Global Warming: Finally dead?

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Justice, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. Kelmourne

    Kelmourne The Savage Hippy

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,006
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    A Pirate city in international cyberspace
    Ratings:
    +117 / 0 / -0
    I believe scientists have actually measured the earth's natural temperature change and it's supposed to be going down right now according to some pattern or something. Only thing is, it's not. It's going up. Slightly, but many ecosystems are fragile enough for that to matter.
     
  2. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +341 / 1 / -0
    kinda yes and kinda no.
    The actual data is far more noisy with fluctuations going up and down even over shorter periods (like the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period). What the ice cores have shown is that whilst there is cyclic patterning it is not a sin wave type patter (which is what they thought). The cyclic changes from hot to cold for example at the start of an ice age have been shown to take somewhere around the 100 year mark - little over one generation of humanity (or two full generations in less developed nations).
    That is what scared many because 100 years is really not very long at all for such a massive shift to the environment - and those were environments untouched by human devistation - ie they were more or less healthy - so we are not at a point where we have seriously damaged ecosystems that are hampered from natural recovery - and any massive damage done to them will severely impact humanity as well (despite the efforts of townies and schools there is no "natural" and "human" world - only one!)
     
  3. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    I don't know why I still bother, but there's just something about Justice's unique way of interpreting sources that really, really irritates me. (This is a reply to a post on the WikiLeaks thread.)

    The IPCC is the largest single collection of data on the subject. That's why I use it as a source. I linked you a list of their contributors once - there are many hundreds of them. I don't deny that well-publicised mistakes were made by a few of those contributors but the collated evidence of the four IPCC reports (there is more than one BTW) is a valuable resource.

    Also, did you miss the link to the fact that 97.4% of cliimate scientists believe that climate change is manmade? That makes it pretty clear that the two perspectives do not have equal scientific weight.

    OK, I have to agree that that's an incredibly alarmist article. Climate science has come on a good deal in 10 years though.

    You do grasp the difference between "rise in average global temperature" and "fall in average temperature in a localised area", right? Certain areas, including north-west Europe have been projected to become colder for quite a long period of time. The predicted changes for Ireland, for example, are for wetter, cool summers and colder winters. This is due to various reasons but perhaps the most important is the projected slowing of the North Atlantic Drift, a current which brings warmer water from the Caribbean up past Ireland and Norway. This current is the reason why the Irish coast is considerably warmer than that of Newfoundland, despite being at a similar latitude. It's not a contradiction to claim that climate change could lead to some areas becoming colder, merely an acknowledgement that climate is complex - a concept you seem to have no trouble accepting when it suits you.

    Not to mention that we've already covered one-off weather occurences in relation to Katrina - a one-off event proves nothing, although it could possibly be indicative of a general trend.

    It's certainly complex. I think that you're too quick to jump to the conclusion that it's too complex though.
    .

    OK, this is where I come to the cause of that snarky remark about interpreting sources above. Either you didn't actually read your own source or you were extremely selective about what you choose to quote, but your representation of this article couldn't be more disingenuous if you tried.

    Justice's summary:
    National Geographic Article:
    Good use of the amorphous "they" there. It nicely obscures the fact that the article does not at any point say that climatologists ever believed that the melting of Kilimanjaro's ice was entirely due to climate change. It says that "the story was quickly picked up and trumpeted as another example of humans destroying nature". You've fallen into the media trap again.

    Secondly, it was a climatologist who came to the conclusion that much of the melting of Kilimanjaro's glaciers was caused by the loss of moisture due to forest reduction. That makes your vague reference to "them" even more confusing. I thought "they" "didn't properly investigate why glaciers were melting"?

    Thirdly, that climatologist does believe that climate change pays a part in the melting of the glaciers. I noticed that you skipped that bit. Indeed, much of the rest of the article is about the impact of climate change added to melting caused by the reduction of the forest. "Strongest human influence on glacial recession" is not the same thing as "only human influence on glacial recession".

    Fourthly, nice appeal to ridicule with your suggestion that a "basic humidity test" would explain the loss of ice on Kilimanjaro. The rest of the article makes it abundantly clear that it wouldn't. Similarly with the remarks that "they were absolutely wrong" (they weren't) and that "they never had to admit it to the public" (there was nothing to admit).

    Fifthly, there are lots of glaciers melting around the world and don't all coincide with deforestation.

    That's the media. Scientific analysis of climate change isn't based on the media. Steelpounder and I have just had this discussion at length. Also, I imagine it's just a figure of speech but "proof"? Seriously? I could dig any number of similar anecdotes "proving" climate change.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    And there's something about people who accept Media and Agenda driven science with serious flaws considering the baffling level of unpredictability in short term climate change, let alone long term climate change.

    Skipping the IPCC stuff which has been covered plenty, and the East Anglia Climategate, let's go back to Kilimanjaro.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article...efelling.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=physics-math

    New article, from this year. Study between 2004 and 2008 shows the deforestation could have a very large part to play in the glacial eradication.

    Battling theories. I have a bias, you have one too. You feel any study which proves Global Warming is flawless, one against it is flawed. However it still goes back to my supposition that it is still far, FAR too early to make ANY of the claims made by most scientists, or the media whores like Al Gore. There's data that says Global Warming is to blame, but other data which says there's larger factors at play.


    Here's the thing, you still don't get it, or refuse to get it. The extreme vast majority of people will NEVER pick up a scientific journal, read a National Geographic special, or even do anything more than sit through Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Scientific analysis isn't based on media, but it's fueled by it. You state the media is over-hyping and overstating the dangers (or hint at it) but refuse to acknowledge the effect media has on people. My point is, has been, and always will be there are people in the media, government, AND many scientists themselves more than willing to falsify, manipulate, and exaggerate data to try to force societal change. Force what they couldn't do by a democratic process. Why else would all the politicians most heavily involved in the "Green Movement" tend to be extreme socialists, and in the case of the "Green Czar" Van Jones, an avowed communist?

    Not just once, but TWICE former French President Jacques Chirac called Global Warming the perfect precedent to establish a one world government.

    There is so much we don't know, which is why I say the climate is far too complex for us to fully understand. It's not like the Law of Gravity which can be tested over and over, and is correct every time. It's been 5 years since Katrina, and every hurricane season has been weaker than forecasted, despite the claims more powerful hurricanes would be hitting our nation.

    The worst of it is the Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. If nothing that the climate scientists are predicting come true, or is vastly off enough that no one believes them, or media and politicians hype it far beyond what the actual consequences are, then the less likely we are to believe them when something catastrophic DOES occur.
     
  5. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    What to you mean by short-term climate change? Do you mean weather? Climate is by definition a long-term thing:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate
    If you do mean weather the factors used by meteorologists to predict the weather in the coming days differ significantly from the methods climatologists use for climate trends. Neither is an exact science, but just because short-term weather prediction is not always accurate (although it is correct more often than not) does not mean that long-term climate trends are equally unpredictable. Temporary conditions are not the same as long-term trends.
    .
    .
    .
    Secondly, climate change is not a media-driven science. The science came long before the media interest. If you take a look at the timeline this is very clear.
    1970's: Groundwork laid for climate change theory.
    1980's: Rising concern about human effects on the planet such as the 1986 Scope 29 report. (Which you should read, it's very short and clear).
    1988: Foundation of the IPCC, the main instigators of which were the WMO (the World Meteorological Organisation) and the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Protection Agency). Not the world's most political bodies, I'd have thought.
    1990: Publication of the First IPCC Report.
    Yeah, 1990. The media frenzy is a far more recent occurence.
    .
    .
    .
    Nice to see that you've learnt nothing from my deconstruction of the last article you linked. Specifically this part:
    I've never denied that deforestation plays a part in glacial eradication; I don't doubt that it does. However, that does absolutely nothing to contradict climate change as a theory, as the article itself acknowledges. In fact, both articles you've posted as sources on this topic are about how deforestation is an additional factor affecting climate.
    Since no-one is claiming that nothing else affects climate, you're arguing against a strawman.
    .
    .
    .
    You haven't quoted any studies that shows that climate change is flawed (at least since I've been arguing with you. I haven't gone over your older posts). I don't recall you posting any actual scientific studies at all. And where is this data that says larger factors are at play? If you're talking about the stuff on deforestation that doesn't contradict anything to do with climate change.

    Your stuff on "I have a bias, you have one too", is cute. My "bias" is backed up by 97.4% of the experts on that subject, just to remind you. We're not on an equal footing here.

    Far too early? 1986 might have been far too early, I suppose. Or 1990. The 1990 article does contain a lot of "much more study needs to be done"-style comment. 20 years later a lot more study has been done. Do we need another 50 years or so to satisfy you?

    Oh, and stop misusing the concept of "proof". I don't think "any study which proves Global Warming is flawless". No study "proves" climate change. Nor is any study flawless. However, taken together they provide a compelling case.
    .
    .
    .
    How many of those people influence government policy? I don't know about the USA but in Ireland government scientific advisors tend to be scientists. BTW I don't think the media is overstating the dangers so much as oversimplifying the concept, leading to it being easily manipulated by people who think that, "Look! It's the coldest summer in years! What's with your global warming now?" is the height of sophisticated scientific discourse. It's a little akin to how oversimplification of the theory of evolution leads to the "evolutionists say your grandfather was a monkey!" kind of argument.
    .
    .
    .
    And my point is, has been, and always will be that the scientific evidence for manmade climate change is extremely strong. And how many of those people in the government and media were manipulating this evidence in the 1970's? Or the 1980's? The scientific evidence arose, then the media frenzy.
    .
    .
    .
    So you don't believe 97.4% of climatologists, but you do believe in a global socialist conspiracy? I find that extremely ironic.
    .
    .
    .
    That quote claims that France and the EU want a World Environmental Organisation. Please explain how World Environmental Organisation = one world government. We have a World Health Organisation - that hasn't led to a one world government yet.

    Also, when linking to a source please don't give me the Elysée's main page. The quote's context is rather more important.
    .
    .
    .
    Why are you so quick to deride the effectiveness of a science you don't know anything about? (And you clearly don't. You wouldn't have asked that question about Katrina, or made the number of basic scientific errors you've made on this thread if you did.) Have a look at that IPCC study from 1990 and the huge range of factors they include when discussing climate. You could have a look at the 2007 version too. Complex enough for you?
     
  6. steelpounder

    steelpounder New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northern Utah, USA
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    I agree with Justice. Most of the politicians ARE using "climate change" to force social changes. At least many liberals in this country are trying to. And another thing about Al Gore He owns a company that sells "carbon credits" and buys them to justify his own excessive use of energy, but wait he owns the company...
     
  7. steelpounder

    steelpounder New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northern Utah, USA
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    And the "Daily mail" is anything but right wing. I have read some of their stuff and their as liberal as most US papers.
     
  8. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Okay,let's stop the back and forth about how ridiculously off every climate model has been, the inaccuracy of even short term climate predictions (NOT talking about weather or your difference between weather and climate which is not what I was referring to) or my supposed numerous glaring scientific inadequacies (backed by studies, reports, and scientists still skeptical about the "consensus" of global warming). We're just going to battle back and forth on who said what, to what degree the evidence was examined, who made what claims, and who said what would happen to us and th population if such actions aren't or are taken. Let's look at a few new topics you brought up.

    The 97.4% consensus between climate scientists. If this article is true, then that number is absolutely not true. Statistical hoax.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ts-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/

    The article claims that solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers were left out of the running altogether to answer the poll (which was an online poll, hardly a vetted scientific instrument, but for the sake of simplicity let's go with it.) Basically all the people who would more likely feel astrological occurrences have much more to do with any Climate Change than carbon emissions.

    Then, of the supposed 10,257 scientists left over, the field was whittled down to only 77 which they felt gave appropriate responses, 75 of which believe manmade global warming is a consensus among the scientific community.

    In 2008, a US Senate committee found over 650 scientists, many who had articles that contributed to the 2007 IPCC report but never sided with the man made global warming theory

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

    The link above adds to what has been already discussed as climate research scientists threatening scientific journals with boycotts and withholding articles if they publish Climate Change skeptic's articles.

    The most recent senate report now has over 1000 scientists putting them name into the skeptic pile, and this report was presented at the 2010 Cancun Mexico conference (which accomplished less than Copenhagen).

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/...lobal-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

    What the last few exchanges has proven is one thing... even statistical and analytical evidence can still be manipulated or toyed with. The original "Hockey Stick Graph" only charted 10 trees. Whether we are in a warming or cooling cycle depends on what date you choose to start at.

    Example... California. Assembly Bill 32, our state only Global Warming bill, meant to cut down emissions and punish businesses for not going green. Already there's been a mass exodus of businesses, but regardless, the entire premise of the bill was started on false pretenses. Research being used and being implemented by CARB, the California Air Resources Board, an unelected board without any voted members. The people of California have no control over them.

    Hien Tran, the lead scientist in charge of examining diesel particulate emissions and coming up with a restriction on heavy trucks, buses, and other vehicles that use diesel, used falsified research to come to his conclusions, which was diesel particulate emissions were actually contributing to the death of thousands of Californians. Except... he never did any research. He simply took a Kentucky study, then upscaled it to California's population. This includes areas of heavy industry in Kentucky which California doesn't have, including mining. California doesn't nearly have the level of diesel emissions that Kentucky has, but the falsified research was implemented anyways.

    the chair of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, actually knew of the falsified research, but did not express it to other board members until after the measures were implemented. After the research was published, Professor James Enstrom of UCLA looked at the study... and quickly tore it apart, exposing the fraud.

    Then... almost immediately after the exposed fraud...

    http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php...her_james_enstrom_not_reappointed_to_position

    Enstrom was told in person he was being fired because he was not "in line" with his colleagues on the issue, correct or not in exposing falsified data.

    So, regardless of exposing a completely fraudulent air regulation study, it seems more important to the bureaucrats and the scientists employed by them to push data that meets their agenda, wrong or not.

    Mary Nichols, head of CARB, just so happens to be a close protege' of this guy, Rajendra Pachauri, who just so happened to head the 2007 IPCC report.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d899rZFkIE4

    (funny he basically insults skeptics, and then goes on to tout how peer reviewed the IPCC report is. This is briefly before the eruptions of the incorrect or falsified research in the IPCC report was discovered and Pachauri asked to step down as head of the IPCC).

    This isn't 6 degrees of separation, or wildly speculative conspiracy theory. we have the very same people looking to implement regulations on the lives of others, and the people propagating the theory of man made Global Warming by reversing the entire scientific process (conclusion first, evidence gathering second) and in the same room together working in collusion.
     
  9. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Well, Justice. I am very sory to find that the US has come to this - either scientists, politicians and gouvernment officials sold out to a popular agenda. Or US media are crawling over each other in witch hunts, soaps and other pullitzer-prize winning material in a strangling competition that is the free market. I wouldn't be surprised to find truth somewhere in the middle.

    I think this discussion will prove futile. Whether CO2 has already caused global warming, we can argue about. I'm not going to accept it's not (and a few people with me, it seems) - you're not going to accept that it is. I have tried to argue in the past that even the risk of global warming is unacceptable - but we can't seem to find find consensus there either.
     
  10. steelpounder

    steelpounder New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northern Utah, USA
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    What is the optimum temperature for the Earth anyway? No one can say. In times past that were warmer often the total bio-mass was higher. Many creatures died out 50 million years ago when ice caps began to form at the poles for the first time in millions of years. For the animals and plants living at that time the higher temps were best and the cooling disastrous.
     
  11. steelpounder

    steelpounder New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northern Utah, USA
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Much of the above is true.
    Also finding a consensus when ideas are diametrically apposed is difficult if not impossible.
    Also there was a report some years ago in paleontological journals that the highest concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide coincided with the coldest period in Earths history 450,000 years ago. Clearly co2 is not the only factor or even the most important.
     
  12. steelpounder

    steelpounder New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northern Utah, USA
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    I am glad that Justice is better at finding this stuff than an old coot like me. I have heard much of it at one time or another but can't always find it. There was a comparison of industrial out put to a volcano in which a few months of volcanic activity was greater than many years of industry. I don't remember the exact figures but maybe someone can find the report?
     
  13. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    Then what were you talking about?

    Wow. I checked the original report and you're right. Mea culpa on that one.

    Interesting; I hadn't seen this. However, some of these scientists are specialists in subjects that have nothing to do with climate (the ones I've emboldened). Others - the mathematicians and chemists for example - also may not study climate. The opinions of those people are no more valid than that of anyone else. The climatedepot.com report also refers regularly to "scientists" without specifying their field. The quoted scientists include an engineer, and a biologist (one of those quoted at the end).
    Also - something I find odd: Your reference from climatedepot.com is written by the same guy who is listed as one of the contacts for the Senate report. Climatedepot.com is apparently a project of CFACT, an organisation I've never heard of but whose slogan is "Exposing the true costs of global warming policies". That's a very clear ideological bias for a governmental report. Between that and the contributions by non-climate scientists, it looks like neither of our figures stands up to scrutiny.

    I'm trying to get a handle on the amount of climate scientists there are in the world. This count is the best I could find - it counts 19340 members of the AGU (American Geophysical Union) who specialise in climate-related subjects (roughly 1/3 of which are non-American). So... even if your figure of 1000 sceptics was reliable you'd get 1000/19340 = 5.17%. I don't deny that that's a very rough calculation but I think my claims that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with climate change is reasonable enough.

    I'm not commenting on your Californian study; I've never wanted to get into a policy debate. I don't see how an epidemiologist (which is a science entirely unrelated to climate) falsifying research has any relation to climate change. You also haven't provided a source for your claim that Mary Nichols is a protegée of Rajendra Pachauri.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2011
  14. Plotspider

    Plotspider New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    To your original post,

    I can think of only one logical reason this information would be suppressed (well, one reason which breaks down into a couple of 'sub' reasons, I guess).

    The use of carbon-emitting stuff is polluting, and it does cause the environment to be damaged, leaving the definition of a carbon footprint behind for years and years (even if there is no such thing as global warming as a result and even without it being linked to holes in ozone layers, etc.) it's not good for us either. It's kind of like sugar for diabetics. In small doses, here and there, carefully controlled, sugar can be okay. It's still not good for diabetics (unless their count is low) so the less sugar a diabetic takes in, the better.

    Therefore, the more we can do the same sorts of things withOUT carbon-pollutants like oil, coal, whatever, the better off we'll be anyway.

    A correlation to this is: the sooner the U.S. is off middle eastern oil, and the Middle East realizes they will have to cooperate with the rest of the world again like all the other countries on the planet and stop warranting both oil-grubbing from us and others and terrorism suppressing wars, the sooner they can get their act together and join the twenty-first century in terms of human rights, and treaty formations.

    We may not actually have global warming due to carbon-emitting pollutants, but it would be better in general (and all this is my opinion only), if we could find better ways to fuel our cars,
     
  15. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Not sure whether Justy is still around...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

    I'm sure there's reasoning agaisnt this outcome. Still, it reaffirms what past research has already shown.



    With oil prices sky high in the face of recession and research showing confirmation on the theory of global warming, I think time has shown that I was right in the end :)
     
  16. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    well, really, I was right :p
     
  17. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    No you weren't. Shut up and get out of my limelight :p
     
  18. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    I like limelight very much myself, thank you ^^
     
  19. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Good for you. Now stop breathing, you're producing carbon dioxide.








    We.... may be veering off topic a bit here >.>
     
  20. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +341 / 1 / -0
    Hey I was right too!
    I get to share in this limelight!
     
    • Like Like x 1
Search tags for this page

cliamte of j n k