Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
So you aren't an AGW skeptic?
I'm not using connotation here, I'm asking a question. Do you or don't you believe that there is a scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic global warming?
Oh. Yes, I believe it's bull. First of all, when the cooling trend that started over the last 10 years was decidedly irrefutable, notice the change in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". It was just 30 years ago that Time Magazine and the NYT were running articles talking about the "global cooling terror" that was about to send us into another ice age, with "settled" scientific data to prove as much. The so called "consensus" you speak of has scientists bailing by the boatload... 1700+ so far have jumped ship, many of them claiming they were pressured to tow the line and are now demanding an investigation. But ooops! The scientists at UEA accidently lost the raw data a month ago (sure). If the majority opinion of scientists was always assumed to be correct, then most major scientific advances would not have occurred.
The newest "sweep it under the rug" lie is "ahhh, it's crazy- they're basing it all on 1 email from 10 years ago." LIE. From October of this year in the leaked emails:
quote:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Emails from University of East Anglia also show that Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et. al. purposely attempted to discredit scientists who published competing studies in peer reviewed journals, and those journals, so that anyone who disagreed with his data would look like a hack. From March of 2003 Michael Mann, attempting to blackball legitimate scientific journals that publish articles disagreeing with their findings:
quote:
Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.
... in other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.
There is an email from last freaking month from the AP science reporter Seth Borenstein, asking for guidance from Jones and company on how to deal with a legitimate scientific journal that says his findings are garbage. And from only 3 months ago, this:
quote:
This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as Stephen McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.
One man, Phil Jones (and his henchman Michael Mann), the ringleader of it all, the sole basis for the IPCC, has secured for himself $22 million in grants in the last few years. Step back and look at the big picture, and ask yourself, "Who really benefits?" Al Gore wants to save the world and help humanity... so what if he makes a couple billion along the way trading carbon credits right? So what if the UN will need hundreds of billions of US dollars to fund around the world? So what if the UN will have soverignty over some US tax law? It's all about saving the world!
So did you not read the two articles I linked to about the UEA's source code to their computer climate modeling being uncovered, and found their data to be fraudulant? People can lie all they want, but the source code does not. Computer guru Marc Sheppard, who did the media's job, says "irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history."
Originally posted by Domesticated
I wouldn't say I'm a denialist, but I'm not fully convinced either. History has shown that the Earth was capable of reasonably rapid temperature shifts before man ever jumped out of the trees. Though it's sensible to assume that we might be causing the current shift, I don't think the evidence is as conclusive as the media makes out.
concur really...
it's ed up what's happening and it is partially our fault, no question but there's so many problems with the way the media interprets this scientific 'phenomenon'...
i think the 'global warming' thing is just oversimplified cause..
1: it's a few years before what we do now has effect on the environment, so it's hard to gauge
2: it's got to be one of the most complicated fields of research in science since there's no micro-study possible, and macro studies always have a bazillion variables which are hard to escape...
also, as mentioned there have historically always been shifts in climate, not necessarily related to industry... obviously industry isn't helping, but it could just be a natural thing..
i think this comes down to one of the basic flaws of humanity..
we think we're above nature when we're a part of it...
and: we think we can solve any problem, despite our really inconsequential place in the world... we are just a part of the world, not controllers of it, in that: 1: we don't control everything good and bad that happens to the world, and 2: the good and bad things happen irrespective of us: they don't happen to punish or please us...
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
First of all, when the cooling trend that started over the last 10 years was decidedly irrefutable, notice the change in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". It was just 30 years ago that Time Magazine and the NYT were running articles talking about the "global cooling terror" that was about to send us into another ice age, with "settled" scientific data to prove as much.
[Citation needed] ;)
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
The so called "consensus" you speak of has scientists bailing by the boatload... 1700+ so far have jumped ship, many of them claiming they were pressured to tow the line and are now demanding an investigation. But ooops! The scientists at UEA accidently lost the raw data a month ago (sure).
[Citation needed] ;)
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
If the majority opinion of scientists was always assumed to be correct, then most major scientific advances would not have occurred.
Not at all true - most scientists think their paradigm is right until the day it breaks down (such as when Einstein introduced the Relativity Theory) and/or when a more promising paradigm arises (when everybody jumped off the behaviourist boat in the middle of the 20th century). And, even then, the paradigm shift happens mainly because the old proponents die off, not because anyone sees the light.
Oh, and by the way, there's no such thing as the scientific method (you mentioned it a few posts back).
Lews
God, I hate humans.
astroboy
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
We've already seen the evidence recently leaked showing the higher ups discussing how to manipulate the raw data to obtain the desired results... and how they've thrown away all the official raw data because they were "moving to a new building and needed the extra space."
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
[Citation needed] ;)
Gladly. Man made global cooling was all the rage in the 70's.
Not at all true - most scientists think their paradigm is right until the day it breaks down (such as when Einstein introduced the Relativity Theory) and/or when a more promising paradigm arises (when everybody jumped off the behaviourist boat in the middle of the 20th century). And, even then, the paradigm shift happens mainly because the old proponents die off, not because anyone sees the light.
Oh, and by the way, there's no such thing as the scientific method (you mentioned it a few posts back).
Not at all true? At all? lol. There's a difference between a paradigm and a theory btw. Haha you know what I meant about the scientific method though; I understand there are different models in which to come to a conclusion.
I'm not going to debate the issue as a whole anymore though; even in the face of factual data on computer source codes proving the manipulation, the emails exposing the motives, and evidence of lies by those in power, most people still won't budge. The believers have it drilled into their heads that disaster is looming, and only politicans can save us (in 1988 Gore said we had 16 years left). But this is how it's always worked for centuries with politicians: drum up some sort of populous furor that crisis is imminent, and decree that only by enlisting the help of our distinguished selfless political class can we be saved (via our tax dollars)... for they are the champions of all that is good for the masses.
Fledz
The climate change debate ended with climate change scientists 20 years ago. Yes that's right, the people who actually specialise in this decided long ago that something was happening.
What's happening now is we've got engineers, biologists, doctors, lawyers, politicians, nurses, and ing everyone else trying to be a specialist.
Stop listening to anyone that's just a scientist. Guess what? I'm a qualified scientist too but that doesn't make me an expert on climate change.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you wouldn't go see a gynaecologist or endocrinologist if you had a heart problem, you would go see a cardiologist :rolleyes:
There's no denying that the earth has it's own patterns of change, but you have to look at the timescale of it all. Plus R!CH made a good point anyway that we should be looking to reduce pollution regardless of the effect on what we currently refer to as climate change. It's common sense.
And what the hell does Australia have to do with Copenhagen? Copenhagen is a useless and utterly waste of time because everyone had already made up their mind as to what they would do. China isn't coming to the party, so we're all ed because they want us to pay for their pollution. America still wants to just dick around and play world police without actually making any proper changes. India too, isn't exactly jumping on the bandwagon.
It's ok though, I really don't mind that 32 thousand delegates are sitting in their nice air-conditioned meeting rooms, being ferried around by private cars and a countless number of aeroplanes :rolleyes:
quote:
Originally posted by adi_hanson
When is this global warming gonna kick in?
In northern england at 5 this mornin it wasnt present.
Or was Global warmings cousin Global in freezing babysitting?.
As you can tell by the sarcasm , I think Global warming was an idea that has turned into an economy and is a load of pretentious bull.
It will never be warmer in the UK. In fact, it will get colder. Hence why half educated people stopped calling it global warming and started referring to it as climate change.
Virtually your entire climate in the UK and the western coast of Europe depends on the atlantic current which begins between India and Africa, runs around the tip of Africa and then snakes up towards Siberia. As the water temperature around the equator increases, it negatively impacts the Atlantic current and results in less warm currents working their way up north. Therefore you get a colder climate.
EDIT - Ok, it doesn't originate close to India but more so west/south-west of Africa. Same thing though, point still stands.
astroboy
The guy that made the video above has a good series on climate science which I think is relatively objective. I'd strongly recommend watching the other 5 videos in the series, they put into context a lot of the claims that people on both sides make about climate change, such as the "former scientific global cooling consensus" claims published in the 70s etc which you always hear about in the media without the full context. Do give these a watch regardless of what side of the debate you're on:
Part 1 - Science behind theory of anthropogenic climate change:
Part 2 - Scientific objections to the theory:
Part 3 - Climate change myths:
Part 4 - Exaggerations and fallacies perpetuated by Gore & Durkin:
Part 5 - More climate change myths:
astroboy
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Gladly. Man made global cooling was all the rage in the 70's.
This is info without context. Global cooling was certainly not "all the rage" in the 70s, there wasn't any strong degree of consensus at the time on the issue. Go back and find the material to which the articles allude. DOn't expect journalists of wither persuasion to get the research right for you.
quote:
I'm not going to debate the issue as a whole anymore though; even in the face of factual data on computer source codes proving the manipulation, the emails exposing the motives, and evidence of lies by those in power, most people still won't budge. The believers have it drilled into their heads that disaster is looming, and only politicans can save us (in 1988 Gore said we had 16 years left). But this is how it's always worked for centuries with politicians: drum up some sort of populous furor that crisis is imminent, and decree that only by enlisting the help of our distinguished selfless political class can we be saved (via our tax dollars)... for they are the champions of all that is good for the masses.
I don't really give a crap about the politicians or the media. When a cover up is "exposed" or emails purportedly claim to say something, go back and read the entire email and the research it refers to rather than trusting the journalists interpretations of mined-quotes deliberately taken out of context. This is an issue for left and right leaning media sources. Always go back to the original information with an objective mind and decide for yourself.
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by Fledz
It will never be warmer in the UK. In fact, it will get colder.
That's not true. One of the strongest pieces of information that has kept me fence sitting about global warming is one which I have no source for or can even recall the exact details of.
However, it was something along the lines of "fig trees were grown as far north as current day Manchester during the time of the Roman Empire."
It may not be figs, it may not be Manchester (was definitely England though), and may not be the Roman Empire. It was at least two or three years ago that I read this, and though now it seems a flaky, I remember thinking at the time: "the climate was a lot different back then, maybe global warming isn't so real after all." It's likely that was in one of these two books:
or
The second one contains fictional characters and dialogue but is full of meticulously researched history.
However, The Weather Makers also contains some convincing arguments, both for and against.
Fledz
Yea but what was the time frame of that climatic change? No one is denying that the climate changes, that's evident with the ice ages. What we're rightly worried about is how fast the current climate is changing. Then you have to beg the question, if the climate is changing quicker than it ever has before, what is the one key difference that sticks out like a sore thumb? Human impact after the industrial revolution.
