outcome that can result from any set of data. Just one. Every other interpretation is wrong in some way, shape, or form. If somebody has a flawed interpretation, then you find it. You don't point to the other people who agree with you.

So why do you find the notion of anthropogenic climate change so threatening you bone up on the debunked "findings" of economists who work for libertarian think tanks (ie. industry-friendly PR firms) and the insignificant minority of contrarian scientists whose views support your own beliefs? Do you own an oil company or something? Are you a logger? What's the deal?

I dislike idiocy in my threads.
I dislike irrelevant idiocy even more. My motives don't matter. You have no clue what I believe, or even if I am arguing from a position that I support. Stop pretending that you do, and start making an actual point or I will cease responding.

I don't even care if the current theories of AGW are correct. It is, quite bluntly, irrelevant to the stance I outlined in at least 3 other threads to date.

For sake of argument, let's say you are correct and CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, and that human activities are the cause of the apparent climate shift. So what? Why should I care?

 

[Alceste]

I dislike idiocy in my threads.

Hmmmmm... I can see how that might be a problem for you.