[H] About Global Warming.... - Page 2

On October 08 2009 10:49 searcher wrote:

Laugh out loud. I think we stand to lose far more than that, but I think you have the right sentiments in your post.
My own contribution is that you should just trust the consensus among smart people. It sounds like a feeble attempt to get at the truth, but considering that these smart people have spent their lives studying theories you'll never begin grasping, the closest you'll get to truth is arguing ridiculously dumb-downed ideas on forums like teamliquid.
In many matters of public debate, like politics, public ethics and even to some extent economics, we as the laymen can join in the debate and make fairly educated remarks. But when it comes to science, you are really making a mockery of the whole process when you try and find flaws in arguments that are informed by years of research and even genius.
There is no reason the public should have serious debates about science. You don't see public debate about quantum chromodynamics, so why about climate change? The mathematics and models are just as complicated. One has far more implications for the immediate future of mankind, but surely that's all the more reason to the question to those who know what they're talking about.

On October 08 2009 13:36 Physician wrote:
I got just the thing for you. I warn you it makes arguing with etards boring, since all u have to do is copy-paste & own.

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming A Grist Special Series
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

On October 08 2009 13:25 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:


I actually agree with this 100% and it really pisses me off that people like my friend (and Glen Beck and those like him) constantly cry about what people much, MUCH smarter than ANY of us are telling us. There are thousands of scientists (I'm sure) that have studied this stuff without grants from the government. My geology professor was ridiculously educated on earth science, without ever having gotten a government grant to do his research, and he said this stuff was true (the guy did all sorts of stuff, I don't know where to begin with his qualifications)... while I don't necessarily think that being educated means you're 100% correct all the time, in this particular case (and a couple others), I'll just take their word for it.

I don't remember which mass extinction it was, but there were a lot of volcanoes erupting, creating a ton of carbon in the air, and raising the earth's temperature.... isn't that EXACTLY what's happening now? Why should we think that because we humans have studied this stuff that we're somehow going to escape the consequences of what we're doing?

On October 08 2009 08:48 SagaZ wrote:
The movie "an uncovenient truth" is exactly what you're looking for.

It's very well explained and even funny at some parts.

On October 08 2009 19:23 Foucault wrote:
I don't think it's true, it's a natural fluctuation in climate

I would definately want to see more independent researchers to studies on this

On October 08 2009 20:49 Foucault wrote:
Ok, one issue that should be talked about is how it's politically correct to assume that global warming is true. Ever since Al Gore released his movie about global warming and the debate grew enourmous it's just not "okay" to think that global warming isn't mainly man-made.

The issue is with the researchers and the fact that everyone assumes that global warming is a fact even before they start researching, which makes the research done HUGELY biased. This is a huge issue imo, because the general politically correct opinion leaves no room for arguments and you find people getting angry and upset when you question this. WTF

And about science being "trustworthy"; usually you find people who have no idea how science works and mainly replace god by science, saying this. Science is in many cases very trustworthy, but science isn't objective unless you're calculating your height or weight. When it comes to more complicated matters, it's about what you look at, HOW you look at it and what conclusions you draw from what you observe. Science isn't as objective as people seem to think, nor is it "right" most of the time. In fact it's very subjective, which of course often shows when scientists have different viewpoints on many issues.

Oh and global warming is a fact obviously but I think it's mainly because of climate fluctuations, and mankind has probably done some damage as well but not this noticeable.

On October 08 2009 21:24 micronesia wrote:

This issue (global warming/climate change) at its core (scientific research/publication) is no different than lots of other fields of study currently being pursued by researchers. The only difference is how non-scientists are reactiong to it. Most of the complaints about global warming are debuncted simply by comparing them to a analogue complaints in other fields of research. Also, I encourage you to read that link in post 3 or 42 of the thread carefully before publicizing your opinions about how humans have not had a major impact (for your benifit, not ours).

On October 08 2009 22:03 Foucault wrote:


Sure I'll read it, but I want to know who I'm reading and who funds his studies, what kind of researcher he is etc

So I'm reading it. One thing I have a huge issue with is the climate models they use on computers. Alot of skeptics have pointed out that the entire issue with global warming is because these man-made computer simulations are not an accurate description of reality, and have alot of flaws in them.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a global cooling debate in 20-30 years, since I believe that the climate fluctuates. Then again I'm no expert

Oh, and just because 90% of the scientists belive that global warming is a fact, it doesn't make it true. I could probably find thousands of examples where the mainstream belief wasn't the truth. The earth being flat or what not.

So don't be fooled by numbers. Everyone should read up on the skeptics arguments too because there is alot of good stuff there.

For example: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa-

Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]

From http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html
Thirdly, will we be able to produce predictable (the operative word) climate change, and a stable climate, by adjusting, at the margins, one human variable, namely carbon dioxide emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that drive climate? The answer is: "One hundred per cent, no." This is the seminal point at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from the central beliefs of the 'global warming' myth. The idea that we can manage climate predictably by adjusting, minimally, our output of some politically-selected gases is both naive and dangerous.


Like I already thought, this whole global warming thing is something our computers have calculated which makes me very iffy about it. I can definately see mistakes being made and our created mathematical models not being accurate.

On October 08 2009 23:11 micronesia wrote:

When I suggested you read the information, I meant you should include the myths about computer models and their role in the analysis of data regarding climate change.

From your posts it is very clear that you want to go about this issue in a reasonable, level-headed way, but are having trouble doing so. You are drawing conclusions and then looking for evidence to support it. I'm not telling you to just reverse your position on the issue, but I suggest you remain open/neutral until you have conducted a reasonable evaluation of all aspects of the issue (meaning read that whole thing... not just bits and pieces of it... but of course that site isn't the end-all be-all either).

I agree that 97% of scientists claiming something doesn't make it right, but I also don't understand why so many people think they know better than 97% of scientists with almost no background in the subject and no reasonable explanation for why the contrary standpoint has to be better...

On October 09 2009 06:39 Mortality wrote:



First, you should be very careful about throwing out terms like "97% of scientists agree on (blah)." 97% of scientists agree that humans have influenced global climate. Do 97% of scientists agree that human influences will cause a sudden and catastrophic climate change that will eradicate all life on earth? Hell no.

It also needs to be restated that global warming isn't some grand unified field theory of some kind. There are many different and competing theories about exactly what factors have played what roles in causing the increased global temperatures we have seen. CO2 became the big player due to one particular model, but as I have said, attempts to mathematically predict future climate using these models have failed to hold up against current data.

Skepticism about global warming comes into the picture that the media keeps pushing for those models when they are continuing to fail. A theory is not scientifically justifiable if it has no predictive capacity.



However, foucault, while you are correct in stating that it's difficult for environmental researchers to get funding unless they express pro-global warming sentiments, however you are making a fundamental flaw in your argument: you are assuming that just because a model fails to account for all potential factors in global warming does not make it unjustifiable. Let me give you an example in physics:

You would probably tell me that the force called "friction" exists. After all, you can observe it and make predictions about it using models. You rely on friction to drive a car or ride a bike.

Friction actually does not exist as a fundamental force. It's something that "comes out" after you take into account all the millions and millions of electromagnetic forces pushing and pulling on each other as you rub two objects together. So are models that study frictional forces complete bullshit? Are they completely wrong and unjustifiable? No. They account for and predict a real world phenomenon that can be observed just by rubbing your hands together.

So basically, a climate model that doesn't take into account various factors but still yields accurate predictions is still perfectly justifiable.

My point is that these models have failed to predict the "anomally" of global temperatures decreasing over the past decade. Why was 1998 the hottest year on record when carbon emissions continue to rise? Why did we experience a drop of about 0.6C from 1997 to 1998? Current models cannot explain this as anything other than a statistical outlier, and if it was just that one year drop, maybe the models could be believed, but the trend indicates declining temperatures for a whole decade in the face of factors we believe to be responsible for raising global temperatures.


Now, something important to note is that there are pollutants that cause atmospheric cooling. This is also well known and well documented, however, emissions of these pollutants do not account for this sudden drop. The only reasonable assumption is that the CO2-dominated models are either lacking a key factor or are outright wrong.

But again, I should stress that this does not mean that humans have not had an environmental impact. All you have to do is step outside and look at the world around you to see our impact first hand. But the natural forces of the earth are also quite huge. The energy in many natural phenomena can be ludicrous even by the scale of nuclear weapons. For instance, the Yellowstone cauldera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera) could potentially erupt with a release of more energy than all the nuclear warheads in the entire world. And we also know that life adapts to changes and continues to thrive even when the earth itself or large asteroids from outer space or any other sudden and catastrophic climate changing events occur, and continues to form regulatory cycles. The big question is what role we have played in this and what role we will continue to play?

I should stress that trying to regulate global climate, due to our inability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (most humans struggle to deal with changes in the seasons ), is highly misguided. There's no way, for instance, that we can control changes in solar output or fluctuations of the earth's orbit. Those forces are basically beyond what our pea-brains can conceive of (note: I don't mean "we can't assign numbers to them," I mean that we think of nukes as having "lots of energy" when by comparison, nukes are but children's toys). And when it comes to trying to control the regulatory processes of other lifeforms or releasing gases in an attempt to regulate temperature, we could easily do more harm than good.

The goal should be to limit our environmental footprint (decreasing all pollution -- not just CO2; finding ways to give land back to nature or at the least preserve what we have, etc) and to figure out ways for humans to adapt to climate changes, rather than trying to force the climate to adapt to us. Ironically, this was the message Crichton wanted to make with State of Fear, but most readers badly misinterpreted what he was trying to say and cued in on details that were meant to criticize sudden and catastrophic climate change theories (rather than global warming itself), proving yet again that literacy is a serious issue in America.



And don't listen to Al Gore. The man is a sensationalist and nothing more. That he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his "work" on global warming proves yet again how meaningless that award is. Peace... where were all the Peace Prize winners when 1 million people were slaughtered over a 3 day period in Rwanda (during the same time when Al Gore was Vice President, no less)? Oh, I forgot, Africa doesn't count for anything in western society. :/